HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx. 24-26 e-mail corespondance 2017Vanessa Dolbee
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:52 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: Quendall Homes
Vanessa,
This communication will be disclosed at tomorrow's hearing. I want to give you a chance to prepare a response
to a jurisdictional question I will be asking you tomorrow:
RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), pasted below, provides that if a binding site plan is merged with a development
agreement, the City Council applies the binding site plan standards. Consistent with this, RMC 4-7-230(I)(4),
pasted below, authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on significant binding site plans except
when merged with development agreements. From these provisions, it appears that once a binding site plan is
merged with a DA, the City Council makes the final decision on the site plan and also holds the hearing on
it. How did staff come to a different conclusion? Also, how does staff reconcile the one hearing rule of RCW
36.70B.060, pasted below, with the request to re -open the hearing if the DA is not adopted? What happens if
the DA is revised instead of rejected?
RMC 4-7-230(H)2. Review Authority: Pursuant to chapter 44=8 RMC, the Community and Economic Development
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section, unless the
applicant elects to have the binding site plan application merged with a Type III permit site plan application or
a development agreement under chapter 36.70B RCW. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a Type
III site plan, then the Hearing Examiner is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this
Section. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the City Council is hereby
authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. The final decision on
a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No administrative
appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. If a binding site plan is merged with a planned urban development
application, the review authority shall be determined pursuant to RMC 4-9-150. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5519, 12-14-
2009; Ord. 5676,12-3-2012)
RMC 4-7-230(1)4. Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with
a development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by residents in the area of
the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the
Hearing Examiner for public hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing will be given as
for a Type III permit hearing. Binding site plans merged with development agreements shall be approved by City Council
pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.7013.170 et seq. (Ord. 5519, 12-14-2009)
RCW 36.708.060
Local governments planning under the growth management act to establish integrated and
consolidated project permit process—Required elements.
Not later than March 31, 1996, each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall
establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project permit process that may
be included in its development regulations. In addition to the elements required by RCW 36.70R.050,
the process shall include the following elements:
(1) A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW 36.7013.070;
(2) A notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required by
RCW 36.70B.110;
(3) Except as provided in RCW 36.70R.140, an optional consolidated project permit review
process as provided in RCW 36.70R.120. The review process shall provide for no more than one
consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision
hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent
open record appeal hearing;
(4) Provision allowing for any public meeting or required open record hearing to be combined with
any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the project by another local, state,
regional, federal, or other agency, in accordance with provisions of RCW
* 36.7013.090 and 36.70R.110;
(5) A single report stating all the decisions made as of the date of the report on all project permits
included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing
and any recommendations on project permits that do not require an open record predecision hearing.
The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the
agency's authority under RCW 43.21C.060. The report may be the local permit. If a threshold
determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the local
government, the report shall include or append this determination;
(6) Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21 C.075, if a
local government elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determinations or project permit
decisions, the local government shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing
on such appeal. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an
appeal for some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is provided after the open record
hearing, it shall be a closed record appeal before a single decision-making body or officer;
(7) A notice of decision as required by RCW 36.70R.130 and issued within the time period
provided in RCW 36.70R.080 and * 36.70B.090;
(8) Completion of project review by the local government, including environmental review and
public review and any appeals to the local government, within any applicable time periods under
*RCW 36.70R.090; and
(9) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter or
chapter 43.21 C RCW.
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
FredWarnock <frednock@comcast.net>
Sent:
Monday, April 17, 2017 4:30 PM
To:
Vanessa Dolbee
Cc:
Denis Law; Chip Vincent; Jay B Covington
Subject:
Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Vanessa,
Thanks for your quick response to my email. Unfortunately for us we were gone February through
March and did not get your March notice of the meeting. We have our mail forwarded while we are
gone, but it's hit and miss. Your document didn't get to us. We don't receive the Renton Reporter. so
we didn't get that notice as well. All that being said, I would like you to put my comments into the
record as follows .................
1. How is the city or state going to deal with the addition of 600 plus cars pouring into Lake
Washington Blvd, when we currently have back ups on the boulevard a mile long during rush hour?
2. It would appear that the majority of the traffic will use 43rd St as access to and from
Quendall. Why not divert more of the traffic to the other two exits rather than 43rd St, which is the
main entrance to Barbee Mill?
Best regards
Fred Warnock
From: "Vanessa Dolbee" <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>
To: "FredWarnock" <frednock@comcast.net>
Cc: "Denis Law" <DLaw@ Rentonwa.gov>, "Chip Vincent" <CVincent@ Rentonwa.gov>, "Jay B
Covington" <Jcovington @ Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1:42:04 PM
Subject: RE: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Fred,
Thank you for your e-mail. I am assuming you are referring to the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development Project,
City File number LUA09-151. There are two projects going to public hearing tomorrow, so please let me know if my
assumption is incorrect. In terms of public notice for the Quendall Terminal public hearing, the original notice was sent
to all parties of record on March 16, 2017 as a part of the attached "off hold notice". Notice of the Public Hearing was
also provided in the Renton Reporter, published on April 7, 2017. The letter sent out last week was simply providing a
reminder to all parties of record of the hearing date and providing notice of the availability of an updated Staff Report
transmitted to the Hearing Examiner. The project staff report to the Hearing Examiner describing the proposal has been
available on the City's website for over a year, since the cancellation of the original proposed hearing date of April 19,
2016.
Understanding, attending a Tuesday morning public hearing can be difficult due to work schedules, I am happy to enter
your written public comments into the record if you cannot attend. Please e-mail me your comment prior to the start of
the public hearing tomorrow at 10:00 am and I will ensure that they are submitted into the record for the Hearing
Examiner to consider when making a decision on this project.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
`UaWSa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
From: FredWarnock [mailto:frednock@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:11 AM
To: CenturyLink Customer
Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; hong clair; Mitchell, Mary; Denis Law; Len Reid; Connell, Carol; harrylharden
Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Dear Ms Dolbee
guess what bothers me about this public hearing is the short notice. The letter notice is dated
the 11 th of April and we received it on Friday thel 4th. That gives us one working day before the
public hearing to try and prepare numerous questions about the Quendall project. In the past the
meetings were set up with at least with one months notice, only to be cancelled at the last moment. I
cannot attend the meeting because I can't adjust my schedule on such short notice. Along with the
questions on the attached email from the the Taylors, I still can't find out how Renton intends to deal
with the traffic problems that will be created by dumping close to 600 cars into a traffic pattern that is
backed up at least one mile on Lake Washington Blvd during the morning commute. The other
issues that concern our Barbee Mill residents are the impact on property values and traffic being
diverted into the Barbee Mill development. So many questions so little time to get answers.
Best regards
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PL
Renton, WA 98056
From: "CenturyLink Customer" <cw7mm@cl.com>
To: "Vanessa Dolbee" <vdolbee@rentonwa.gov>
Cc: "hong clair" <hong.clair@epa.gov>, "Fred & Cheryl Warnock" <frednock@comcast.net>,
"Donohue Patrick" <presidentbarbeemillhoa@outlook.com>
Vanessa Dolbee
From: Centuryl-ink Customer <cw7mm@q.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:15 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Cc: hong.clair@epa.gov; Fred & Cheryl Warnock; Donohue Patrick
Subject: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Follow lap Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Ms. Dolbee:
My wife and I are unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday morning regarding this topic so we are sending
some thoughts/questions for consideration and response in lieu of our attendance.
Please see items of concern/questions regarding Cugini Proposal to Stockpile Soil at Quendall Terminal Site
- Who will monitor the noise?
- What will be the vibration and noise decibel sound limits?
- Noise and vibration limits may need to be adjusted to meet community needs.
- How will vibration affect the homes along the property lines during construction? Which homes will be
monitored for structural cracks and settlement from vibration?
- How much setback from the property lines of existing homes for start of sediment stockpile? Should be
made known to owners but shouldn't come up against fence line separating properties. (Note: The
property line is not the same as where the fence is located. It extends beyond the fenceline.) Wood
rot will occur on the north side of the fence if soil is piled up against fence. Also, for aesthetic reasons,
Barbee Mill residents are requesting that stockpile not exceed middle of fence in height.
- Will stockpile be covered with plastic sheeting per regulation?
- Please provide City of Renton contacts during construction and on site construction inspector for EPA.
- Work hours should be the same as in Seattle 7:00 AM — 6:00 PM; Saturday work should be eliminated.
- Construction access should have a wheel wash at exit point. How will contaminated soil track out be
controlled during temporary sediment stockpile placement?
- Entry and exit should not be at N42nd PL where Barbee Mill residents exit to Lake Washington Blvd.
- What has EPA proposed as a preferred cleanup, and what will be done to mitigate the effect on Barbee
Mill Community?
- I was informed earlier that no one could enter the site without proper HAZMAT Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE). Does this still apply for temporary stockpile?
- Has the Feasibility Study been approved by EPA? Please provide their comments/ recommendations.
I will await your responses to my questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Taylor
1252 N 42nd PL
Renton, WA 98056