Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Decision & Letter - Noise Variance Energize      January 27, 2022      SENT BY EMAIL & REGULAR MAIL TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD    Puget Sound Energy (PSE)  Bradley Strauch   6500 Ursula Place S   Seattle, WA 98108    Subject: Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision  RE: PSE Noise Variance ‐ LUA21‐000425    Dear Mr. Strauch:  Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision dated January 25, 2022. Also, this document  is immediately available on our website:     If you go to: Rentonwa.gov; “How do I”; Hearing Examiner (under Contact); “Decisions”; “Land  Use Decision”. The Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by project name.     I can be reached at (425) 430‐6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov.  Thank you.     Sincerely,    Jason A. Seth, MMC  City Clerk    cc:   Hearing Examiner   Jill Ding, Senior Planner   Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director  Matt Herrera, Current Planning Manager  Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager  Robert Shuey, Building Official  Jennifer Cisneros, Planning Technician  Judith Subia, City Council Liaison  Parties of Record (6)  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 - 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Energy Eastside Noise Variance Noise Variance PR18-000049 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary Puget Sound Energy (“PSE”) has applied for a noise variance from RMC 8-7-2 for night-time electric transmission line upgrade work within PSE’s existing easement near R-6, R-10, and R-14 zoned properties. The work would include transmission lines across SR 169/Renton-Maple Valley Road at Riverview Park. Work is proposed for 4 to 5 nights per week for approximately ten (10) weeks of consecutive (or non-consecutive) nighttime work between February 1, 2022 and June 1, 2022. The variance is approved subject to conditions. Testimony Jill Ding, Senior Planner for the City of Renton described the project. She noted that PSE is requesting the night time variance because it doesn’t want to slow SR 169 traffic during the day. The Washington State Department of Transportation is also requiring PSE to do the work at night to avoid traffic disruption. The Examiner asked why PSE was not offering hotel vouchers as part of its mitigation package like WSDOT usually does. Ms. Ding responded that she found the set of mitigation measures proposed by PSE to be reasonable and also that the noise impacts would not be that significant. Melanie Jordan is a trustee of the Phyliss Emma LaRue revocable trust that owns properties very close to the worksite. Her mother owns three homes located at a bend in the river adjacent to the project. Her mother is 93 and two of the homes are occupied by two elderly ladies as tenants. Ms. Jordan 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 wanted to know if anyone had projected how much noise would be received by those three houses and whether work noise will cascade down from the hillsides to the homes. Dave Jenness, representing PSE, noted that the project involves building a new transmission line from South Talbot to Richards Creek in Bellevue. PSE is rebuilding two existing lines in that corridor. The construction activity consists of foundations, poles and civil work. Once the poles are installed the final work is pulling the wire. Pulling wire is the biggest risk from a safety standpoint. The area under the wire must be clear in case any wiring drops. The main activity will be around the poles as PSE pulls wire. There will be very little noise reaching the Jordan homes as the wiring is pulled. The residents might see some of the lights used to illuminate the work sites. The three homes are probably not the closest homes to the project site. Sources of noise at the wiring pulling sites would be the generators for the lights, which will probably be the noisiest equipment the occupants of the three homes will hear. Mr. Jenness said that the lights will be shielded. In response to Examiner questions about a complaint number, Mr. Jenness responded that there is a complaint line already established. The contractor will be physically meeting with all impacted property occupants to explain the project and its scheduling. The phone number of the contractor will also be made available to the impacted property occupants. Exhibits The five exhibits identified at page 2 of the Staff Report were admitted into the record during the hearing. Ms. Ding’s power point presentation was added as Exhibit 6, the Renton COR maps as Exhibit 7 and Google Earth for the project vicinity as Exhibit 8. Findings of Fact Procedural: 1. Applicant. Bradley Strauch, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), 6500 Ursula Place S, Seattle, WA 98108. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application on January 11, 2022 at 11:00 am Zoom Meeting ID No. 968 1859 1796. Substantive: 3. Project Description. Puget Sound Energy (“PSE”) has applied for a noise variance from RMC 8-7-2 for night-time electric transmission line upgrade work within PSE’s existing easement near R-6, R-10, and R-14 zoned properties. The project includes installing a transmission line across SR 169/Renton-Maple Valley Road at Riverview Park. Work is proposed for 4 to 5 nights per week for approximately ten (10) weeks of consecutive (or non-consecutive) nighttime work between February 1, 2022 and June 1, 2022. The requested nighttime work hours would limit daytime traffic impacts along SR-169 and other highways in the area. 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 For construction work anticipated for this project, the three (3) loudest pieces of equipment would include a compactor (83 decibels [dB]), a dozer (82 dB), and an excavator or pump (both 81 dB). Based on the logarithmic increase of decibel addition for this equipment, the combined noise output is anticipated to reach up to 87 dB should these three (3) pieces of equipment be in use simultaneously; equipment use and associated noise would be episodic during nighttime work. Construction activities at this location include installation of the conductor, shield wire, and communication fiber on the transmission line support structures (also referred to as “stringing”). It is anticipated that noise impacts would be mitigated by existing topography, existing vegetation, and distance from project activities. The requested nighttime work would reduce the overall duration of the project. 4. Neighborhood Characteristics. The proposed work would occur approximately 120 feet away from the nearest residences. 5. Adverse Impacts. The noise generated by the proposal will be mitigated as much as reasonably practicable and should not substantially adversely affect any single residential occupant. PSE has proposed a series of mitigation measures. Staff concurs that noise impacts would not be materially detrimental to public health safety and welfare because they would mitigated by existing topography, existing vegetation, and distance from project activities along with PSE proposed mitigation measures. Those mitigation measures are as follows: a) Provide a PSE/Contractor complaint number as well as a list of designated contact persons for the purpose of forwarding complaints. b) Contractor will limit noise levels to the greatest extent practicable, and noise levels will not exceed those described in this noise variance application. c) Contractor will use equipment as described in this noise variance application. d) Care will be taken not to bang tail gates while unloading material from truck beds. e) Contractor will avoid parking and idling vehicles and equipment next to residences to the extent possible. RMC 8-7-8D4 includes some suggested mitigation measures that have not been recommended in the staff report. Most of the omitted mitigation measures are code enforcement tools designed to facilitate staff oversight of compliance with noise mitigation measures, such as cash security for inspections, staff access to the project site and the right to revoke the variance upon noncompliance. PSE further notes that they would not be able to limit their usage of back-up beepers due to safety regulations and further notes that noise shields or barriers would not be applicable to the project proposal. With one exception, the mitigation measures from RMC 8-7-8.D.4 omitted from the staff recommendation are not found necessary to further minimize impacts and therefore will not be imposed by this Decision. The one exception is RMC 8-7-8(D)(4)(k), which requires the provision of hotel vouchers for affected residents. In the noise variances approved for WSDOT, WSDOT has found it feasible to propose the hotel vouchers for affected residents. If residents are affected to the extent that they are unable to sleep at night, the hotel vouchers should be an option to alleviate their situation. The hotel vouchers will be added to the mitigation measures available to affected residents. 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 Given the upper-moderate level of noise impacts, the mitigation measures outlined above are found to reasonably mitigate noise impacts. As noted in the staff report, the maximum noise levels generated by the project will be 87 dBA. As further noted in the staff report, noise levels between 70-90 dB (such that occur from a noisy restaurant, freeway traffic, hair dryer, or City traffic) can cause annoyance to people but are well below the threshold of pain (120-140 dB). Since the closest residences are 120 feet from the project, the maximum noise levels of the project will likely be below or at most at the level of freeway noise, which is what some residents live with already. 6. Practical Difficulties and Special Circumstances. The variance is necessary to avoid daytime I-169 closures that would cause significant traffic congestion that would likely spill over onto City streets. WSDOT has also prohibited daytime work across SR 169 due to the resulting disruption to traffic. No alternative locations are possible since the work has to be done within the PSE transmission line easement. The variance is further necessary to prevent PSE from being deprived of rights and privileges enjoyed by others in that all other similarly situated utility services would also be similarly accommodated to provide needed public services. 7. Balance of Facility Need verses Noise Impacts. As mitigated the proposal strikes an appropriate and acceptable balance between project need and noise impacts to affected properties. As outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 8 to the February 6, 2020 Hearing Examiner Energize Conditional Use Permit Final Decision, the Energize project could not proceed without a finding of adequate necessity from the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). PSE has determined that the upgrades within its transmission line are necessary to meet service demand and the UTC has determined that PSEs planned upgrades “meet current and projected future needs at the lowest reasonable cost to the utility and its ratepayers.” See WAC 480-100-238(3)(f). Balanced against this finding of public need is the need to minimize disruption to SR 169, the upper-moderate nature of the noise impacts and the mitigation measures proposed by PSE. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned PSE will have mitigated noise impacts to the extent reasonably practicable. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. Variances 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)). 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 for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6. 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 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 noise impacts are mitigated to the extent reasonably practicable under the circumstances. The closest homes to the project area are 120 feet away and topography and vegetation would further reduce any significant noise impacts. In a worst case, if noise levels are found to interfere with sleep the conditions of approval require PSE to issue the affected residents hotel vouchers. RMC 8-7-8(D)(3): That the variance sought is the minimum variance which will accomplish the desired purpose. 5. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and Conclusion of Law No. 4, the Applicant has taken all measures it reasonably can to reduce noise impacts. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposed work must be done in night to avoid disruption of traffic along SR-169. Since the Applicant has done everything it reasonably can to reduce noise impacts and there is no feasible alternative to do the work during daytime hours, the variance is considered to be the minimum variance that accomplishes PSE’s objective of maintaining reliable power to area residents. 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 for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. 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)(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 for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 7. RMC 8-7-8(D)(6): The availability of practicable alternative locations or methods for the proposed use which will generate the noise. 8. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 6 and 7, the proposed work is necessary to maintain an adequate power supply to area residents and it must be done at night to avoid disrupting SR 169 traffic. Since PSE facilities are constrained within the PSE easement, there is no other alternative location these structures could be constructed. 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. 9. The project has been mitigated to the extent feasible given the necessity of the work for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 7. At locations with Class A EDNA receivers (which includes residences), the nighttime maximum noise level is 50 dBA per WAC 173-60-040. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the maximum noise levels generated by the proposal will be 87 dBA and the closest residences will be located 120 feet away. It is unfortunate that the Applicant was not prepared to identify how much the dBA level would reduce over this 120-foot distance. However, in the absence of that information as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the closest residences would at most experience freeway noise levels and likely less than that. Given that the Applicant will be implementing a reasonable set of mitigation measures, the amount that noise levels are exceeded is found acceptable. DECISION The proposed variance is justified for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law above and is thereby approved. Approval is subject to compliance with the conditions of approval listed in Finding of Fact No. 5 with the addition of hotel vouchers identified in RMC 8-7-8(D)(4)(k). ORDERED this 25th day of January 2022. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 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 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.