HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Final Decision Letter_Sartori ES_16-000692Denis Law Mayor
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
January 25, 2017
Lisa Klein
AHBL
2215 N 30th St, Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration
RE: Sartori Elementary School (LUA-16-000692)
Dear Ms. Klein:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated
January 24, 2017.
I can be reached at (425)430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
l
Jas n A. eth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Matthew Herrera,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros,Secretary, Planning Division
Jufia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Parties of Record(25)
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10
Sartori Elementary School
FINAL DECISION UPON
RECONSIDERATION
11 Preliminary Planned Urban
Development and Conditional Use )
12
LUA 16-000692, PPUD, CU-H
13
14 A request for reconsideration was filed by Angela Laulainen on December 12, 2016. Reconsideration
15 is granted in part by modification of Conditions No. 3 and 26 of the Final Decision in the above-
captioned matter. As noted at the end of this decision, Condition No. 3 is revised to provide that the
16 covered play area shall be set back a minimum of 43 feet from the property line as proposed by the
applicant in Ex. 30. As further noted at the end of this decision, Condition No. 26 is revised to
1 provide that the monitoring plan and monitoring plan results for off-site queuing and parking be
18 subject to public review and comment prior to any final decisions made by City staff on monitoring
and mitigation adequacy.
19
20 Reconsideration Exhibits
21 R-1. Email Request for Reconsideration from Angela Laulainen dated December 12, 2016.
22 R-2. December 19, 2016 Order on Reconsideration Request
R-3. Applicant response dated December 28, 2016.
23 R-4. City response dated December 22, 2016..
R-5. Nancy Monahan response dated December 29, 2016.24 R-6. Akane Yamaguchi response dated December 30, 2016.
25 R-7. Email string ending January 3, 2017 where examiner grants extension for response/reply to
January 10, 2017
26 R-8. Email reply from Angela Laulainen dated January 9, 2017
PUD and CU Recon Decision - 1
1
In its response, the Applicant referenced a transportation report dated October, 2016 on the basis that2thereportwasreferencedintheSEPAchecklist. The reference is not sufficient to serve as admission
3 into the administrative record. Since the Applicant did not submit the October, 2016 version of the
traffic report prior to the close of the hearing, it and any references to its content in Recon Ex. 3 are
4 stricken from the record. Similarly, any comments made by Ms. Laulainen based upon her
experience with the noise levels of ball walls and covered play areas in her exhibits are also stricken5becausetheyconstitutenewevidencesubmittedafterthecloseofthehearing.
6
Findings of Fact
7 Procedural:
g 1. Chronoloev. A Final Decision in the above captioned matter was issued by the Hearing
9 Examiner on November 27, 2016 and mailed out by the City of Renton on November 29,
2016. Angela Laulainen submitted a Request for Reconsideration on December 12, 2016. A
10 prehearing order setting response and reply deadlines was issued on December 19, 2016. The
response/reply deadlines were extended to January 10, 2017 by email order dated January 3,
11 2017 in response to a request for extension by a party of record who did not receive notice of
12 Ms. Laulainen's request for reconsideration. The record was closed as of January 10, 2017.
13 2• Reconsideration Reauest. Ms. Laulainen's requested reconsideration on two points: (1) she
wanted traffic monitoring required by Condition No. 26 of the Final Decision to be conducted
14 by an independent third party such as the City of Renton as opposed to the applicant's traffic
consultant; and (2) she wanted the location of a proposed ball wall to be changed in order to15preventnoiseimpactstoherresidence.
16
Substantive:
17
3. Heffron Transnortation. In her reconsideration request, Ms. Laulainen asserts errors in
18 the initial traffic study done by Heffron Transportation for the proposal. These errors include
19 assigning an inaccurate speed limit to neighboring streets, improperly designating one street as
a through street and allegedly using inappropriate trip generation estimates. These errors
20 clearly should not have occurred, but they do not rise to the level of disqualifying Heffron
Transportation from doing a traffic monitoring report. However, in order to add an added
21 layer of accuracy and to provide for neighborhood peace of mind, Condition No. 26 will be
22 revised to require staff to submit Heffron's proposed traffic monitoring plan to concerned
neighbors for input and also to provide the results of the study to neighbors for input.
23
4. Ball Wall. Ms. Laulainen's ball wall concerns are a problem because she didn't bring them to
24 the examiner's attention until after the close of the hearing. Apparently some comments were
25 made via the environmental review process, but those concerns were not submitted into the
administrative record of the subject permit applications. The hearing examiner doesn't have
26 enough information to require the relocation of the ball wall as suggested by Ms. Laulainen
PUD and CU Recon Decision -2
1 because the impacts of such a relocation are unknown. Moving the covered play area to the
west side of the playfield could block most of the light from getting to the adjoining class2
room windows. Moving the covered play area anywhere else on the site could impair the
3 effectiveness and efficiency of on-site parking and circulation. Further, there is no evidence
admitted into the record that establishes that noise from the ball wall would be significantly
4 adverse, especially with the added separation proposed by the Applicant in its power point
presentation admitted as Ex. 30. It is arguably reasonable to conclude that a covered play5areawithaballwallcouldpotentiallycreatesignificantadversenoiseimpacts, even with the
6 43-foot setback currently proposed by the Applicant. Had this issue been raised during the
hearing or in a letter admitted into the administrative record,the examiner could have required
7 further information from the Applicant and perhaps required a noise monitoring plan that
establishes compliance with City decibel levels. However, at this point the record is closedl
g and it would not be legally defensible to require a noise monitoring plan or any other
9 significant mitigation without giving the Applicant the opportunity to submit evidence that
such mitigation is unnecessary. However, the conditions of approval will be revised to make
10 clear that the 43-foot setback proposed by the Applicant in Ex. 30 will be the minimum
setback required for the covered play area.
11
12 Conctusions of Law
13 1. Consideration of SEPA Issues. In its response, the City asserts that ball wall impacts cannot
be addressed because they were addressed in SEPA review. This position is contrary to case
14 law. Impacts addressed by SEPA review can be independently addressed in the application of
permit review criteria if those impacts are relevant to addressing those permitting criteria. See15QualityProducts, Inc. v. Thurston County, 139 Wn. App. 125 (2007). Ball wall noise impacts
16 are still pertinent to the subject permit review as numerous permit criteria require a
determination that the proposal will not adversely affect neighboring properties.
17
2. Reconsideration Annroved. Ms. Laulainen has successfully demonstrated that the Hearing1gExaminererredinfailingtorequiretheaddedmitigationidentifiedinFindingofFactNo. 3
19 and 4 of this reconsideration decision. The added reliability imposed in the revisions added
by Finding of Fact No. 3 and the added ball wall separation proposed by the Applicant as
20 identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 are necessary to reasonably ensure that the proposal will
not create significant adverse noise and traffic impacts on neighboring properties. As noted in21severalConclusionsofLawintheFinalDecision, a finding of no significant adverse impacts,
22
State law strictly prohibits new evidence from being considered after the close of a hearing. RCW 36.70B.050(2)
23 provides that city and county land use permit review procedures can only authorize one open record hearing per
project permit application or consolidated project permit application. An open record hearing is defined as the
24 e ibits and testimony presented to address a permit application. See RCW 36.70B.020(3). The purpose of this
reyuirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing decision makers from holding one
25 new hearing after another ad infinitum as new factual issues occur and to prevent public confusion about when to
participate in an on-going series of public hearings. See RCW 36.70BA10. For these reasons, once a hearing is
26 closed,any new evidence would be considered a prohibited second hearing.
PUD and CU Recon Decision- 3
1 which includes noise and traffic impacts, is necessary to the conclusion that the proposal
2 complies with all applicable permitting criteria.
3 Decision
4 The Final Decision of the above-captioned matter is supplemented with the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of this decision. To the extent that there is any conflict between the findings5andconclusionsofthisDecisionUponReconsiderationandtheFinalDecision, the findings and
6 conclusions of this decision shall prevail. In addition, Conditions No. 3 and 26 of the Final Decision
are revised as follows:
7
3. The applicant shall submit revised site plans that locate the covered play area structure in angareacompliantwiththe15-foot minimum rear setback. The plans shall be submitted to, and
9 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
The setback shall be a minimum of 43 feet from the nroaertv line as proposed bv the
10 Applicant in Ex. 30.
11 26. The queuing and parking demand components of the transportation management plan required
12 by Condition No. 20 of the project MDNS shall be subject to City staff approval prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The queuing and parking demand components shall be
13 subject to one school year monitoring plans scheduled for the first school year with
compliance objectives of no off-site queuing and no off-site parking except for facilities
l4 owned by the District or subject to a shared or leased parking agreement. The parking
monitoring plan shall include at a minimum monitoring of the three evening events planned15fortheschoolyearthatareexpectedtodrawthelargestafter-school audiences. The queuing
16 monitoring plan shall include a minimum of five school days (each a different day of the
week) during afternoon pick-up. The results of the monitorins nlan shall be submitted to the
17 Citv within 30 davs of comoletion of monitorin nlan imnlementation. The City may require
additional parking and queuing mitigation as necessary to mitigate any off-site queuing orIgparking (outside of applicant owned or leased/shared parking facilities) identified from the
19 required monitoring.
20 The monitorins vlan reauired bv this condition shall be subiect to review and comment bv
nersons who have reauested notice of the monitorin nlan nrior to annroval bv the Citv. The
21 results of the monitorin plan shall also be subiect to review and comment bv nersons who
22 have reauested notice of the monitorine vlan. All nersons who would like notice of the
monitoring nlan shall submit a written reauest with Mathew Herrera, nroiect nlanner, within
23 ten davs of the mailin ofthis decision.
24
25
26
PUD and CU Recon Decision -4
1 DATED this 24th day of January, 2017.
2
3 PhitA.C,lbn h s
4
City of Renton Hearing Examiner5
6
7
g Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
9
RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to
10 the Renton City CounciL RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's
decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's
11 decision. No additional rights of reconsideration are authorized as reconsideration requests have
12 already been considered. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained
from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—7`h floor, (425)430-6510.
13
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
14 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PUD and CU Recon Decision - 5