Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNoise Variance Sounders1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Noise Variance CAO VARIANCE - 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Sounders FC at Longacres Noise Variance PR22-000301 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary Seattle Sounders FC has applied for a noise variance to enable night-time construction of the proposed Seattle Sounders headquarters to be located at 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW. Specifically, Seattle Sounders, FC has applied for a noise variance from the 7: 00 am to 10:00 pm construction hours of WAC 173-60- 050(3) and exceeding the 47 dB night-time noise limit imposed by WAC 173-60-040 for residentially zoned properties for an unoccupied residentially zoned parcel located 1,800 feet away. The two variance requests are approved subject to conditions. Seattle Sounders FC also requests a variance to waive the limitation of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm haul hours imposed by RMC 4-4-030C2. Waivers to RMC 4-4-030C2 are not subject to noise variance requests and are subject to approval by the Development Services Division. In that regard the hauling hours waiver is delegated for review and potential approval to Development Services staff as required by RMC 4-4- 030C2. Should a reviewing court find that variance approval by the examiner is in fact required for such waivers, this Decision finds that the requested variance to haul hour restrictions meets applicable variance standards. Testimony Jill Ding, City of Renton Senior Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to Examiner questions, Ms. Ding clarified that the Applicant has already proposed a hauling route reviewed by staff. There 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Noise Variance CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 likely isn’t any nonconforming residential use closer than ¾ of a mile from the project site. Tom Chiado, Sounders project manager, in response to examiner questions, noted that he didn’t believe that the project construction work would be audible to the nearest residential areas, separated from the project by SR 167. Dan Weese, lead superintendent for Venture Contracting, general contractor of the site, in response to examiner questions identified that the proposal overall will involve about 1,500 truck loads total with a peak of 100 truck trips in any given work night. Mr. Weese agreed with the staff report and had no concerns with the conditions. He wanted clarity on the condition recommended for monitoring. Ann Gygi, legal counsel for Sounders co-Applicant, clarified that there were two reasons for the variance. The first was that a variance is required for any hauling outside of hauling hours. The second is that there is a residentially zoned, unoccupied piece of property that is closer to the site where allowable noise levels are just barely met. In case the noise level is exceeded, the Applicant wanted the noise variance up front to prevent any delays. In response to Mr. Weese’s question regarding monitoring, Ms. Ding noted that no monitoring is required. Nate Janders, Renton public works, noted that the coordination condition simply addressed coordination with the schedule of City inspection staff. Exhibits The four exhibits identified at page 2 of the Staff Report were admitted into the record during the June 6, 2023 hearing. Findings of Fact Procedural: 1. Applicant. Tom Chiado, Chiado LLC on behalf of Seattle Sounders, FC, 406 Occidental Avenue S, Seattle WA 98104. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application on June 6, 2023 at 11:00 am in the City of Renton, Zoom Meeting ID No. 946 7233 4580 . Substantive: 3. Project Description. Seattle Sounders FC has applied for a noise variance to facilitate night time construction of the proposed Seattle Sounders headquarters to be located at 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW. Specifically, Seattle Sounders, FC has applied for a noise variance from the 7: 00 am to 10:00 pm construction hours of WAC 173-60-050(3) and exceeding the 47 dB night-time noise limit imposed by WAC 173-60-040 for residentially zoned properties for an unoccupied residentially zoned parcel located 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Noise Variance CAO VARIANCE - 3 3 1,800 feet away. The Applicant also requests a variance to waive the limitation of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm haul hours imposed by RMC 4-4-030C. The source and intensity of the noise would be from trucks, loaders, and excavators. The after -hours activity and associated noise would primarily be from unloading and loading of truck hauling material. The proposed hauling hours would occur intermittently between 3:30 pm and 8:30 am with the loading and unloading of trucks and the moving of materials onsite occurring between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. The work is anticipated to occur for a period of six (6) months, Mondays through Saturdays. The Applicant has minimized the duration of its variance request to a reasonably constrained span of time. The Applicant requests a 6-month period to accommodate an expected 5-month window of work, but export/import is not expected to occur every night during this time frame. The nighttime work would occur a week or two at a time, spread out over the 5-month period, with a likely maximum of about 100 truck trips in a night. The total amount of trucking if done at one time will be 1.5-2 months over the total 5-month period. The sixth months is requested as a contingency measure in case of unexpected delays in the construction schedule. The Applicant contends that the equipment used would consist of loaders, excavators, and trucking equipment. The Federal DOT Common Outdoor Noise chart indicates that a Diesel Truck produces 80 dB at 15 meters as a baseline for the project on-site source of noise. The Project site is EDNA Class B (Commercial) – based on WAC 176-60-040 maximum permissible environmental noise from a Class B zone, received at a Class A zone is 57 dB. With the 10 dB reduction for off hours noise received by a Class A zone, allowable nighttime noise from a temporary construction site would be 47 dB at a Class A receiving site. The Applicant estimates that noise levels could reach 48.75 dB at the Class A unoccupied residentially zoned parcel located 1,800 feet away. 4. Neighborhood Characteristics. The surrounding properties are owned by Unico, the owner of the subject property, and are part of the larger Longacres Campus within the CO zone. The nearest residentially zoned property other than that subject to the variance request is located ¾ mile away across SR 167. To the west, there is 1,254-feet to the Longacres property boundary, then the Union Pacific railroad corridor, followed by the Sounder rail station, and commercial areas in Tukwila. 5. Adverse Impacts. Given its location, the proposal is not anticipated to create any significant adverse impacts. As previously noted, the closest occupied residentially zoned property is located ¾ miles away across SR 167. As testified by the Applicant, it is unlikely that the noise generated by the proposal would even be audible to these residential uses. There are no other land uses in the surrounding area, as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4, that would be adversely affected by the noise. According to the testimony of the senior planner assigned to the project, she is not aware of any nonconforming residentially occupied uses that are closer than those located across SR 167. Further, allowing the nighttime hauling will be less impactful during daytime hours, when there is much higher use of the surrounding streets for public travel, and more pedestrians on the local sidewalks and trail system. The Applicant anticipates that noise impacts would be mitigated by the distance between the project site and residentially zoned properties, not running trucks unless absolutely necessary, turning equipment and trucks off when not being utilized, and loading/unloading the trucks as far away from the public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Noise Variance CAO VARIANCE - 4 4 right-of-way, trails, and other facilities/businesses to the extent feasible. Staff concurs that with the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above that adverse impacts of the proposed construction would be adequately mitigated, provided that proper coordination occurs with Development Engineering staff for inspection scheduling prior to the commencement of any nighttime work. Implementing the mitigation proposed by the Applicant, a condition of approval requires that equipment and truck engines be turned off unless absolutely necessary and when not in use; loading/unloading activities shall occur as far away from the public right-of-way, trails, and other facilities/businesses to the extent feasible; and proper coordination shall occur with Development Engineering staff prior to the commencement of any outside of standard working hours (7:00 am – 3:30 pm, Monday-Friday). The Applicant has also minimized impacts to the maximum extent reasonably practicable. In addition to the mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval, the haul route avoids traveling through or near to occupied residential areas. To the extent that hauling, loading and unloading can be undertaken outside of regular business hours, noise impacts will be reduced on adjacent commercial properties. Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that the preferred locations and methods for the work proposed would result in the least impact to surrounding properties. 6. Practical Difficulties and Special Circumstances. Practical difficulties and special circumstances justify the variance. The Applicant must excavate, remove, and fill the field area in a five-month window to bring the fields on-line together, achieve grow-in for the grass fields, and meet the Applicant’s project objective to begin training on-site in 2024. Limiting hauling to the code specified hours of 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. will not achieve project objectives and creates more potential interference between the hauling and loading activities and pedestrian activities along and around site boundaries. Approval of the variance would help keep pedestrians and the public safer and allow for less traffic congestion caused by concentrating hauling during the daytime. Staff concurs that the Applicant suffers practical difficulties with regards to compliance with the City’s adopted work hours as specified in RMC 4-4-030C due to the limited timeline required for field construction completion. Staff also concurs that permitting hauling during the nighttime hours would reduce potential conflicts between truck traffic and other pedestrian and vehicular traffic that would be more prevalent during the daytime hours. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. The Examiner has authority to review variances to the requested Chapter 173-60 WAC provisions, but no authority to consider the variance to hauling hours, RMC 4-4-030C2. The Applicant’s Chapter 173-60 WAC requests are specifically to WAC 173-60-040 and WAC 173-60- 050(3). Both those WAC provisions are adopted into the City’s code by RMC 8-7-2. Noise variances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Noise Variance CAO VARIANCE - 5 5 (i.e. variances governed by the noise ordinance criteria of RMC 8-7-8D) to RMC 8-7-2 in excess of two days in duration are subject to a public hearing and Hearing Examiner review (RMC 8-7-8(A) and (C)). Modifications to the City’s hauling hours, RMC 4-4-030C2, are not governed by the City’s noise variance, RMC 8-7-8D. Nothing in the City’s noise ordinance, Chapter 8-7 RMC, provides that waivers to RMC 4-4-030C2 can be approved by a noise variance. In point of fact, RMC 4-4-030C2 expressly provides that modifications to hauling hours can be approved by the Development Services Division. Unlike development approvals, there is no RMC provision authorizing consolidation of noise variances with other required permits. Further, the staff report doesn’t assess the correct variance criteria for the requested hauling variance. The noise variance criteria don’t apply to the hauling provision. As required by RMC 4-9-250B1a, variances to Chapter 4-4 RMC are governed by the variance criteria of RMC 4- 9-250B6. 2. Review Criteria. Variance criteria for variances to RMC 8-7-2 are governed by RMC 8-7-8(D). RMC 8-7-8(D)(1): That the Applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to the Applicant’s property or project, and that the strict application of this Chapter will deprive the subject property owner or Applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by others. 3. The criterion is met. The special circumstances involve the unique nature of the Applicant’s project and the impact that required construction hours could have on surrounding uses and pedestrian and vehicular circulation as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 8-7-8(D)(2): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety, or unduly injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the location for which this variance is sought. 4. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned and mitigated, the proposal will not create any significant noise impacts and thus approval of the variance would not be materially detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or injurious to surrounding properties or improvements. RMC 8-7-8(D)(3): That the variance sought is the minimum variance which will accomplish the desired purpose. 5. The criterion is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the Applicant has taken all measures necessary to eliminate significant noise impacts. No other reasonable measures that can be taken are apparent from the record and no further measures are necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Noise Variance CAO VARIANCE - 6 6 RMC 8-7-8(D)(4): That the variance contains such conditions deemed to be necessary to limit the impact of the variance on the residence or property owners impacted by the variance. The variance approval may be subject to conditions including, but not limited to, the following: a. Implementation of a noise monitoring program; b. Maximum noise levels; c. Limitation on types of equipment and use of particular equipment; d. Limitation on back-up beepers for equipment; e. Required use of noise shields or barriers; f. Restrictions to specific times and days; g. Specific requirements for documentation of compliance with the noise variance conditions; h. Specific requirements for notification to nearby residents; i. Required cash security to pay for inspection services to verify compliance; j. Required access to the project by the City to verify compliance with the noise variance conditions; k. Specific program to allow for temporary hotel vouchers to effected residents; l. Requirements for written verification that all workers understand the noise variance conditions for the project; and m. Provision allowing the City to immediately revoke the variance approval if the variance conditions are violated. 6. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, all mitigation measures reasonably necessary to mitigate noise impacts are proposed and/or made conditions of approval. RMC 8-7-8(D)(5): The importance of the services provided by the facility creating the noise and the other impacts caused to the public safety, health and welfare balanced against the harm to be suffered by residents or property owners receiving the increased noise permitted under this variance. 7. The criterion is met. The Applicant provides an important source of entertainment and recreation to the Puget Sound region and balanced against that is no significant adverse impact. As noted by staff, deferring construction work to the evenings likely has a significant net benefit in reducing noise impacts to those working during daylight hours in the surrounding commercial areas and also reduces conflicts with pedestrian and vehicular traffic. RMC 8-7-8(D)(6): The availability of practicable alternative locations or methods for the proposed use which will generate the noise. 8. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no better alternatives available. RMC 8-7-8(D)(7): The extent by which the prescribed noise limitations will be exceeded by the variance and the extent and duration of the variance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Noise Variance CAO VARIANCE - 7 7 9. The criterion is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 3, the Applicant has concentrated its night work over a six-month period to complete the construction as quickly as reasonably practicable. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned and as proposed the Applicant will be taking all reasonably practicable measures necessary to minimize noise levels and few if any people or property owners will be adversely affected by the resultant noise impacts. DECISION The proposed variances to WAC 173-60-050(3)(night-time construction) and WAC 173-60-040(night time noise impacts to Class A properties) are approved subject to the conditions below. The Examiner has no jurisdiction over the requested variance to hauling hours, RMC 4-4-030C. The hauling hour variance is subject to staff review and approval1. 1. Equipment and truck engines shall be turn off unless absolutely necessary and when not in use; 2. Loading/unloading activities shall occur as far away from the public right-of-way, trails, and other facilities/businesses to the extent feasible; and 3. Proper coordination for inspection services shall occur with Development Engineering staff prior to the commencement of any work outside of standard working hours (7:00 am – 3:30 pm, Monday-Friday). ORDERED this 21st day of June 2023. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 8-7-8(F) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 8-7-8(F) further requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1 To the extent that a reviewing court finds that the Examiner should have revie wed the hauling hours variance, this Decision should be construed as approving the variance as meeting the criterion of both RMC 4-9-250B6 and 8-7-8(D) for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law of this decision.