Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Final Decision_Sartori ES_16-0006921 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 PUD and CU Recon Decision - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Sartori Elementary School Preliminary Planned Urban Development and Conditional Use LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H ))))))))) FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION A request for reconsideration was filed by Angela Laulainen on December 12, 2016. Reconsideration 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 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 provide that the monitoring plan and monitoring plan results for off-site queuing and parking be subject to public review and comment prior to any final decisions made by City staff on monitoring and mitigation adequacy. Reconsideration Exhibits R-1. Email Request for Reconsideration from Angela Laulainen dated December 12, 2016. R-2. December 19, 2016 Order on Reconsideration Request R-3. Applicant response dated December 28, 2016. R-4. City response dated December 22, 2016.. R-5. Nancy Monahan response dated December 29, 2016. R-6. Akane Yamaguchi response dated December 30, 2016. R-7. Email string ending January 3, 2017 where examiner grants extension for response/reply to January 10, 2017 R-8. Email reply from Angela Laulainen dated January 9, 2017 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 PUD and CU Recon Decision - 2 In its response, the Applicant referenced a transportation report dated October, 2016 on the basis that the report was referenced in the SEPA checklist. The reference is not sufficient to serve as admission 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 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 stricken because they constitute new evidence submitted after the close of the hearing. Findings of Fact Procedural: 1. Chronology. A Final Decision in the above captioned matter was issued by the Hearing 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 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, 2017 in response to a request for extension by a party of record who did not receive notice of Ms. Laulainen’s request for reconsideration. The record was closed as of January 10, 2017. 2. Reconsideration Request. 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 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 to prevent noise impacts to her residence. Substantive: 3. Heffron Transportation. In her reconsideration request, Ms. Laulainen asserts errors in the initial traffic study done by Heffron Transportation for the proposal. These errors include 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 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 layer of accuracy and to provide for neighborhood peace of mind, Condition No. 26 will be 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. 4. Ball Wall. Ms. Laulainen’s ball wall concerns are a problem because she didn’t bring them to the examiner’s attention until after the close of the hearing. Apparently some comments were 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 enough information to require the relocation of the ball wall as suggested by Ms. Laulainen 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 PUD and CU Recon Decision - 3 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 class room windows. Moving the covered play area anywhere else on the site could impair the 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 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 play area with a ball wall could potentially create significant adverse noise impacts, even with the 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 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 closed1 and it would not be legally defensible to require a noise monitoring plan or any other 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 clear that the 43-foot setback proposed by the Applicant in Ex. 30 will be the minimum setback required for the covered play area. Conclusions of Law 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 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. See Quality Products, Inc. v. Thurston County, 139 Wn. App. 125 (2007). Ball wall noise impacts are still pertinent to the subject permit review as numerous permit criteria require a determination that the proposal will not adversely affect neighboring properties. 2. Reconsideration Approved. Ms. Laulainen has successfully demonstrated that the Hearing Examiner erred in failing to require the added mitigation identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 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 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 in several Conclusions of Law in the Final Decision, a finding of no significant adverse impacts, 1 State law strictly prohibits new evidence from being considered after the close of a hearing. RCW 36.70B.050(2) 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 exhibits and testimony presented to address a permit application. See RCW 36.70B.020(3). The purpose of this requirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing decision makers from holding one 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 36.70B.010. For these reasons, once a hearing is closed, any new evidence would be considered a prohibited second hearing. 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 PUD and CU Recon Decision - 4 which includes noise and traffic impacts, is necessary to the conclusion that the proposal complies with all applicable permitting criteria. Decision 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 findings and conclusions of this Decision Upon Reconsideration and the Final Decision, the findings and conclusions of this decision shall prevail. In addition, Conditions No. 3 and 26 of the Final Decision are revised as follows: 3. The applicant shall submit revised site plans that locate the covered play area structure in an area compliant with the 15-foot minimum rear setback. The plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The setback shall be a minimum of 43 feet from the property line as proposed by the Applicant in Ex. 30. 26. The queuing and parking demand components of the transportation management plan required 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 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 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 planned for the school year that are expected to draw the largest after-school audiences. The queuing 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 monitoring plan shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of monitoring plan implementation. The City may require additional parking and queuing mitigation as necessary to mitigate any off-site queuing or parking (outside of applicant owned or leased/shared parking facilities) identified from the required monitoring. The monitoring plan required by this condition shall be subject to review and comment by persons who have requested notice of the monitoring plan prior to approval by the City. The results of the monitoring plan shall also be subject to review and comment by persons who have requested notice of the monitoring plan. All persons who would like notice of the monitoring plan shall submit a written request with Mathew Herrera, project planner, within ten days of the mailing of this decision. 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 PUD and CU Recon Decision - 5 DATED this 24th day of January, 2017. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to 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 decision. No additional rights of reconsideration are authorized as reconsideration requests have already been considered. 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.