The city’s hearing examiner has already issued his final decision on the Reserve at Tiffany Park, concluding that the planned 96-lot subdivision will not have any adverse impacts to wetlands in the area, but a group of concerned residents plan to take their case to Renton City Council on appeal.

City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts received two requests for reconsideration from the developer, Henley USA, LLC, and from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) in January. Olbrechts has updated his final decision, issued Jan. 8, with no significant changes.

The hearing examiner still finds that even though the Tiffany Park community has enjoyed recreational use of the undeveloped wooded property, the fact that they will no longer have that access due to the planned development does not justify the imposition of any State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) requirements.

The hearing examiner went on to state that the developer does not have to offer the same type of arboreal view just because the Tiffany Park neighbors chose to retain the trees on the land previously.

“For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts,” said Olbrechts in his decision.

The only exception to his decision was the width of the retaining walls in the proposed development. Henley proposed retaining walls that would reach heights of up to 21 feet. However, Olbrechts notes that retaining walls of this height are not present in the area nor are they similar to the aesthetics of neighboring properties. Therefore, the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) mitigation measures will require a 10-foot-wide perimeter landscaping to buffer the walls, he wrote in his decision.

TPWAG also alleged that there could be hazardous waste on the property as the U.S. Department of Defense once owned the land. It was noted that the applicant, Henley, did a Phase I hazardous waste environmental review of the property when it was purchased, but Henley never offered the review into evidence.

Because of this, the hearing examiner is requiring that the Phase I review be submitted to staff prior to development, “to verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site.”

Henley’s SEPA appeal was limited and only challenged three of the City of Renton’s MDNS conditions. Henley agreed to revised language for two of the conditions and the only contested issue was the required landscaping buffer.

The city required a 15-foot buffer around the entire property perimeter, but the decision found that only a 10-foot buffer is necessary, “limited to areas adjoining proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view.”

Renate Beedon, of TPWAG, said that the group is not satisfied with the hearing examiner’s decisions.

“TPWAG  will appeal to the Renton City Council,” said she in an email.

If the group appeals, no new evidence or testimony will be accepted by the council and the burden of proof will rest on TPWAG. If the council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, council may modify or reverse the decision of the hearing examiner accordingly.

Whether the council approves, modifies or rejects the hearing examiner’s decision, the council’s action is the final decision in the case.