HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Continuation Request 4-15-16HCMP
Low Offices
Hillis
Clark
Martin &
Peterson PS.
Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
April 15, 2016
Via Ismail (olbiechtslaw@gmail som)
Re: Request to Reschedule Hearing on �uendall Terminale Master Plan Aj�plication Packaga;
Denton File # LUA09-151; ECF; SA -M, SM, BSP
Dear Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
On behalf of the Applicant for the above -referenced applications, Quendall Terminals,
we request that the hearing on the applications for Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, and
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit be rescheduled to a date approximately four weeks
out. We have spoken with the City Attorney and he is amenable to this request, although he
has not had an opportunity to confirm with the Planning Director.
When we received the Staff Report on Wednesday morning, April 13, the Applicant
was surprised to fmd that the 45 page Staff Report contained an additional 44 conditions, one
of which has 17 sub -points, and 67 pages of exhibits. This is in addition to the 91 conditions
in the Mitigation Document, to which the Applicant has agreed. We were not provided a
review copy prior to publication of the Report, which is the City's prerogative. In this case,
however, the lack of notice to the Applicant of the extent of new conditions being proposed
works against an efficient proceeding. More importantly, with a consolidated report on three
applications and so many new conditions, the Applicant cannot meaningfully ascertain the
impact of the new conditions on the proposal in such a short time. This is especially important
when the Applicant must compare the new conditions with those in the Mitigation Document
to understand the impact of the two sets of conditions on the Project when layered together.
Some of the new conditi
ons may restate things that have been agreed to in the
Mitigation Document; some may be fine by the Applicant; but others may have a profound
impact on the layout, unit counts, lot coverage, and financial feasibility of the proposal. We
simply have not had sufficient time to evaluate the conditions. Because of the sheer volume of
new information contained in the Staff Report, and the subjective nature of many of the
decisional criteria, we respectfully ask that the Examiner postpone the hearing to provide the
Applicant additional time to respond to the new conditions,
1221 Second
Avenue, Suite 500
� Seattle, WA
98101 �
206.623.1745 f:206.623.7789 � hcmp.com
III M
ERITA$
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 15, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Because the Applicant bears the burden to show compliance by a preponderance of
the evidence, it would be prejudicial not to allow sufficient time for the Applicant to respond
to this significant new information. Further, it may be that we could work out solutions to
some or all objections the Applicant may have, if we have an opportunity to engage with City
staff on these conditions. We believe it would be inefficient and create confusion to begin the
hearing with the presentation of the Staff Report as is, and then continue it to enable the
Applicant a reasonable amount of time to address the Staff Report, especially if there may be
revisions that can be agreed to. For these reasons, we ask that the Hearing Examiner postpone
the heating. If the Hearing Examiner could rule today, the City could provide advance notice
to parties of record via email regarding the rescheduling to minimize any inconvenience to
those who might have planned to attend.
AMG:kah
EMaiL an .gygi@hcmp.com
Direst Diad (206) 470-7638
Fax:• (206) 623-7789
cc; Larry Warren
Vanessa Dolbee
Jason Seth
Campbell Mathewson
N➢:1)958.002 4819-6409-8352v1
Very truly yours,
.W// " II
in M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson P.S.