HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX_Final Decision - Noise Variance Sounders_202306211
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.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Sounders FC at Longacres
Project Number:
LUA23-000134, V-H
Date of Meeting
June 6, 2023
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Tom Chiado, Chiado LLC on
behalf of Seattle Sounders, FC
406 Occidental Avenue S,
Seattle, WA 98104
Project Location
1901 Oakesdale Ave SW,
Renton, WA 98057
(Parcel Nos. 0886700220,
0886700110, 0886700120,
0886700130, 0886700210,
0886700370, 0886700140)
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision:
Exhibits 1-4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Staff PowerPoint
COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/
CV from Tom Chiado CHIADO LLC 010523Exhibit 8: