The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 01CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: December 2, 2009 To: City Clerk's Office From: City Of Renton Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 18 LUA (file) Number: LUA-08-112, SA-M, FEIS Cross-References: LUA05-136, 06-004, 06-057, 06-068, 06-069, 06-071, 06-077, 07-031, 07-037, 07-048, 07-053, 07-066, 08-072 AKA's: Boeing Planned Action Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: August 23, 2008 Applicant: The Boeing Company Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Jeffrey R Adelson, The Boeing Company PID Number: 0886610010, 0886610020, 0886610030, 0886610040, 0886610050, 0886610060, 0886610070, 0886610080, 0823059209, 0823059019, 7223000115, 7564600055 ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: October 20, 2008 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: "J.7 Council Decision: Committee of the Whole -Date: October '1111, 2008 Approved Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-8 property. Location: South of N 3th Street between Logan & Park Avenues N Comments: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5416 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DESIGJ\ATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1-B OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN A VENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, A'lD 6TH STREET. WHEREAS, RCW 43.2IC.03l and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled the "Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS" has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of Boeing's Renton Plant property; and WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District 1-1:l (see Exhibit /\.): and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area -Industrial (EA-I), Employment Arca -Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Ot1ice (EA-0) to Urban Center North (UC-N); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center l\orth I (UC-Nl ); and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the EIS, which is recorded under King County recording number 2003 l 2 l 000 l 637 ("Boeing Development Agreement"); and ORDll\ANCE NO. 5416 WHEREAS, on "!tJVember 7, 2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District 1-B : and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2008, the City approved an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B ("Amended 1 B Conceptual Plan"), attached as Exhibit B: and WHEREAS, an Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-District 1 B, which compares the Amended !B Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District 1-B as "Planned Actions" that arc consistent with the Urban Center l\011h 1 (UC-NI) designation and zone; NOW, TIIEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tl IL CITY 01· RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAi"! AS FOLLOWS SECTION I. Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District 1-B as "Planned Actions" con.sistent with state law, RCW 43.21 C.031; and B. Provide the public with an undcrstumling as lo what constitutes a Plannc<.I Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District 1-B will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District 1-B area that is consistent with the Amended 113 Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. 2 ORDINAI\CF NO. 5416 SECTION II. Findings. The City Council finds that: A. The EIS addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the Amended 1B Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and l:l. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation foes (Parks, Fire and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of development pursuant to the Amended 1 B Conceptual Plan; and C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance economic development; and 0, Opportunities for public involvement have been provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Pinn review and approval process for Sub-District 1-R. SECTION Ill. Designation of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Establishing Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned 1\ction Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District 1-B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated oft:site improvements. Uses and act, vi tics described in the Amended I B Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the thresholds descrihed in Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, arc designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.2 l.C.03 l. Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the 3 ORDNANCE NO. 5416 proposed development on Sub-District l B, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the US may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Review Criteria. l. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's dcsignce, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.031 (2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following conditions: (a) The project is located on Sub-District l-B, or 1s an oft~sitc improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District 1-B; and (b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and (c) The Director has determined that the project's significant enviroruncntal impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC 190-11-315; and (d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and 4 ORDfNANCE NO. 5416 (e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District 1-B development; and (t) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and (g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. D. Effect of_f>)anne~l_1\ctio_11. 1. Upon designation hy the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold detennination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under SEPA. 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to forther procedural review under SEPA. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. 4. Amendments of the approved Amended Sub-District 1 B Conceptual Plan may be approwd administratively, so long as such amendments remain consistent with the spirit 5 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 and intent of the adopted Plan. For development of Sub-District lFl qualifying as a planned action pursLtant to this Ordinance, a proposed amendment of the Amended Sub-District I B Conceptual Plan is consistent with the adopted Plan's spirit and intent if such amendment does not exceed the maximum development parameters analyzed in the EIS. If amendments of the Amended Sub-District 1 B Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the EIS, supplemental environmental review may be required under the SEPA rules. E. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: I. Development applications shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SFP /\ checklist or revised SEP A checklist [ where approved through W /\C 197-11-315(2)] or such other environmental review forms provided by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The checklist may be incorporated into the fo1111 of an application. 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. 3. If the project application is within Sub-District 1-B, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in Section III of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the 6 ORDINANCE NO. _ _2_416 appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or EIS shall be required. 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 6. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEPA review procedure consistent with City SFPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting Sl·:l'A requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEl'A review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the EIS. SECTION JV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 31. 2018, by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements. Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified. SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. 7 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 SECTION VI. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this. _27th day of_-----=oc:cc~tcco"'bc:ceccr ___ , 2008. Jason A. Seth, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY THI! MAYOR this 27th day of October , 2008. ~~lL Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: ct; ........ ~~~ Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney DateofPublication: 11/1/2008 (summary) ORD.1503 :9/1 1 /08 :scr 8 ' ' ' ·, ORD I NANCE NO. 541 6 Exhibit A t .. , • I . _ ... . ' ' Su b-D istrict .. 1 I . I -~. I · I A J------:--.---,..... ____ ~ ' ' ' . ' I i. i, ' ' ' ' ', ' \. ' ', Su b~D is tr ict B Urba11 Center North District Sub-areas Districts Subject to Conceptual Plan Approval Note: District boundaries include dedicated R-0-W Department of Community and Economi c D evelopment A . Johnson November 3, 2008 EXHIBIT A -.. N Background ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Exhibit B CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Sub-District I-Fl December 2008 Amendment Renton, Washington The Boeing Company ("Boeing") has been working with the City of Renton (the "City") since early 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with its 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the "Renton Plant Site"). In October of 2003, Boeing prepared an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the Renton Plant Sile with a mix of residential and commercial uses (the "EIS"). In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment (the "Development Agreement") that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: • Renton commitments to fund and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • l~oeing commitments lo fund certain private aspects of redevelopment; and • Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects to subdivide, develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not related to airplane manufacturing. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub-District,; 1-A and 1-B, and District 2 (see Exhibit 1). City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub-District 1-A is now known as "The I ,anding" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-B Sub-District 1-B is located immediately to the south of The Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit 1, and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub- District 1-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of 2005 and approved in November of 2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-13 and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub-District 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative AMFNDED CONCEPTUAJ, REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0105/LEGALl 4505979. 7 9/l l/08 EXHIBIT 8 PAGE 1 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District I-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the EIS. A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" (the "IlSP"). The JJSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District 1-Il: Lots SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, 7 A, 7Il, and 7C. The Original Conceptual Plan addressed infrastructure improvements imposed as conditions of development pursuant to the Development Agreement to support redevelopment of Sub- Districts 1-A and 1-B. In particular, a portion of Sub-District 1-B was reserved for a four-lane extension of81h Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues (the "Extension"). The Extension and related improvements have been completed. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Suh-District 1-B (Lots SA and 7B of the BSP; forn1erly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as "North 1- B") were planned for retail uses complementary to the I larvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1- B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urhan Center -North, District One zone ("UC-NI" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District 1-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is descrihed herein as the "Boeing Remainder." The Boeing Remainder is illustrated on Exhibit 1. Portions of the Boeing Remainder arc cun-cntly improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.85 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("DP l" through "DP4"). This amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District 1-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the retail alternative proposed for North 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes office and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots 5A and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the uC-N 1 zone. Boeing seeks the City's approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan so that it can market North 1-B to potential developers under a greater range of uses. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. A.MENDED COJ\CEPTUAL REDEVELOPML:N"J PLAN 03003-0!05/LEGAL14505979 7 9/11/08 PAOE2 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Submittal Included within this submittal is a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub-District 1-B, a Conceptual Plan Diagram (see Exhibit 2), and a benefit analysis demonstrating a range of potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (1) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the North 1- B portion of the Sub-District (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2010 for DP 1 and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). A.\1ENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMl:N l" PLAN 03003-0 l 05/L:CGALl 4505979. 7 PAGE 3 9/l.1/08 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 A erial, Exhibit J AMENDED CONCE PT UAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003 -0 I 05/LEGA L l ~ 505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE4 ORDINANC E NO . 5 416 Scptc 1uxr 26. "!OOS CONCEPTUAL PLA1~ SUB-DISTRICT 1-8 <tJ---aoEING FULLER , SEARS .. -... _.. ____ ... _,_ __ ARCHIT E CT S M AX. 30% LOT COVl;_RAG E t<\',,.._,.,_,.,...,...,.,.:..,_,,"4---IF 1-STORY A ETAlt ...,.--~~~:+:;-~>!l':'litHrfu:'-..:::t-=::.;l----- :' ·,,• LE GEND'' R RFTJ\I L LAF.l 0 O FFIC L p PAnKING GARJ\G E MF --M Uc.1 1-rAMILY PFrn:s I l l\/\N GONNLCTIONS (270,000 S F) . ---r· . p .!3 N!A::(.ONE G-StORY lfAB .BLD.G. (~8 0,000 SF) WI SHARED . PAf:lKING I/'< l)p,~ GARAGE • NOTE: M AX.ON ~ 6 ST0AVBI OG IFOFflC( (120,000 S il w n H NFvV PAnKING GARAGE DP-4 LMi\X. TWO 6-STOFI Y 1/\BB . (360,000 SF TOTAL) SUPPOAll:D BY EX IST. PARK ING Gt.RAGE tlOTE: MAX. f\'110 6 STORY Bl DCS 1<0FFIC[ iJ00,000 SF] WITH NEW 2·3 STOHY PARKING GARAGE t.:.. -.;..-..f ... -~ -· NOT A PART ORDINANC E NO. 5416 Conceptual Pian Diagram, Exhibit 2 I 1 DP-1 -;; rn 0 _J I 330 ()[),j SF I TOTA.L I OFFICE OR LAB l Conceptual Plan ! Sub-District 1 B J • . ·_; : ; ~-: . -:r;tt~~t - ••••• ii ,'.:;;_. ;7~/~L;;_: jtii~i • ~~i~ • . ,~..,.; ~=-1 I TOTAL I OFFICEOR I L>\6 I ; I i ! , I /. \11!".::=:--e!',!' ~ •• p DP-3 120 ,00•:, SF TOT4- 0FFICE O R LAB I f LAB : l I l · ii ·_,,,~ '..;,;~~~..:>.:..~j A.MEN DE lJ CO NCEPTU AL REDEVELOPMEN T PLAN 03003-U I OS/LEGAL I~ 505979 . 7 9111108 10-16 Existing Garage ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Conceptual Development Plan This Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B is comprised of two somewhat distinct parts. The Korth 1-B area makes up the northern portion of the property along 8'h Avenue, has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations, and is available for near-term redevelopment. The Boeing Remainder makes up the southern portion of the Sub-District, and contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space with re-use potential and approximately 12.85 acres ofland with future redevelopment potential. Boeing recognizes that high-quality development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City's vision for the Urban Center-North. Potential developers of lots within Sub-District 1-B mus(join with the City to ensure that such development is well-designed and is of a quality and at a scale that is consistent with the City's long-tern1 vision for the area. As planning for Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B has progressed, the land south of 3th has been identified as an impmtant component of the overall project. The area, now known as North 1-B, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative scenarios: Scenario I. a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 78 of the BS!') undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. Fach scenario is described below. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of North 1-B containing a data hub for the Renton Plant Site (Lot SE of the BSP), will he retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. I. Scenario l Under this scenario, North 1-B is envisioned to contain a large format "destination" retailer located along Logan Avenue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally, tbe large format retail development (users with footprints of 50,000 square feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet) is planned to occur along 8th and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue. The supporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging benveen 10,000 and 50,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 feet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park Avenue. Scenario 1 anticipates pedestrian connections to occur internally within the site both east toward Park Avenue and south toward 6th Avenue. V chicle access would occur off of Park Avenue, with loading and delivery functions relying upon Garden A venue and an internal service road running along the southern edge of the Korth 1-B property line. At a maximum lot coverage ratio of 30%, the Nmth 1-B site could accommodate up to 270,000 square feet of retail space. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDF.VF.J ,QPMENT PLAN 03003-0105/LE(i-AL14505979 7 9/l l/08 PAGE6 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 2. Scenario 2 a. Office and Employment Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 5A would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include technology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. Smaller-scale ground-floor and/or freestanding retail uses may also be included in this development scenario. At this maximum density, the majority of accessory parking would be provided in an above-grade structure, and impervious surface coverage would be up to 95%. Buildings would be three to six stories in height, with floorplates ofup to approximately 40,000 square feet. The build-out of the Office and Employment Component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand, future buildings may include structured parking to achieve density of up to 600,000 square feet on- sitc, or build-out may be limited to a fully srnface-parked option, in which overall density would be approximately 300,000 square feet. Development within this range of densities is also possible. b. Hotel/Retail Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 7I3 would contain a seven to nine stoiy hotel and two separate, small- scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complement and support the hotel use. The hotel would consist of a maximum of 130,000 square feet; the supporting rdail uses would total a maximum of 13,000 square feet (consisting of two buildings, one approximately 5,000 square feet and one approximately 8,000 square feet). All uses would be surfaced parked. The hotel and retail uses would be oriented toward Park Avenue. 3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. ln particular, this Scenario anticipates that either Lot SA or Lot 7B is not redeveloped according to Scenario 2 and is instead redeveloped with retail uses. Any combination implemented would not exceed the overall development capacities contemplated for North 1-B. Summary Redevelopment of the North 1-B parcel as contemplated by this Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent witb the City's overarching goal for the Urban Center North: creation of a large- scale, mixed-use development including uses such as retail, research and development, labs, office, employment, residential and commercial. See, e.g., City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Urban Center North Land lise Designation ("Comp. Plan, LU- UCN"), Purpose Statement. This Plan is consistent with applicable goals for the Urban Center North that encourage "a mix of uses to improve the City's tax and employment base" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-266), "support a range and variety of commercial and office uses" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-267) and "allow hospitality uses such as hotels" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-268). The City's vision for District One AMENDED CO:-.ICEPTUAL REDEVELOP:VrnNT PLAN 03003-0105/LEGAJ,14505979 7 9/] 1/08 PAGB 7 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 anticipates similar new development including retail, office, employment, lab, research and development, and hotel uses that ultimately result in a cohesive mixed-use district (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Vision-District One). In particular, proposed Scenario l supports the City's vision and applicable goals for the Urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on North 1-B that complement existing retail uses located north of 8th Avenue. Scenario 2 similarly supports the City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North 1-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios 1 and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center North and District One. All three scenarios would add lo the City's tax base, provide additional jobs and belp to expand the overall mix of uses currently located in District One. Boeing Remainder This portion of the Amended Conceptual Plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, 1980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout the Boeing Remainder (the 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is five to six stories in height, ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet in area, witb a total area for all four buildings of 660,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in surrounding surface lots, al an overall ratio of4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Hoeing currently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in significant rehabilitation, lease or sale of the structures. At the time of the Original Conceptual Plan, a l 960s-vintagc lab building, known as the 10-71 building, was located along Logan Avenue. The 10-71 building was demolished in 2008, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building ("DP l "; Lot 5 B of the BSP). For purposes of this Amended Conceptual Plan, we have assumed that the existing office buildings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. If the exislit1g buildings are occupied by other users at some point in the foture, such buildings could be supported by parking at a market-driven ratio ofl. 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a3.9-acre site between the 10-18 and 10-20 buildings ("DP2"; Lot SD of the IlSP); a 1.8-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of 6'h ("DP3"; the property constituting DP3 was not included in the BSP); and, a 2.2-acre site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 6'h ("DP4"; the property constituting DP4 was not included in the BSP). A\1ENDED CONCFPHiAl_ REDEVELOPMENT PIAN 03003-0 l OS/LEGAL l 4505979. 7 9/t 1/08 PAG[ 8 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 I. DP! This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the North 1-B property. Fronting on 6'' Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 ofilcc building and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-term (2010) redevelopment potential, this i'unended Conceptual Plan envisions DP! 's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more structures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. Given its size, DP-I could accommodate the parking needs of whichever use was ultimately implemented on the site, such that the site would he self-parked. 2. DP2 and DP4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for the existing office buildings arc reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow parking areas for Boeing employees, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment of DP2 and DP4 with new buildings containing either tab or offices uses, consistent with the current development pattern. In some instances where new lab uses could be developed, surplus parking within existing garages could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new, private open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity, this Amended Conceptual Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings arc sold or leased to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Renton Plant Site to accommodate its employees. The Amended Conceptual Plan contemplates the potential redevelopment of these parcels with approximalely 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. Both DP2 and IJP,1 could accommodate structures containing as much as 260,000 square feet on DP2 and 125,000 square feet on DP4. To acconunodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on DP2, and any additional parking needs would be provided by car-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On D1'4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing I 0-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. 3. DP3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the corner of 6'h and Park Avenues. This Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, in both cases housed within a single six-story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. If developed as lab space, the building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. If developed as office space, parking could either be provided in a new garage on DP3 or accommodated by providing additional parking levels within a DP2 garage. AJvlENDED CONCEPTlJAL RFDEVEI.OP\1ENT PLA>l OJOQ3-0l05/LEGAL14505979 7 9/1 J.'08 PAGE9 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Summary The redevelopment of the Boeing Remainder proposed hy this Amended Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's vision for the Urban Center North and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, commercial corridor south of The I ,anding between Logan and Garden Avenues, with mid-rise office or lab buildings along street frontages and structured parking behind. Whether redeveloped with all office, all lab, or a mix of office and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. Economic Benefit Analysis Summary Boeing's Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B seeks to both allow for the near-term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix of uses that significantly improves the City's tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan (Exhibit 3) and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment Scenarios for North 1-B (Exhibit 4), have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development on the North 1-B portion of the Sub-District for either retail use or a combination of hotel and office/employment uses (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development on the Boeing Remainder for ofllce and/or laboratory uses (beginning in 2010 for DP! and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). AMENDED CO:\ICEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 1 05/! ,E(;AL 14505979. 7 PAGJ: !O 9/11/08 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 EXHIBIT 3 2005 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY SUB DISTRICT 1-B BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic henefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Suh District 1-B al its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District 1-B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. The specific purpose of this document is lo show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if fully developed as follows: Lab Multi-Family Total 900,000 l, 435,500 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targdcd Renton Boeing parcels arc entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured ( one-time and recurring) in terms of: ? Jobs ? Income };-Property values ? Public revenues AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLA'.'-1 030fP.-O 1 05/LBGALI 4505979. 7 9/l l/08 PAGE 11 State of Washington King County City of Renton II. LIMITATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 5416 The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels comprising 12.85 net acres into modem lab and multi-family space are only as valid as w1derlying assumptions. 1 These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the Slate of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: >' By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed inlo lab and multi-family uses.2 >' Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 2013. 1 Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document arc intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMCNDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003"0 l OS/LEGAL I 4505979. 7 9/11/(.18 PAGE 12 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 r These lab jobs would generate an additional$ 158 million in recurring annual income at full ocwpancy in 2013. > Of this income total, over $88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 2013 and thereafter. r The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast al over $550 million by 2013. r The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the Stale of Washington is estimated at over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi- family space on the four Boeing parcels at the Renton Sub District 1-B site. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton ofredeveloping Boeing's four parcels of excess prope11y in Sub District 1-B are now summarized. ;,;, By 2013, it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-13. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City wonld be created by 2013. > The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over $6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. r The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring ammal tax revenues of over $2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. Alv1ENDED CONCEPTUAL Kl:::OEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05/I .EOALI 4505979 .7 9111/08 PAGE 13 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-lime benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $40,000 during land development and over S6, 168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-lime municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the lab and multi-family buildings are completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City ofRcnton's share of property taxes. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over SI 15,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes arc estimated at over $275,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Develo ment Development 2008-2012 in 2013 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 1.700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 rota! Jobs 34 540 2,100 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 s 123,146,400 Indirect Income $ 411,248 s 34,962,754 s 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1,696,873 s 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 CITY TAX REVENUE8 Property Tax $ 1,952.593 Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ 115,496 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275,071 Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 s 2,343,160 Chart l shows that 2, l 00 pennanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 1.700 would be direct on-site lab jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. /{MENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I OS/LEGAL 14505979 .7 9/11/08 PAGEl4 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 1 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 l 2,100 2,000 1,000 With Project Without Project :_J Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect ofi~site as well a5 direct on-site income creation in 2013 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2013 $150 : $100 .!! 0 " ~ 0 . C .2 $50 ~ $- With Proj~ct AMENDED CONCEP11JAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 105:LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 Without Project PAGE IS ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the four Boeing parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under $74 million to nearly $624 million-an increase of $550 million. Chart 3 I- PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS Without Project With Project +------1 $0 $200 Dollars in millions AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT P! AN 03001-0 l O 5/LEGAL l 4505979 .7 9/11108 $400 $600 $623.8 PAGE 16 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of over $6,208,000 during the estimated 2008 through 2012 development period. In addition, the City is forecast lo increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Suh District 1-B parcels starting in 2009. This will increase each year until 2013 where it peaks at over $2,343,000 million as an annual 11ow into the City. ,----- I Chart 4 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues ~ "' = $3,000,000 ~ $2,000,000 i'.i i:i:: "' " f-$1,000,000 E u $- 2008 2009 2010 2011 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0105/LEGA I, l 4 505979 _ 7 9/11/08 2012 2013 • Recuning • Onetime PAGE 17 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY (2005) HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY RENTON, WASHING TON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping certain Sub District 1-B property under option by Harvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land uses. This "right of first option" (ROFO) property is the Phase II expansion of llarvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District !B property The ROFO Phase lI land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-B Renton properly. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: Retail -Shop Space Retail Big Box Total 91,000 135,000 226,000 Sq. I't. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises their option lo purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full redevelopment of this properly as retail uses between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured ( one-time and recurring) in terms of: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OS/LEGAL 14 5 05979. 7 9/l l/08 PAGE IR >' Jobs >' Income >' Property values >' Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton ORDINANCE NO. 5416 AME1\'DED CO:JC:EPTUAI. RFDFVET..OPMENT PLAN 03003-0 l OS/LEGALL 4505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 19 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions.' These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. Ill. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Boeing Renton Sub District 1 B property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 hetween "redevelopment" of the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: > By 2008 (project stabilization), an estimated 1,667 jobs would be created if the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box retail uses.4 > Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. ? These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2008. 3 Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 do/lats, 4 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMl:::NDEU CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 l 05/LEGAL I 4505979. 7 lJ/11/08 PAGE 20 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 > Of this income totaL nearly $45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B ROFO parcels and over $35 million in indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. > The conesponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly $53 million by 2008. > The increase in recuning annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5 .1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3 .8 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the I larvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this excess Boeing properly in Sub District 1-B arc now summarized: > Fly 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District I-Fl. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City johs would be created by 2008. > The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667.000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District 1-B parcels. > The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recuning annual tax revenues of nearly $856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accmed City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $66,000 during land development and over $601,000 during constmction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 3003-0 l 05/LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/1 !108 PAGE 21 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly $856,000. !\early $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City's employee head lax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes arc estimated at over $26,000 annually. Table l CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS HARVEST PARTNERS SUB DISTRICT 1-B One-time Land One~time Building Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006-2007 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 Indired Jobs 16 39 Total Jobs 58 131 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2.121,030 s 9,432,720 Indirect Income $ 678,445 s 3,384,707 Total Income $ 2,799,475 s 12,817,427 CITY TAX REVENUES Propc1ty Tax Sales Tax 66)79 $ 295,201 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 Total Tax Revenues $ 601,458 Recurring in 2008 859 202 1,061 s 44,657,600 $ 8,889,439 $ 53,547,039 $ 186,873 $ 584,225 $ 58,346 s 26,325 s 855,769 Chari 1 shows that 1,061 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occw-within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest Partners RClfO property in Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B area. AMENDLD CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0105,LEGAL 14505979 7 9/l 1/08 Chart 1 PAGE22 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 1,200 ---------· 800 400 With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. . = $40 ~ $20 i $. Chart 2 N cw Job Annua!Income in 2008 -----------~ $54 ----··----- ---~-----------· With Project Without Project L_ ·--.. --------------- Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to' increase from $8.6 million to nearly $61.3 million-an increase of $52.7 million. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 l OS/1,EGAL 14 505979 .7 9/J 1/08 PAGE23 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY Without Project 1111 $8.6 With Project $0 $25 Dollars in millions $61.3 $50 $75 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B property starting in 2007. This will increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OS/LEGAL 14505979 .7 9/11/08 Chart 4 PAGE 24 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 i New City Of Renton Tax Revenncs $1,000,000 ~ $800,000 " = = " .. $600,000 " CZ >< " $400,000 I-< .f:-$200,000 u a $- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 M1ENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OJOOJ-0105/LEGAI..14505979 7 9/11/08 2013 PAGE 25 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008-~012 CITYJORS Direct Jobs 25 381 [ndirecl Jubs 9 159 Total Jobs 34 540 ANNUAL 11'\'COJ\'.lli Direct lncorm:: $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ Indirect Income $ 41 l,248 $ 34,962,754 $ Total Income $ 1,696,871 $ 84,923,434 $ CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ Sales Tax $ 40.214 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Hea<l Tax $ Real Estate 'l'ransfer Tux $ 3,118,965 $ Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ HARVEST P AR'JNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land Redevelopment Scenario Development CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 Indirect Jobs 16 Total Jobs 58 ANl\.1.JAL [NCOME Direct Income $ l, Lll,030 InJirect Income $ 678,445 Total Income $ 2,799,475 CflYTAX REVFNl_.TFS Property Tax Sales Tax 66,379 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Trans fer Tax Total Tax Revenues 66,379 AMENDED CONCEPTL"A..L REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LEGAl.14505979. 7 9/11/08 One-time Building Development 2006-2007 92 39 131 $ 9,432,720 $ $ _t]_8.~,?07 $ $ 12,817,427 $ $ $ 295,201 $ $ $ 306,257 $ $ 601,458 $ Recurring in 2013 1,700 400 2,100 123,146,400 17,596,700 140,743,HJU 1,952,593 115,496 275,071 2,343,160 Recurring in 2008 859 202 1,061 44,657,600 8,889,439 53,547,039 186,871 584,225 58,346 26,325 855,769 PAGE26 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 COMBl!"I/ED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOlclNG DEVELOP:vIENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land Redevelopment Scenario Development CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 67 Indired Jobs ).5 Total Jobs 92 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 3;106,655 Indirect Income $ 1,089,693 Total Incume $ 4,496,348 CITY TAX REVFNLTES Property T,ix Sales Tax $ 106,613 Fmployee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax Total Tax Revenues $ 106,613 AMENDED CONCEPTl.TAJ, REDEVF.l,OPMFNT PLAN 03003-0 I OS/LEGAL 14505979 .7 9/11/08 One-time Building Recurring Development 2006-2012 in 2013 473 2,559 198 602 671 3,161 s S9,393,100 s 167,804,000 $ 38,347,461 $ 26,486,139 $ 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 $ 2,139,466 $ 3,344,5 L9 $ 584,225 $ 173,842 $ 3,425,222 $ 301)96 $ 6,769.,741 $ 3,198,929 PAGE 27 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DISTRICT 1-B ' City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 4,000 3,000 f'~ --2,000 1,000 ~ ---! 3,161 ---------- [ __ ~ i $200 ~ $150 ! .. $100 ~ .e ~ $50 $- $4,000,000 ~ ~ $3,000,000 • ~ ~ s:z,000,000 ~ f--< C' $1,000,000 w $- With Project Without Project New Joh Annual Income in 2013 With Project -------------- I --w-.... ::; ... ~. ~ ~ " I New City Of Renton Tax Revenues -1 I f.&~-~~r;ing l•_9_netime , ___ _ ~--2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20] 1 2012 2013 M1ENDED COhCEPTUAL REDEVEWPMENT PLAN 03003-010511.EGALl4505979. 7 PAGE28 9/11/08 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SlJB DISTRICT 1-B, NORTH lB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON This Economic Benefit Study (Exhibit 4) was prepared to help align, support and provide context for recent land use amendments applicable to Sub-District 1-B as retlected in the attached Conceptual Redevelopment Plan. The analysis included in this Exhibit 4 was developed by CB Richard Ellis in an cffoti to conform to prior analyses performed for the Lakeshore Sub District 1-ll. CB Richard Ellis obtained the information contained herein from sources we believe to be reliable. However, we have not verified its accuracy and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is submitted subject to the possibility of cnors, omissions, and cbange of conditions. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates used arc for example only and do not represent the current or future performance of the property. AMENDED CONCEPTUAi.. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-fl 1 05/LEGALI 4505979. 7 9/l[/03 PA(iE 29 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 EXI-IIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT 1-B, NORTH 18 COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. HISTORY The original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B ("SDIB"), approved by the City of Renton, included a mix of multi-family and retail development. Over the past two years, however, the Puget Sound real estate market has changed. Highest and best use for the north 21.2 acres of SDJB (referenced by the original Plan as the "ROHY' area; now referenced as "North IB''), has shifted away from retail and multifamily to office/commercial and hotel uses. The redevelopment now anticipated for North lB includes a hotel and restaurants on Lot 7B and office/business/R&D uses on Lot SA. This analysis supplements the Economic Benefit Analysis performed in 2005 to support the original Conceptual Plan for SDIB by generally assessing the economic benefit associated with redevelopment of North lB for office and hotel uses. As discussed in greater detail below, we conclude that the anticipated hotel and ol1icc redevelopment of SD 1B will benefit the City, County and State at a rate equal to or greater than the retail redevelopment program assumed by the original Conceptual Plan. II. SCOPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HOTEL/RESTAURANT Lot 7B is approximately 5.07 acres. On the south side of N gth Street, the property is bordered by Park and Garden Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with a regional hotel management and development company with more than 20 years of experience in the Pacific Northwest.. A hotel and commercial development is planned according to the following program: > Residence Inn by Marriott; "Extended Stay" ';, 170 rooms > 130,000 sq. ft > Total employees -approximately 45 to 50 AMENDEI) CONCEPTUAL Kl::OEVLLOPMENT PLAN 03003 -0 l OS/LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11108 PAGE 30 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Y Average Daily Rate (ADR) -approximately$] 65 >" Annual beginning revenue of approximately $8,500,000 Y Completion is projected in early 2010 y 2 restaurant pads Y 2 "sit down" style restaurants; one approximately 5,000 sq. ft., the second approximately 8,000 sq. ft. Y Total employees for both restaurants -approximately 100 ,-. Annual beginning revenue of approximately $3,500,000 (for both restaurants) y Completion is projected in early 20 I 0 The combined value of the hotel and restaurant development is projected to exceed $42 million (land+ construction). OFFICE Lot SA is approximately 14.21 acres. On the south side of N 8th Street, the property is bordered by Logan and Park Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with one of the largest publicly traded office and industrial property developers in the United States. An office/business/R&D development is planned according to the following program: Y Class "A" office project for general office use Y 4 buildings@+/-150,000 sq. ft each; total office of 300k to 600k sq. ft. Y Project to be 100% built out by 2014 >" 2,000 to 3,000 employees/jobs Y Parking is planned to be a combination of structural and surface, based on the ultimate size of the office buildings Y Construction is projected to start in 2009 with completion of the initial phase in 2010 The combined value of the office development is projected to exceed $165 million (land I construction). III. ANALYSIS The 2005 Economic Benefit Study addressed and quantified the original Conceptual Plan's positive effect on jobs, annual income and city tax revenues. That analysis continues to be relevant to Scenarios 1 and 1 of the Amended Conceptual Plan now proposed. With respect to Scenario 2, which assumes redevelopment of the North 1 B portion of Sub-District 1B for office/business/R&D/hotel/commercial uses as described above, we conclude the following: AMENDED CONCEPTUi\l REDEVELOPMEN'J PLAN 03003-0105/LEGAJ,! 4505979.7 9/11108 PAGE 31 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 • Proposed sit-down restaurants and hospitality components complement the cunent retail development at The Landing. Proposed additional hotel lodging near the downtown core encourages revenue generating traffic and a tourism multiplier that will be beneficial to the City. • Washington state sales tax on the improvements and excise tax on the sale of the land should exceed $15 million. Using an industry standard of 200 square feet for each employee, the office portion should directly bring 3,000 jobs to Renton in additions to the 150 jobs created by the hotel and restaurants. • While there are many variables, we conclude that the current/revised conceptual plan for SD 1B essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic benefits to those anticipated as part of the original conceptual plan. Proposed changes to the original Conceptual Plan provide for an increasingly diverse redevelopment of downtown Renton. A new hotel, restaurants, retail space and additional class A office space will continue to draw people to the downtown area. The city, county and state will continue to benefit via additional jobs, increased properly values and public revenues. AMEKDED CONChPTU,\L REDEVEf .OPMENT PLAN OJ003-0105/LEGAI, 14505979 .7 9/11/08 PAGE 32 To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee. Associate Planner Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney September 23, 2008 ORD Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. \Varren Senior Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanetta L. Fontes Assistant City Attorneys Ann S. Nielsen Garmon Newsom II Shawn E. Arthur ·~:ITY r')i Boeing Planned Action and Amended Conceptual Plan Project, LUA08-l 12 IQ/,:F¥~:; ,<tu.,, 1 have enclosed a copy of the above-mentioned ordinance. The original has been sent to the City Clerk. LJ\V: scr 1:'nc. cc: Jay Covington ,Wgnnic ~ aHOn . - .• . V ''7 Lawrence J. Warren 0..:-~10_-:::.J-21--...i:~~N"-!?~- Ple_!le furnish the following to the City Cleft( Civilian ASAP ---Cert. Of Valid Petition Legal Daaiption + Verify Content•• ""Please review ordinance for accuracy, mmbering sequence, 111d compliance with City Code. If you note any effOII, plNM conlac:l lhe City Altomey's olllce to make revisions. Approved (initial) Post Office Box 626 -Renton. Washington 98057 -(425) 255-8678 I FAX (425) 255-5474 ' '.-. ·;1r, j ,1 .,,c-,-:, j·----.. ------·---· -·----... ~- --·-·--... --! ,,~ .. t' L---·-· I ! I ) .l'h," ·~! ·,.-··f'!"i..!h:Ct<(),"-;/\ii I j/·.,., r, t}.' ·.1 )Mc ,.·.t, ,,:, r!(). '(·•~~ .0·1'.'. 1.)bj:r,«) t ·-----J r ,. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.~~- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, \VASHINGTON, DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1-B OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN A VENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, AND 6TH STREET. \VHEREAS, RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled the "Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS" has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of Boeing's Renton Plant property: and WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District 1-B (see Exhibit A); and w·HEREAS, by Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area -Industrial (EA-I), Employment Area -Transition (EA-T) and Employment Arca Office (EA-0) to Urban Center 'forth (UC-NJ; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center North 1 (UC-N 1 ); and \VHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the EIS, which is recorded under King County recording number 2003121000163 7 ("Boeing Development Agreement"); and ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District 1-B ; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2008, the City approved an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B ("Amended IB Conceptual Plan"), attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, an Enviromnental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-District I B, which compares the Amended I B Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District 1-B as "Planned Actions" that are consistent with the Urban Center North I (UC-NI) designation and zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL or THE CITY or RENTON, W ASl!INGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS rOLLOWS: SECTION I. Purpose. The City of Renton dedares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District 1-B as "Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21 C.031; and B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a Planned Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District 1-B will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District 1-B area that is consistent with the Amended I B Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. 2 "' ,. ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Findings. The City Council finds that: A The EIS addresses all significant envirorunental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the Amended 1 B Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and B. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation fees (Parks, Fire and Traffic), arc adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of development pursuant to the Amended I B Conceptual Plan; and C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance economic development; and D. Opportunities for public involvement have heen provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Plan review and approval process for Suh-District 1-B. SECTION III. Designation of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Establishing Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District 1-B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated off-site improvements. Uses and activities described in the Amended I B Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit Il, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, are designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031. Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the 3 ORDINANCE NO. proposed development on Sub-District lB, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the EIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Review Criteria. I. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following conditions: (a) The project 1s located on Sub-District 1-B, or 1s an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District 1-B; and (b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and (c) The Director has determined that the project's significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC 190-11-315; and ( d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and 4 , ORDINANCE NO. (e) The Director has detennined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District 1-B development; and (f) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and (g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. D. Effect of Planned Action. I. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under SEPA. 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. 4. Amendments of the approved Amended Sub-District 1 B Conceptual Plan may be approved administratively, so long as such amendments remain consistent with the spirit 5 ORDINANCE NO. and intent of the adopted Plan. For development of Sub-District 1 B qualifying as a planned action pursuant to this Ordinance, a proposed amendment of the Amended Sub-District l B Conceptual Plan is consistent with the adopted Plan's spirit and intent if such amendment does not exceed the maximum development parameters analyzed in the EIS. If amendments of the Amended Sub-District lB Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the EIS, supplemental environmental review may be required under the SEP A rules. E. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: 1. Development applications shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist [where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)] or such other environmental review forms provided by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application. 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. 3. If the project application is within Sub-District 1-B, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in Section III of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the 6 ORDINANCE NO. appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEP A review, threshold determination, or EIS shall be required. 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Plaimed Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 6. If a project does not qualify as a Plaimed Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEPA review procedure consistent with City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope ot· the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the E1S. SECTION IV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 31, 2018, by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements. Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified. SECTION V. Conllict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. 7 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VI. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ______ ~• 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of ________ , 2008. Approved as to form: Lawrence .J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ------ ORD.1503 :9/11/08:scr Denis Law, Mayor 8 COMMITTEE OF THE Wl:(OLE COMMITTEE REPORT October 20, 2008 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date /tJ-~tJ-;<f)O? Sub-District 1-B Planned Action Ordinance and Amended Conceptual Plan (Referred October 6, 2008 The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Planned Action Ordinance and adopt the Amended Conceptual Flan proposed by the Boeing Co. for the redevelopment of 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District 1-B". The project site is bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8th Street on the north, and N 6" Street on the south. The Amended Conceptual Plan divides the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North 1-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations. and is available for near-term redevelopment, and the southern portion of the Sub-district currently know as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re'use potential and 12.85 acres ofremaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. The Amended Conceptual Plan contains several alternative scenarios: Scenario 1, a retail complement to The Landing's urba_n retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. To enhance the Plan and 'its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center--North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Committee recommends the following conditions be imposed on the Amended Conceptual Plan: 1) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestria_n-oriented Street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the sub-district and the -pla1med retail/entertainment center developing to the north; and, 2) Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrollnding areas; and, 3) Provisions shall be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension of N. 7th Street; provided, that construction of N. 7th between Logan Ave. and Park Ave. shall not occur prior to removal of the Boeing Data Hub currently located on Lot SE of the Lakeshore Landing 2 Binding Siie Plan; and, 4) That a transit facility be an allowed use in the immediately availabl_e property, if funding for such a facility emerged and developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment _and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail, office and/or employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Amended Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as_ a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. In addition, the adoption of the proposed Planned Action Ordinance would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation. The Committee further recommends that the Planned Action ordinance regarding this matter l?e presented for first afl6 seco11d reading. 1J)~~~ Marcie Palmer, Council President cc: Ja5 Gs 1iRgti;iR YHJ CltiefAdminisliati.c Officer Alex Pietsch-CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman -Public Work Administrat.oT" C. E. Vincent, Planning Director Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Il:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\08-112.Vanessa\COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE Subdist lb 08-112.doc COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT October 20, 2008 Sub-District 1-B Planned Action Ordinance and Amended Conceptual Plan Referred October 6, 2008) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Planned Action Ordinance and adopt the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed by the Boeing Co. for the redevelopment of 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District 1-B". The project site is bounded by Logan Avenue Non the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8'' Street on the north, and N 6'" Street on the south. The Amended Conceptual Plan divides the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North 1-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment, and the southern portion of the Sub-district currently know as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres ofremaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. The Amended Conceptual Plan contains several alternative scenarios: Scenario 1, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. To enhance the Plan and its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Committee recommends the following conditions be imposed on the Amended Conceptual Plan: I) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the sub-district and the planned retail/entertainment center developing to the north; and, 2) Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, 3) Provisions shall be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension of N. 7th Street; provided, that construction of N. 7th between Logan Ave. and Park Ave. shall not occur prior to removal of the Boeing Data Hub currently located on Lot 5E of the Lakeshore Landing 2 Binding Site Plan; and, 4) That a transit facility be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail, office and/or employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Amended Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. In addition, the adoption of the proposed Planned Action Ordinance would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing enviromnental documentation. The Committee further recommends that the Planned Action ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first and second reading. Marcie Palmer, Council President cc: Jay Covington -AJLS Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch-CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman -Public Work Administrator C. E. Vincent, Planning Director Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\08-112.Vanessa\COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Subdist lb 08-112.doc .... • BOEING SUB-DISTRICT 1-B CONCEPTUAL PLAN & PLANNED ACTION PUBLIC MEETING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE October 20, 2008 This Hearing will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the following issues: The Boeing Company is requesting approval of Planned Action legislation and an Amended Conceptual Plan, as required by Boeing's Development Agreement with the City of Renton. The 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District 1-B" is bounded by Logan Avenue Non the west, Garden Avenue Non the east, N 8th Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south. The original Conceptual Plan was approved by City Council in November of 2005, which is represented as "Scenario I" within the Amended Conceptual Plan. The subject site is zoned Urban Center North I (UC-NI) and is designated Urban Center North on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Additional public comment opportunity will be available, for site- specific development, at the Master Plan and Site Plan stages. Amended Conceptual Plan: The proposed Amended Conceptual Plan continues to divide the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North 1-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment. The southern portion of the sub-district currently known as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres ofremaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. This Amended Conceptual Plan addresses development under several alternative scenarios: Scenario I, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office, employment, and hotel uses undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. The Boeing Co. Development Agreement states, "The Council will base its approval on the proposed Conceptual Plan's fuljillment of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center- North. " Once adopted, the City will use the Conceptual Plan to evaluate all subsequent development permit applications within the sub-districts based on consistency. Planned Action: The applicant is also requesting the Council adopt a Planned Action Ordinance. This Planned Action would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October 2003. The approval of Planned Action legislation would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation, as allowed by RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197- 11-164, 168 and 315. As a result of approving this Planned Action Ordinance, development permit applicants would be required to submit an environmental consistency analysis and receive subsequent approvals from the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC). A consistency analysis would be required as individual master plans and/or site plan s are proposed. In addition, the adoption of Planned /\ction legis lation provides added entit lement and sc heduling predictabi li ty as developers beg in s to prepare for the redevelopment of the 50 .7-acre site. Department of Corrrnunity & Econorric Deve lopment .,.~,,11-1:~.-..1.1n.:1x, 4olll.:n.3r.tnlt;n,l'~ni,l't'fl1,,:n ... ; ·1 , .......... ·:.,, •I_.'. ~ ' ..I .. I • I :I I j Legend: LUAOS-112 -Vicinity Map c:::J Project S ite I• ~ J .~ <i ~' ~ I ·, l· , , , 'I \' •.• •i •.• .Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-Dist rict 1-8 0 S20 ----====Feet I Lake Wuslzi11gto11 Alex Pietsch, Ad ministra tor Adrian a Joh nson, Plannin g Technic ian I •• . , .,· (;:.I ,· r;J .. . , C>' . •• . , ,· .. Amended Conceptual Redevel~p~ent Plan & Planned Action for Sub-D1stnct 1-8 Legend D Parce ls Su b-D ist rict 1-B r:."J City Limits r-J Par cels Oc to ber 7. 2008 N 0 500 1.000 ~....iiii:::::::==Feet 1 12.000 $ '.' '. !-; · .. - I .: I 'ti--------_..... ____ ...j I. ' ! : . i ·1 ---. . . i · 1 Sub-Distr ic t A . ·= :~. --· I , .d,' --<~·.··. ' . Sub~Distr ict 8 ---. -·· r-'r""'T-_ __,. __ . ·I ·t: ! i -. •• ' l . ·j I ; ·-1 ' I _J r . 1 - I I r ·. ---; r 1-· . ,' / / I / ~,.,. / .,J \_.: I 4° t I / I I I f I :· ... ,... i :-_: i : I I .• ' : j i ' • I l ' I' I _J ___ _ Urban Center North District Sub-areas Districts Subject to Conceptual Plan Approval Note: Distri ct bmmdaries include dedicated R-0-W Department of Community and Economic Development A . Jolrnson November 3, 2008 EXHIBIT A N CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Sub-District 1-B December 2008 Amendment Renton, Washington Background The Boeing Company ("Boeing") has been working with the City of Renton (the "City") since early 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategics associated with its 73 7 facility in Renton, Washington (the "Renton Plant Site"). In October of 2003, Boeing prepared an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the Renton Plant Site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (the "EIS"). In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment (the "Development Agreement") that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: • Renton commitments to fund and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • Boeing commitments to fund certain private aspects of redevelopment; and • Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects to subdivide, develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not related to airplane manufacturing. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B, and District 2 (see Exhibit 1). City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub-District 1-A is now known as "The Landing" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-B Sub-District 1-B is located immediately to the south of The Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit 1, and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub- District 1-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of2005 and approved in November of2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub-District 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative AMFNIJFIJ CONCEPTLIAL REDE VF I .OPMENT PLAN 01003-0 I 05/L.EGAL 14505979.7 9/J I 108 EXHIBIT 8 PAGE I impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District 1-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the EIS. A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of 2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshorc Landing 2" (the "BSP"). The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District 1-B: Lots SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, 7 A, 7B, and 7C. The Original Conceptual Plan addressed infrastructure improvements imposed as conditions of development pursuant to the Development Agreement to support redevelopment of Sub- Districts 1-A and 1-B. In particular, a portion of Sub-District 1-B was reserved for a four-lane extension of gth Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues (the "Extension"). The Extension and related improvements have been completed. Pursuant lo the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B (Lots 5A and 7B of the BSP; formerly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as "North 1- B") were planned for retail uses complementary to the Harvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1- B did not proceed. Boeing now desires lo market North 1-B with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center -North, District One zone ("UC-NI" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District 1-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the "Boeing Remainder." The Boeing Remainder is illustrated on Exhibit I. Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved v,ith office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.85 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("DP I" through "DP4"). This amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District 1-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the retail alternative proposed for North I -B in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes of'!ice and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots SA and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the UC-NI zone. Boeing seeks the City's approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan so that it can market North 1-B to potential developers under a greater range of uses. The timing ofa land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PL.AN OJ 003-0105/LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 P i\GF 2 Submittal Included within this submittal is a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub-District 1-B, a Conceptual Plan Diagram (see Exhibit 2), and a benefit analysis demonstrating a range of potential one-lime and recurring revenues generated by: (l) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the North 1- B portion of the Sub-District (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 78 of the BSP); and (2) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2010 for DP I and 2016 for DP 2-DP 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 l 05/LbGA L l '15 05979. 7 PAVE 3 9/11/08 Aerial, txhihit 1 AMENDED CONCFPTU A I,. R FDFVF I .OPMENT PLAN 03003 -0 I 05/1 H ,A I, 14 505979.7 9!1 1/08 PAGE 4 September 26 20'J S FULLER · SEARS ARCHITECTS ~ONCEPTUAL PLA SUB-DISTRICT 1-B MAX 30% LOT COVE.RAGE ~OEING t Ac.---.,;...,..,---1----IF I-STORY RETA IL ----"'C"-~~~+--:-:-....... ;,;;:;:::;;;;:::;,o~---+ •;: LEG END:' R RETAI L L LAB 0 OFFICE DP.-1 1 r,. / .MA)(~ITS PER ACRE MULTl•FA MILY RESID~~TIAL -~5'35 UNITS> NOTE : "1AX-30% LOT .CO,VERAGE~r 1-STORY '"RE'i"AIL (65,000 SF) p PARKING GARAGF MF --MULT l-1-AMI LY PE DES TR IA N CONNECTIO NS (270 ,000 SF) . NOTE : MAX.ONt &-STORY BLDG. IFOrFICE (120 000 SF) --i {_ ~:,A X. O N E 6 -STORY l!AB BLDG . (180,000 S F) W /SHARED PARKING IN DP-2 GARAGE NOTE: MAX.ONE 6-STORY BLOG 1rorr1CE (120.000 Sf") WITti NEW PARKING GAf\.AGE DP -4 : MAX. MO 6-S TORY LAB B . (360.000 SF TOTAL) SUPPORTED BY E XIST PARKING GARAGE NOTE : MAX TW O 6-51 O RY BLDGS. l~UFFIGE (300,000 SF) WITI I NEW 2 -3 STO R Y PARKING GARAGE . ® . -. . . EXISTING GARAGE NOT A PART Conceptual Plan Diagram, Exhibit 2 0 L H R p Conceptual Plan Sub -District 1 B , __ _j • North 8th Streel O\L ••••••• p Legend Office L a b Hotel Reta il Parking Garage • I Exiating I Garage . ' l I ________ , A.VIENDED CONCEPTU AL RED EV ELOPMENT PL A N 03003 -0 105 /L EGAL 145059 79 .7 9/1 1/08 .... R Existing Garage Conceptual Development Plan This Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B is comprised of two somewhat distinct parts. The North 1-B area makes up the northern portion of the property along gth Avenue, has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations, and is available for near-term redevelopment. The Boeing Remainder makes up the southern portion of the Sub-District, and contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space with re-use potential and approximately 12. 85 acres ofland with future redevelopment potential. North 1-B Boeing recognizes that high-quality development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City's vision for the Urban Center-North. Potential developers of lots within Sub-District 1-B must join with the City to ensure that such development is well-designed and is of a quality and at a scale that is consistent with the City's long-term vision for the area. As planning for Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-R has progressed, the land south of gth has been identified as an important component of the overall project. The area, now known as North 1-R, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative scenarios: Scenario I, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios l and 2. Each scenario is described below. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of North 1-B containing a data hub for the Renton Plant Site (Lot 5E of the BSP), will be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. 1. Scenario 1 Under this scenario, North 1-B is envisioned to contain a large format "destination" retailer located along Logan Avenue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally, the large format retail development (users with footprints of 50,000 square feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet) is planned to occur along 8th and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue. The supporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 feet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park Avenue. Scenario 1 anticipates pedestrian connections to occur internally within the site both east toward Park Avenue and south toward 61h Avenue. Vehicle access would occur off of Park Avenue, with loading and delivery functions relying upon Garden A venue and an internal service road running along the southern edge of the North 1-B property line. At a maximum lot coverage ratio of 30%, the North 1-B site could accommodate up to 270,000 square feet of retail space. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL Rl:DEVELOP.\1ENT PLAN 03003-0105/LEGAL l 4505979. 7 9/l 1/08 PAGE 6 2. Scenario 2 a. Office and Employment Component Under Scenario 2, Lot SA would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include technology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. Smaller-scale ground-floor and/or freestanding retail uses may also be included in this development scenario. At this maximum density, the majority of accessory parking would be provided in an above-grade structure, and impervious surface coverage would be up to 95%. Buildings would be three to six stories in height, with f1oorplates of up to approximately 40,000 square feet. The build-out of the Office and Employment Component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand, future buildings may include structured parking to achieve density ofup to 600,000 square feet on- sitc, or build-out may be limited to a fully surface-parked option, in which overall density would be approximately 300,000 square feet. Development within this range of densities is also possible. b. Hotel/Retail Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 7B would contain a seven to nine story hotel and two separate, small- scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complement and support the hotel use. The hotel would consist of a maximum of 130,000 square feet; the supporting retail uses would total a maximum of 13,000 square feet (consisting of two buildings, one approximately S,000 square feet and one approximately 8,000 square feet). All uses would be surfaced parked. The hotel and retail uses would be oriented toward Park Avenue. 3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios l and 2. In particular, this Scenario anticipates that either Lot SA or Lot 7B is not redeveloped according to Scenario 2 and is instead redeveloped with retail uses. Any combination implemented would not exceed the overall development capacities contemplated for North 1-B. Summary Redevelopment of the North 1-B parcel as contemplated by this Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent with the City's overarching goal for the Urban Center North: creation of a large- scale, mixed-use development including uses such as retail, research and development, labs, office, employment, residential and commercial. See, e.g., City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Urban Center North Land Use Designation ("Comp. Plan, LU- UCN"), Purpose Statement. This Plan is consistent with applicable goals for the Urban Center North that encourage "a mix of uses to improve the City's tax and employment base" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LlJ-266), "support a range and variety of commercial and office uses" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-267) and "allow hospitality uses such as hotels" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-268). The City's vision for District One A/',,1ENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LFGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 7 anticipates similar new development including retail, office, employment, lab, research and development, and hotel uses that ultimately result in a cohesive mixed-use district (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Vision-District One). Jn particular, proposed Scenario l supports the City's vision and applicable goals for the Urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on North l-B that complement existing retail uses located north of 8th Avenue. Scenario 2 similarly supports the City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North 1-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios I and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center North and District One. All three scenarios would add to the City's tax base, provide additional jobs and help to expand the overall mix of uses currently located in District One. Boeing Remainder This portion of'the Amended Conceptual Plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, I 980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout the Boeing Remainder (the 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is five to six stories in height, ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet in area, with a total area for all four buildings of 660,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in surrounding surface lots, at an overall ratio of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Boeing cmrently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in significant rehabilitation, lease or sale of the structures. At the time of the Original Conceptual Plan, a I 960s-vintage lab building, known as the 10-71 building, was located along Logan Avenue. The 10-71 building was demolished in 2008, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building ("DPl"; Lot SB of the BSP). For purposes of this Amended Conceptual Plan, we have assumed that the existing office buildings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. If the existing buildings are occupied by other users at some point in the future, such buildings could be supported by parking at a market-driven ratio of3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a 3 .9-acre site between the 10-18 and I 0-20 buildings ("DP2"; Lot SD of the BSP); a I. 8-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of 6th ("DP3"; the property constituting DP3 was not included in the BSP); and, a 2.2-acre site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 6th ("DP4"; the property constituting DP4 was not included in the BSP). AJ\.1ENDFJ) CONCEPTlJAL Rt-:l)EVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 l 05/LEGAL l 4505979.7 9/11/08 PAVE 8 1. DP! This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the North 1-B property. Fronting on 61 h Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 office building and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-tenn (2010) redevelopment potenlial, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions DP 1 's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more slructures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. Given its size, DP-I could accommodate the parking needs of whichever use was ultimately implemented on the site, such that the site would be self-parked. 2. DP2 and DP4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for the existing office buildings are reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow parking areas for Boeing employees, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment of DP2 and DP4 with new buildings containing either lab or offices uses, consistent with the current development pattern. In some instances where new lab uses could be developed, surplus parking within existing garages could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new, private open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity, this Amended Conceptual Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings are sold or leased to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Renlon Plant Site to accommodate its employees. The Amended Conceptual Plan contemplates the potential redevelopment of these parcels with approximately 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. Both DP2 and DP4 could accommodate structures containing as much as 260,000 square feet on DP2 and 125,000 square feet on DP4. To accommodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on DP2, and any additional parking needs would be provided by ear-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On DP4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing 10-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. 3. DP3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the corner of 6'h and Park Avenues. This Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, in both cases housed within a single six-story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. If developed as lab space, the building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. If developed as office space, parking could either be provided in a new garage on DP3 or accommodated by providing additional parking levels within a DP2 garage. A.MENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT Pl.AN 03003-0 l 05/LcU AL 145 05979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 9 Summary The redevelopment of the Hoeing Remainder proposed by this Amended Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's vision for the Urban Center North and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, commercial corridor south of The Landing between Logan and Garden A venues, with mid-rise office or lab buildings along street frontages and structured parking behind. Whether redeveloped with all office, all lab, or a mix of of1ice and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. Economic Benefit Analysis Summary Boeing's Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B seeks to both allow for the near-term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix of uses that significantly improves the City's tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan (Exhibit 3) and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment Scenarios for North 1-B (Exhibit 4), have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (1) Development on the North 1-B portion of the Suh-District for either retail use or a combination of hotel and office/employment uses (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development on the Boeing Remainder for office and/or laboratory uses (beginning in 2010 for DP! and 2016 for DP 2-DP 4). PJv1FNDFD CO:\'CEPTUAL REOEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/f ,EGAL 14505979 _ 7 PAGEIO 9/l 1/08 EXHIBIT 3 2005 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY SUB DISTRICT 1-B BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking lo estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Sub District 1-B at its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District 1-B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if fully developed as follows: Lab Multi-Family Total 900,000 535.500 1,435,500 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targeted Renton Boeing parcels arc entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured ( one-time and recurring) in terms of: ? Jobs ~ Income );, Property values );, Public revenues AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0105/LEG AL! 4 505979 .7 9/1 J/08 PAGE 11 State of Washington King County City of Renton II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels comprising 12.85 net acres into modern lab and multi-family space are only as valid as underlying assumptions. l These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: "J,, By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B arc fully redeveloped and absorbed into lab and multi-family uses.2 "J,, Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 2013. 1 Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed tu be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMEl\"T PLAN OJ003-0!05/LEGAL14505979 7 9/11/08 PAGE 12 Y These lab jobs would generate an additional$ 158 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2013. Y Of this income total, over $88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 2013 and thereafter. Y The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast at over $550 million by 2013. Y The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the State of Washington is estimated at over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-lime slate revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi- family space on the four Boeing parcels at the Renton Sub District 1-B site. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of redeveloping Boeing's four parcels of excess property in Sub District 1-B are now summarized. Y By 2013, it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City would be created by 2013. Y The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over $6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. Y The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of over $2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. AMENDED CO'iCEPTUAL REDPVP! .OPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LECJAL 14505979 _ 7 9/11/08 PAGE l3 Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. for example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $40,000 during land development and over $6,168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-time municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the lab and multi-family buildings arc completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City ofRenton's share of property taxes. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $115,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $275,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelo ment Scenario Development Development 2008-2012 in 2013 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 L700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2, I 011 ANNUAL INCOMF, Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ 123,146,400 Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1.696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 1,952,593 Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ 115,496 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275,071 Total Tax Revenues $ 40.234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 Chart 1 shows that 2,100 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 1.700 would be direct on-site lab jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT Pl.AN 03003-0 l 05/LEGAL l 4 505979. 7 9/J 1/08 PACiE 14 Chart 1 ------------------------ 1 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2013 and thereafter. Chart2 I NewJobAnnuallncome in2013 ' $150 ~ !: $100 0 " ~ 0 . = ~ $50 ~ $- With Project AMENDHl CONCEPTUAi. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0J05/LEGALl450S979 7 9111/08 -------------- ---------------- Without Project PAGF 15 Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton prope11y values of redeveloping the four Boeing parcels in Sub-District 1-8. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under $74 million to nearly $624 million-an increase of$550 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS With Project $0 $200 Dollars in millions AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I OS/LEGAL 14505979 _ 7 9/11/08 $400 $600 $623.8 PAGE 16 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-tim e tax revenues 1·rom saks and n:al estate tran s fer taxes of over $6.208.000 during the estimated 2 008 through 2012 development period. In addition. the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Sub District 1-13 parcels starting in 2009. Thi s will increase each year until 2013 vvhere it peaks at over $2.343,000 million as an annual flo\v into the City. Chart 4 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues "' :J = C: 53,000,000 ~ $2,000,000 Qj i:::: ~ c:: ~ .£ u S 1.000 .000 $-:U 2008 2009 Al\l[NDED CO'.;C[PTL:\L RllJEVELOPl\1 F N T Pl .AN 0.,003-0 I 051 I.fG1\I. I 450")79 7 ')I J I ,'08 2010 2011 2012 2013 ,----- • Recurring , i D Onetime P '\( i i-I: ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY (2005) HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking lo estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping certain Sub District 1-B property under option by Harvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land uses. This "right of first option" (ROFC)) property is the Phase II expansion of Harvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District lB property The ROFO Phase lI land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-R Renton property. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: Retail-Shop Space Retail-Big Rox Total 91,000 135,000 226,000 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises their option to purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full redevelopment of this property as retail uses between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured ( one-time and recurring) in terms of: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0105/1.EG Al .14505979. 7 9111108 PAGEl8 > Jobs > Income > Property values > Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003 .Q l 05/LEGAL 14505979 .7 9/11/08 PAGF 19 II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions.3 These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Boeing Renton Sub District lB property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 between "redevelopment" of the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: >' By 2008 (project stabilization), an estimated 1,667 _jobs would be created if the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box retail uses. 4 J;, Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. J;, These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2008. 3 Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 4 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting ( induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMENDED co:--:CEPTUAL RcDEVHOPMENT Pl .AN 03003-0 I 05/LEGAL I 4 505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 20 > Of this income total, nearly $45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B ROFO parcels and over $35 million in indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. > The corresponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly $53 million by 2008. ,-The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5.1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3.8 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this excess Boeing property in Sub District 1-l:l are now summarized: > By 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City jobs would be created by 2008. Y The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667,000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District 1-B parcels. > The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly $856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $66,000 during land development and over $601,000 during construction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I OS/LEGAL I 4505979. 7 9/J ) /08 PAGE 21 Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly $856,000. Nearly $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton' s share of property laxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer laxes are estimated at over $26,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS HARVEST PARTNERS SUB DISTRICT 1-B One-time Land One-time Building Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006-2007 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 Indirect Jobs 16 39 Total Jobs 58 131 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 Indirect Income $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 Total Income $ 2,799,475 s 12,817,427 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 Total Tax Revenue::; $ 601,458 Recurring in 2008 859 202 1,061 s 44,657,600 s 8,889,439 $ 53.547,039 $ l 86,873 $ 584,225 $ 58,346 $ 26,325 $ 855,769 Chart 1 shows that 1,061 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO property in Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B area. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03 003-0 l OS/LEGAL 14 505979. 7 9111/08 Chart 1 PAGE 22 Citv of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 v 1,200 --t;06t-· -- 800 400 -. - With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect ofl~site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. " -,,; 0 Q ~ 0 " = $60 $40 ~ $20 i $- Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2008 ------------------------------ $54 With Project Without Proj~ct Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from $8.6 million to nearly $61.3 million-an increase of $52. 7 million. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I osnH,ALl4505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE23 Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY Without Project ~ $8.6 + ' With Project $61 .3 1--------------1--------------J $0 $25 Dollars in millions $50 $75 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B property starting in 2007. This will increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/1 .EGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 Chart 4 PAGE 24 ,----~-- i New City Of Renton Tax Revenues Sl,000,000 "' $800,000 " = C " >-$600,000 " 1Z " " $400,000 -,... c $200,000 u $- 2008 2009 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMcNT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LEUAL 145 05979. 7 9/11/08 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 D Recurring I• Onetime PAGE25 Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTIUCT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008-2012 CITY.JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 Indirect Jobs 9 159 Total Jobs 34 540 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ Real Estate Trans for Tax $ 3,118,965 $ Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 s HARVESTPARTNERSROFOPARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERlY One-time Land Redevelopment Scenario Development crrY.JOllS Direct Jobs 42 Indirect Jobs 16 Total Jobs 58 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2,121,030 Indirect Income $ 678,445 Total Income $ 2,799,475 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 66,379 .Employee llead Tax Real E.state Transfer Tax Total Tax Revenues $ 66,379 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL. RFDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I osn,EG AL I 4505979. 7 9111108 One-time Building Development 2006-2007 92 39 131 $ 9,432,720 $ $ 3,384,707 s $ 12.817,427 s $ $ 295,201 $ $ $ 306,257 $ $ 601,458 $ Recurring in 2013 1,700 400 2,100 123,146,400 17,596,700 140,743,100 1,952,593 115,496 275,071 2,343,160 Recurring in 2008 859 202 1,061 44,657,600 8,889,439 53,547,039 186,873 584,225 58,346 26,325 855,769 PAGE 2h COMBINED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One~time Land Redevelopment Scenario Development CffY JOBS Direct Jobs 67 Indirect Jobs 25 Total Jobs 92 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 3,406,655 indirect Income $ 1,089,693 Total Income $ 4,496,348 CrrYTAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 106.613 Employee I-lead Tax Real Estate Trans for Tax Total Tax Revenues $ 106,613 AMENDED CONCEPTUAI. RFJ)l·:VFLOPMJ·:NT PLAN 03003~0 I 05/LEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 One-time Building Recurring Development 2006-2012 in 2013 473 2,559 198 602 671 3,161 $ 59,393,400 $ 167,804,000 $ 38,347,461 s 26,486,139 $ 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 $ 2,139,466 s 3,344,519 $ 584,225 $ 173,842 $ 3,425,222 $ 301,396 $ 6,769,741 $ 3,198,929 PAGE 27 TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DIS1RICT 1-B City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 3,161 With Project Without Project ~----------------------------------~ $200 t: $150 " 8 'o e .2 ~ $100 $50 $- I [ New Job Annual Income in 2013 $194 With Project Without Project '-·-------------------------------- .. ~ " .. " a: " " ..... c u $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 El Recurring • Onetime AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT Pl.AN OJ 003-01 05/LEG AL 14505979. 7 PAGE 28 9/11/08 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT 1-B, NORTH lB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON This Economic Benefit Study (Exhibit 4) was prepared to help align, support and provide context for recent land use amendments applicable to Sub-District 1-B as reflected in the attached Conceptual Redevelopment Plan. The analysis included in this Exhibit 4 was developed by CB Richard Ellis in an effort to conform to prior analyses performed for the Lakeshore Sub District 1-B. CB Richard Ellis obtained the information contained herein from sources we believe lo be reliable. However, we have not verified its accuracy and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is submitted subject to the possibility of errors, omissions, and change of conditions. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates used are for example only and do not represent the current or future performance of the property. 1\1\1ENDE:D CONCEPTUAi, REDE VF I DPMf~NT PLAN 03003-0105/J .FCJAJ .14505979.7 9/11/08 PACir. 29 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT 1-B, NORTH lB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. HISTORY The original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B ("SD1B"), approved by the City of Renton, included a mix of multi-family and retail development. Over the past two years, however, the Puget Sound real estate market has changed. Highest and best use for the north 21.2 acres of SD I B (referenced by the original Plan as the "ROFO" area; now referenced as "North IB"), has shifted away from retail and multifamily to oflice/commercial and hotel uses. The redevelopment now anticipated for North lB includes a hotel and restaurants on Lot 7B and office/business/R&D uses on Lot SA. This analysis supplements the Economic Benefit Analysis performed in 2005 to support the original Conceptual Plan for SD 113 by generally assessing the economic benefit associated with redevelopment of North lB for office and hotel uses. As discussed in greater detail below, we conclude that the anticipated hotel and office redevelopment of SD I B will benefit the City, County and State at a rate equal to or greater than the retail redevelopment program assumed by the original Conceptual Plan. II. SCOPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HOTEL/RESTAURANT Lot 7B is approximately 5.07 acres. On the south side of N gth Street, the property is bordered by Park and Garden Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with a regional hotel management and development company with more than 20 years of experience in the Pacific Northwest.. A hotel and commercial development is plarmed according to the following program: > Residence Inn by Marriott; "Extended Stay" > 170 rooms > 130,000 sq. ft > Total employees -approximately 45 to 50 AMENDED CONCEPTU/\.L REDEVELOPMENT Pl .AN 03001-0105/LEGAL14505979 7 9/l l/08 PAGE JO >-Average Daily Rate (ADR) ·· approximately $165 >-Annual beginning revenue of approximately $8,500,000 Y Completion is projected in early 2010 >-2 restaurant pads >, 2 "sit do\Vll~~ style restaurants; one approximately 5,000 sq. ft., the second approximately 8,000 sq. ft. >-Total employees for both restaurants -approximately 100 >-Annual beginning revenue of approximately $3,500,000 (for both restaurants) Y Completion is projected in early 20 I 0 The combined value of the hotel and restaurant development is projected to exceed $42 million (land+ construction). OFFICE Lot SA is approximately 14.21 acres. On the south side of N s'h Street, the property is bordered by Logan and Park Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with one of the largest publicly traded office and industrial properly developers in the United States. An office/business/R&D development is planned according to the following program: >-Class "A" office project for general office use >, 4 buildings@+/-150,000 sq. ft each; total office of 300k to 600k sq. ft. >-Project to be 100% built out by 2014 >-2,000 to 3,000 employees/jobs ',;, Parking is planned to be a combination of structural and surface, based on the ultimate size of the office buildings >, Construction is projected to start in 2009 with completion of the initial phase in 20 l 0 The combined value of the office development is projected to exceed $165 million (land + construction). III. ANALYSIS The 2005 Economic Benefit Study addressed and quantified the original Conceptual Plan's positive effect on jobs, annual income and city tax revenues. That analysis continues to be relevant to Scenarios 1 and 3 of the Amended Conceptual Plan now proposed. With respect to Scenario 2, which assumes redevelopment of the North IB portion of Sub-District lB for officc/business/R&D/hotel/comrnercial uses as described above, we conclude the following: ~\1ENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I OS/LEGAL I 4505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 31 • Proposed sit-down restaurants and hospitality components complement the current retail development at The Landing. Proposed additional hotel lodging near the downtown core encourages revenue generating traffic and a tourism multiplier that will be beneficial to the City. • Washington state sales tax on the improvements and excise tax on the sale of the lane.I should exceed $15 million. Using an industry standard of 200 square feet for each employee, the office portion should directly bring 3,000 jobs to Renton in additions to the 150 jobs created by the hotel and restaurants. • While there are many variables, we conclude that the current/revised conceptual plan for SD1B essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic benefits to those anticipated as part of the original conceptual plan. Proposed changes to the original Conceptual Plan provide for an increasingly diverse redevelopment of downtown Renton. A new hotel, restaurants, retail space and additional class A office space will continue to draw people to the downtown area. The city, county and state will continue to benefit via additional jobs, increased property values and public revenues. N'v1ENl)ED CONCEPTUAi.. REDEVELOPMENT PL1\N 03003-0105/LEGAL 14505979 _ 7 911 l/08 PAGE 32 "-~y o CITY •F RENTON ~~,<; Departmrnt ot Commnni<y md + oil + Economic Development ~ -~ Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator "/3Nrr0·~y ---------------------- October 6, 2008 Jeffrey Adelson The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, MIC 7H-AH Seattle, WA 98124 SUBJECT: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment for Sub-District 1-B LUA08-ll2, PA, CP Dear Mr, Adelson: Please find enclosed a copy of the Agenda Bill and Issues Paper for the subject application. These documents have been prepared in preparation for the Public Hearing with City Council. A City Council Public Hearing has been scheduled for 7:00 p.m. October 20, 2008 in the Council Chambers on the 7th floor at Renton City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are requested to be present. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ( 425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Laure Whitaker/ Party(ies) of Record Yellow File -------10_5_5 _So_u_th_G_r_a_dy-W-ay_-_R_e_n_to_n_, W-as-h-in-gt_o_n_9_8_05_7 ______ ~. @ This paperconta111s 500/c recycled material, 30% postr:onsumcr AHEAD OF THE CL'RVE ----------- (10/07/2008} Vanessa Dolbee -SR 405 · 19 Redevelopment} From: To: "Palisoc, Felixberto" <PalisoF@wsdot.wa.gov> <VDolbee@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 10/06/2008 04:47 PM Subject: SR 405 (Boeing Redevelopment} Ms. Dolbee, Can you please forward us a copy of the 2003 EIS, if you have a copy available. We do not have further comments for the Consistency Analysis for the Amended Conceptual Plan. I send a memo to you tomorrow. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this development. Felix Palisoc WSDOT -NW Region SnoKing Local Agency & Development Services, MS 240 PO Box 330310 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133-971 O phone: 206-440-4713 email: palisof@wsdot.wa.gov fax: 206-440-4806 Page 1 ---~------- DATE: ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM September 5, 2008 TO: Jennifer Henning, CED -Planning FROM: ~ndy Moya, Records Management Specialist SUBJECT: CAG-08-135-Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. The attached document has been fully executed and is being returned to you. The City Clerk has retained an original for the file. Thank you! Attachment CAG-08-135 CONSUL TANT AGREEMENT ,,rd L~ t- TH1s AGREEMENT is made as of the ..5 day of ~ · , 20 0( between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", for them to perform environmental analysis services related to a proposed amendment to the Conceptual Plan for the Boeing Renton Plant Sub-District 1 B. Information shall be made available for use by the City of Renton Staff and City Council. The CITY and CONSUL TANT agree as set forth below: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant will provide all labor necessary to perform all work, which is described in the attached Scope of Services (Exhibit A). This Agreement and Exhibit hereto contain the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior oral or written representation or understandings. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of the parties. The scope of work may be amended as provided herein. 2. Changes in Scope of Services. The City, without invalidating the Consultant Agreement, may order changes in the services consisting of additions, deletions or modifications, and adjust the fee accordingly. Such changes in the work shall be authorized by written agreement signed by the City and Consultant. If the project scope requires less time, a lower fee will be charged. If additional work is required, the consultant will not proceed without a written change order from the City. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to serve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. 3. Time of Performance. The Consultant shall complete performance of the Consultant Agreement for the items under Consultant's control in accordance with Exhibit A. If items not under the Consultant's control impact the time of performance, the Consultant will notify the City. 4. Term of Consultant Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall end at completion of the scope of work identified in Exhibit A, but no later than March 31, 2009. This Agreement may be extended to accomplish change orders, if required, upon mutual written agreement of the City and the Consultant. 5. Consultant Agreement Sum. The total amount of this Agreement is not to exceed the sum of $16,850.00. Washington State Sales Tax is not required. The Cost Estimate provided by the Consultant to the City specifies total cost. 6. Method of Payment. Payment by the City for services rendered will be made after a voucher or invoice is submitted in the form specified by the City. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days after receipt of such voucher or invoice. The City shall have the right to withhold payment to the Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as the Consultant modifies such work so that the same is satisfactory. 7. Record Maintenance and Work Product. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and services provided in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access to any records required by the City. All originals and copies of work product, exclusive of Consultant's proprietary items protected by copyright such as computer programs, methodology, methods, materials, and forms, shall belong to the City, including records, files, computer disks, magnetic media or material which may be produced by Consultant while performing the services. Consultant will grant the City the right to use and copy Consultant copyright materials as an inseparable part of the work product provided. 8. Assignment Agreement. The Consultant shall not assign any portion of this consultant Agreement without express written consent of the City of Renton. 9. Hold Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or death of Consultant's own employees, or damage to property caused by a negligent act or omission of the Consultant, except for those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or omission by the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the contractor and the city, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, the contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the contractor's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitute the contractor's waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. 10. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain commercial liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 in full force throughout the duration of this Consultant Agreement. It is agreed that on the CONTRACTOR's policy, the City of Renton will be named as Additional lnsured{s) on a non-contributory primary basis. A certificate of insurance and the Primary & Non-Contributory Additional Insurance Endorsement page, properly endorsed, shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. Please note: The cancellation language should read "Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 45 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left." 11. Independent Contractor. Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City. The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered 2 ------------ herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant. 12. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant and all of the Consultant's employees shall perform the services in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and ordinances. Discrimination Prohibited: Consultant, with regard to work performed under this agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, creed, age, sex, the presence of any physical or sensory handicap, or sexual orientation, in the selection and/or retention of employees, or procurement of materials or supplies. This agreement is entered into as of the day and year written above. el Bl , resident LUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 720 61h St S, #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF RENTON le Pietsch, Administrator Dept. of Community & Economic Development ATTEST: Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 3 Exhibit A August 8, 2008 Neil Watts, Development Services Director Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 CffYOFRl::NfUN .. ECEIVED AUG 1 2 2008 BUILDING DIVISION "•"' BLUMEN •:l CONSULTING a.,;;::. ,... R '"'' 'i:, IN,.. . .,...._,.,1V\VU,, '..._.. 425-284-5401 FAX 425-284-5402 WYvW.b!umencg.com 720 Sixth St. S, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 RE: Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1B Conceptual Plan Amendment Dear Neil: 8/umen Consulting Group Inc. (BCG) is pleased to submit this proposed Scope of Work and Budget for environmental analysis services related to a proposed amendment to the Conceptual Plan for the Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1 B. We are interested and available to provide environmental services for this project and welcome the opportunity to continue as part of the City's team. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING As you know, Blumen Consulting Group previously managed preparation of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS (2003) for the City. We also prepared a Consistency Analysis for potential redevelopment contemplated for Sub-district 1 B in 2006, as envisioned in Boeing's 2006 Conceptual Plan. The Consistency Analysis included an environmental analysis of redevelopment proposed under the Conceptual Plan and compared it to the assumptions and environmental analysis included in the 2003 EIS. The Consistency Analysis also evaluated a request for designation of proposed uses in Sub-district 1 B as a Planned Action under SEPA. We understand that Boeing is preparing an amendment to the Conceptual Plan for the Sub-district 1 B area. This Sub-district is part of the overall site that was evaluated in both the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. The revised Plan contemplates a broader range of uses, potentially including office and hotel uses on a portion of the Sub- district 1 B property, as compared to only retail use contemplated in the 2006 Conceptual Plan. A mix of uses was assumed in the 2003 EIS. Boeing is seeking a Planned Action designation for their revised redevelopment plans for Sub-district 1 B; therefore, an environmental analysis will be prepared for this proposal to insure that the range of redevelopment and associated impacts under the amendment to the Conceptual Plan are within the range addressed in the 2003 EIS (and within the range evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis). BCG will prepare an analysis (via a Memo) of the amendment to the Conceptual Plan to determine if the redevelopment assumptions and environmental impacts are within the range covered in the 2003 EIS. (Our assumption for this scope of work is that the range of redevelopment contemplated in the revised Conceptual Plan will be within the range previously evaluated in the prior environmental documents.) We propose to use the Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1B Scope of Work for Environmental Analysis Memo Page 1 of6 SEPA!NEPA Compliance Land Use Entitlement Project Coordination services of Transportation Engineering Northwest (TENW) to address transportation issues associated with redevelopment under the revised Conceptual Plan. SCOPE OF WORK Blumen Consulting Group will prepare an environmental analysis of the amendment to the Conceptual Plan and potential redevelopment of Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1 B, and produce a Memo for City review of our findings. We propose to provide our services on a phased basis, as described below. Phase 1 Environmental Analysis and Preparation of a Memo BCG and TENW will complete the following tasks: BCG • We will review the amendment to the Conceptual Plan for proposed redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B and other relevant information. We will coordinate with a Boeing representative to obtain adequate information on their revised plan. • Transportation will be the key element analyzed in the Sub-district 1 B environmental analysis. We assume that BCG will review and Incorporate the technical memo/information provided to us by TENW to describe the consistency of the transportation impacts from the proposed redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B under the amendment to the Conceptual Plan with impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. BCG will provide a brief, qualitative comparison of the impacts from the proposed redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B on other relevant elements of the environment addressed in the 2003 EIS. This will be based on an assumed range of uses contemplated under the amendment to the Conceptual Plan under two to three possible scenarios. • BCG will prepare a draft Memo for submittal to the City of Renton and Boeing for review and comment. • Meetings -We assume participation at up to six (6) meetings or conference calls with the City and/or Boeing to prepare the Sub-district 1 B Environmental Analysis. • Printing -BCG will coordinate printing of up to eight (8) copies of the Sub-district 1A draft Environmental Analysis Memo for submittal to the City and Boeing. TENW TENW will prepare a transportation technical memorandum that will be appended to the Sub-district 1 B Analysis Memo (see Attachment A for their scope of work). In the memorandum, they will provide a detailed trip generation analysis and comparison of the Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1 B Page2of6 Scope of Work for Environmental Analysis Memo Sub-district 1 B proposal with the alternatives addressed in the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. They will review key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the 2003 EIS and determine whether any relevant changes have occurred since that time. TENW assumes attendance at up to four (4) meetings or conference calls with BCG, the City and/or Boeing to prepare the Sub- district 1 B transportation memorandum. Phase 2 -Respond to City/Boeing Review In this phase of work, BCG and TENW will coordinate with the City regarding the City's review of the Environmental Analysis Memo; revise the analysis based on the City's comments or requests for any additional information; participate at up to two (2) meetings or conference calls with the City and/or Boeing; and, provide support through issuance of the City's determinations regarding consistency and confirmation of a Planned Action designation. SCHEDULE BCG and TENW are prepared to initiate work on the Environmental Analysis for Sub- district 1 B immediately upon receiving authorization from the City. To the extent that information is provided to us on the revised Sub-district 1 B plan in a timely fashion by Boeing, we are targeting submittal of a draft Memo to the City during the week of September 1'1• BUDGET Based on the work described under the above Scope of Work, we propose to establish a not-to-exceed budget of $12,850 for BCG's and our sub-consultant's (TENW) services during Phase 1 -Environmental Analysis Memo for the Sub-district 1 B amendment to the Conceptual Plan (see below for a budget breakdown). Our services, and those of TENW, will be billed on an hourly (time-and-materials) basis consistent with the hourly rates identified in Attachment B (the applicable hourly rate for TENW is $165). The budget amount for Phase 2 -Respond to City Review is estimated at $4,000, bringing the total budget to $16,850. However the budget for Phase 2 will ultimately depend upon the specific comments and issues raised by the City and/or Boeing as part of the review, as well as the timing of the review. Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1 B Page3of6 Scope of Work for Environmental Analysis Memo Phase 1 Budget Breakdown S b d" t ·ct 1 BE . U -IS rl nv1ronmen tal An I a1vs1s Labor Hours Rate'"' Costt$1 BCG M. Blumen 20 $160 3,200 G. Brunner 32 $125 4,000 P. Murphy 5 $60 300 Graphics 150 Reimbursable Expenses (copying, printing, faxing, delivery, mileage, 250 etc.) Subtotal 7,900 TENW 4,950 Phase 1 Not-to-Exceed Total $12.850 Phase 2 Estimate 4,000 OVERALL BUDGET TOTAL $16.850 We look forward to continuing to provide environmental services to the City of Renton. If the proposed Scope of Work and Budget described herein are acceptable to the City, we assume that you will incorporate this letter into a standard City of Renton Consultant Agreement. Please call if you have any questions regarding the above. Thank you. Sincerely, onsulting Group, Inc. lumen Attachments Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1 B Page4 of6 Scope of Work for Environmental Analysis Memo ATTACHMENT A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING NORTHWEST Scope of Work and Budget Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1 B Scope of Worl< for Environmental Analysis Memo Page5of6 ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Scope of Work DATE, TO: FROM: RE, August 8, 2008 MikeB!umen Blumen Consulting Group Michael J. Read, P.E. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS -Transportation Support for the Consistency Analysis of Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan This memo outlines our proposed scope of work to provide transportation analytical support for a consistency analysis of a revised Conceptual Plan on what's known as Subdistrict 1B of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment (BRCPA) EIS. To address transportation consistency of these proposed redevelopments with the BRCPA EIS, we propose to provide a detailed trip generation analysis and comparison of each Scenario of the Conceptual Plan with the EIS Alternatives in a similar manner to previous consistency analyses. Initially our task will be to identified the worst-case scenario from a trip generation standpoint and then compare this to the EIS Alternatives and the currently adopted Planned Action ordinance assumptions. The trip generation analysis will review similar peak trip generation periods evaluated in the EIS (a.m. peak and p.m. peak hours) using the approved trip generation rates, methods, and procedures outlined in the BRCP A EIS. For Subdistrict 1B, a cumulative assessment of the Conceptual Development Plan (as proposed by Boeing Realty Corporation) and The I..m,ding will be documented in order to properly consider trips that remain within the redevelopment area. Comparison of trip generation during both EIS horizon years (2015 and 2030) will be conducted. In addition to the trip generation analysis, key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the BRCPA EIS will be reviewed to ensure that no significant changes have occurred since the EIS approval. If significant consistency issues arise from this review, additional scope elements and budget needs would be outlined to address these concerns. The total cost to complete the above scope of work is estimated at $4,500. A technical memorandum summarizing key findings and conclusions would be prepared for your review within approximately 2 weeks from notice to proceed and land use assumptions are received. Detailed trip generation tables support the document would also be provided as attachments. An additional $1,500 to respond to any City comments and revise as necessary is also identified; bringing the total estimated fee to $6,000. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this proposed scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 361-7333 ext. 101. www.tenw.com PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220:7333 Michael Blumen Terry Mccann Rich Schipanski Gretchen Brunner Jeff Buckland Michele Sarlitto Amy Gritton Jeff Ding Susan Mueller Paula Murphy ATTACHMENT B BLUMEN CONSUL TING GROUP, INC. 2008 Billing Rates Senior Principal Principal Principal Senior Associate Senior Associate Senior Associate Associate Associate Office Manager Administrative Assistant Other Rates Auto mileage, per mile $0.585 In-house photo copies, per page $0.15 Handling charge on subcontractors and expenses 10% Rates are valid through December 2008 Boeing Renton Plant Sub-district 1 B Scope of Work for Environmental Analysis Memo $160 155 135 125 . 115 115 95 90 60 60 Page 6of6 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPL/CATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUAOB-112, PA, CP PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of N 81h St btw Lo COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian EXISTING BLDG AREA ross : NIA PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross NIA WORK ORDER NO: 77968 PLEASE RETURN TO VANESSA DOLBEE IN CURRENT PLANNING 5TH FLOOR SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel. office, employment research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1 ~B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed betNeen these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mo,e Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Hovsino Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use U/ililies Animals Transoortation Environmental Heaith Pub/Jc Services Energy/ His/ooc!Cu!tural Natural Resources Proserva/ion Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director ~ A~Q~epresentative I0-9-0 g, Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA08-112, PA, CP PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of Na"' St btw Lo an & Garden Avenues COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian EXISTING BLDG AREA ross : NIA PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross NIA WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Eal1h Hovsma Air Aestho/ics Wc1/er Lioht/G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use U/1/ities Ammals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cu/rural Natural Resources Prese1vat1on Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS • CITY OF RENTON RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 20th day of October, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider: Amending the Conceptual Plan and adopting a Planned Action Ordinance for a second phase of redevelopment of surplus property for Sub-district 1-B of the Boeing Renton Plant property, an approximately 51-acre parcel bounded by Logan Ave. N. on the west, Garden Ave. N. on the east, N. 8'h St. on the north and N. 6'h St. on the south. For further infom1ation regarding the plan or the ordinance, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, City of Renton, 425-430-7314. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Written comments are due to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. Monday, October 20th. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-65 l 0. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published: Renton Reporter October 11, 2008 Account No. 50640 10/9/2008 -Notice sent to 51 Parties of Record per attached labels. c. Moya V/cc: Vanessa Dolbee '--·>-, ,.1--u-.lJ.'=1~~ ....... ....,.,{,i. •• -11--i '---+-·-· • -· :/: ::t:::t::iilli.~,r-i '---<>-1 N-:=;:t=;, it_.--·-.., lfJ:· --lie, ............... ' ,1-----11---, "·-...-~ ;;r- , • ANDERSON JOSEPH JR+KATHLEEN 772 lJNION AVE NE RENTON WA, 98055 CHENG KAM KEUNG+ANGELA WC 229 SW 193RD PL NORMANDY PARK WA, 98166 FISH JOHN T+l\.VEANN TA\VNEY 526 PELL Y A VE N RENTON WA, 98055 GALLUZZO JOHN & LINDA 8519 129TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA, 98056 HABIT AT FOR HU\1ANJTY OF SEATTLE SOUTH KING COUNTY 13925 INTERURBAN AVES STE JEFF'S AUTO REPAIR INC 21701 HIGHWAY 99 #A LYNNWOOD WA, 98036 KURASPEDCANI TIM PO BOX 208 MAPLE VALLEY WA, 98038 MATH WIG DAVID J 440 PELL Y A VE N RENTON WA, 98057 MORELAND DON & BOB 809 N 6TH /13 RENTON WA, 98057 NICOLI MARIO J 529 WELLS A VE N RENTON WA, 98055 BOEING COMP ANY THE, PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 3707 M/C 2000 SEATTLE WA, 98124 COLLODI FLORIO 3709 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA, 98056 FIX GRACE 15004 SE 18TH ST BELLEVUE WA, 98007 GIETZEN JEFF D+JENNIFER 21701 HIGHWAY 99 #A LYNNWOOD WA, 98036 HART SHIRLEY 512 PEL LY AVE N RENTON WA, 98057 KAERCHER RICK POBOX8 HOBART WA, 98025 LOUGHEIN & CO 433 SPRAGUE ST EDMONDS WA, 98020 MC GROUP LLC 702 175TH PL NE BELLEVUE WA, 98008 MUNSON RONALD W+ ELIZABETH A 623 CEDAR A VE S RENTON WA, 98055 P&L VENTURES 17915NE 19THPL BELLEVUE WA, 98008 CARRILLO JOSE LUIS+ZA YDA N 530 PELLY AVE N RENTON WA, 98055 F AKHARZADEH ~\1IR 11226 AUBURN AVES SEATTLE WA, 98178 FRANKLIN IRA L+BEVERLY K 537 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA, 98057 GUNDMUNDSON NANCY L 102 LAKE A VE S RENTON WA, 98055 HOLMES DENNIS W 546 N WILLIAMS RENTO"l WA, 98055 KENNYS AUTO REBUILD 618PARKAVEN RENTON WA, 98057 LYMAN PAULS 16206 SE 134TH ST RENTON WA, 98059 MCEVOY AL B+SALL Y G 18321 SE 147TH PL RENTON WA, 98059 NEW LOVE RICHELLE MARIE 541 WELLS AVEN RENTON WA, 98057 PACCAR INC, ATTN: CORP ACCOUNTING PO BOX 1518 BELLEVUE WA, 98009 , PETCHNICK GRATZER & GUNDERSON 534 WELLS A VEN RENTON WA, 98055 RIFFLE GARY+LINDA 16846188THAVESE RENTON WA, 98058 RUBIO ANTONIO CASTILLO 17825 NE 65TH ST #Al65 REDMOND WA, 98052 SCHULTZ NORMAN M 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD SEATTLE WA, 98178 TARGET CORPORATION, C/0 PROP TAX DPT T2290 PO BOX 9456 MINNEAPOLIS MN, 55440 UYSAL MEHMET+RAZIYE 529 WILLIAMS A VEN RENTON WA, 98055 YOUNKIN RONALD M 535 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA, 98055 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON WA, 98055 ROBBINS BENJAMIN & HACKLEMAN JAIME PO BOX 1581 RENTON WA, 98057 RUSSO ROBERT A 528 WELLS AVE NORTH RENTON WA, 98055 SCHULTZ NORMAN+MAR!AN 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD SEATTLE WA, 98178 TRANSWESTERN HARVEST LKSHOR 150 N WACKER DR #800 CHICAGO IL, 60606 VIDELL VICTOR E+LANCE M 536 BURNETT A VEN RENTON WA, 98055 ZWICKER BETTE 448 PELL Y A VEN RENTON WA, 98055 RIFFLE GARY M 541 PARK AVE N RENTON WA, 98055 ROGOJIN PETER J+LINDA M 7634 S LAKERIDGE DR SEATTLE WA, 98178 SCHULTZ NORMAN CORP 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD SEA TILE WA, 98178 SIMMS DANIEL+VICKIE FRIEND 20901 134TH PL SE KENT WA, 98042 IRAS WESTERN HARVEST, LK SHORE 150 N WACKER DR #800 CHICAGO IL, 60606 WONG PHILIP J 4067 24TH PL S SEATTLE WA, 98108 ZWICKER RICHARD D+MARTHAG 446 PELL YA VE NORTH RENTON WA, 98055 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0 R A N D u M October 13, 2008 Environmental Review Committee I' Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner \I. }. LUAOS-112 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B The Boeing Company (Boeing) is requesting approval of Planned Action legislation and an Amended Conceptual Plan, as required by Boeing's Development Agreement with the City of Renton. The 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District 1-B" is bounded by Logan Avenue Non the west, Garden Avenue Non the east, N 3th Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south (Exhibit I). The applicant is required to submit an environmental consistency analysis and receive subsequent approvals from the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC), as a requirement for approval of the Planned Action legislation. Boeing and the City of Renton have been working together since 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with Boeing's 737 facility in Renton. The City issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement in October 2003 (2003 EIS). The 2003 EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Renton plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses. Sub-District 1-B comprises a portion of this overall site area. The City of Renton has contracted with Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. (Blumen) to prepare the Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub- District 1-B. This analysis was completed in September 2008 (Exhibit 2). Pursuant to Blumen's report, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be within the range of potential impacts identified for redevelopment under the EIS Alternatives and the Original Conceptual Plan. Table A below provides a comparison of the Sub-District 1-B redevelopment levels assumed under the EIS Alternatives, the Original Conceptual Plan and the Amended Conceptual Plan. The proposed Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. Table A Sub-District 1-B Redevelopment Levels Comparison 2015 -2030 Year 2015 Year 2030 Total Building Area Total Building Area Square Feet Square Feet 2003 EIS 880,000-1,830,000 880,000 -2,570,000 2006 Consistencv Analvsis 1,265,000-1,808,000 1,535,000-2,258,000 2008 Amended conceptual 852,500-1,325,500 1,765,000 -2,238,000 Plan h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev&plan.ing\projects\08· l 12. vanessa\erc memo 08-112.doc Environmental Review Committee Page 2 of2 October 13, 2008 Blumen's report indicated that no new analysis of environmental impacts was necessary for the Amended Conceptual Plan. However, an analysis of potential total vehicle trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan was evaluated. Blumen's evaluation of trip generation levels during the AM and PM peak hours at both the 2015 and 2030 periods would be less then those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and identify mitigation in the 2003 EIS. Therefore, based on the estimated trip generation, Blumen determined there would not be a difference in probable significant traffic impact or mitigation with redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, as compared to those disclosed in the 2003 EIS. The report concludes that redevelopment and associated environmental impacts/mitigation under the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-District 1-B are considered to be within the range of redevelopment and associated impacts/mitigation under the EIS Alternatives analyzed in the 2003 EIS, as well as the range of redevelopment and impacts/mitigation under the Original Conceptual Plan analyzed in the 2006 Consistency analysis. Sub-District 1-B is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation by the City of Renton without undergoing any additional State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Staff recommends the ERC committee concur with "Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis for The Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan", dated September 2008, determination that Sub-District 1-B is eligible for Planned Action designation by Renton City Council. DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higashiyama, Adm1mstrator Community Services October 13, 2008 10 I I ?J/t10 Date' . David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department Date h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev&plan.ing\projccts\08-112. vanessa\erc memo 08-112.doc Date 1,/1'-.f/oe Date I Depart ment of Community & Economic Development -=t t • Pltl;d,. "'rl1olli: l:a b ~lrl.r.3 J,:tn:,:,n, ,1.rn~ 'ndTid.3'1 ~ ; r .. r,1 {·1 : :::i:-; •~ i t f -·' f ::S ,,;! ~ tf .,.,I Iii / Jl::,i~ '. 1 :al ) I l I ,j. I I 1J I I ii 111111~,I l ). II) :,.1,fl"." 1;..-1 ~ ,:, ,L:J,lil., .,:i • : t11l•.:t·1, '~ !•i ,11-1 ·! Legend: D Project S ite EXHIBIT 1 LUA08-112 -Vicinity Map .Amended Con ceptual Redevelop ment Plan for Sub-0 istrict 1-B I , 0 :;£0 520 -----=======:::iF eet BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS For the Amended Conceptual Plan City of Renton, Washington September 2008 EXHIBIT 2 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1-8 ENVIROMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY BLUMEN CONSUL TING GROUP, INC. AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC FOR THE CITY OF RENTON SEPTEMBER 2008 In Compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21 C) And the City of Renton SEPA Policies and Procedures 1.1 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1-B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the City of Renton (the City) have been working together since 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with Boeing's 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the Renton Plant site). The City issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement in October 2003 (2003 EIS). The 2003 EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Renton Plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a depiction of the EIS site area). Sub- District 1-B comprises a portion of this overall site area. In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant site. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, conceptual planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the site, known as Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B and District 2 (see Exhibit 1 in the 2008 Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City of Renton, and Figure 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a depiction of these districts). The Renton City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub- District 1-A is now known as "the Landing" project which is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-B is located immediately south of the Landing and totals approximately 50.7 acres (see Figure 1-1 ). A Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted to the City in October 2005 and approved in November 2005 (called the Original Conceptual Plan herein). Thereafter, Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B from the City (per the State Environmental Policy Act rules, WAC 197-11-164 and RCW 43-21C.031). Under SEPA, a "Planned Action" designation indicates that the significant environmental impacts of a project have been adequately addressed in an EIS prepared at the plan level (in this case the 2003 EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning stage), and that the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. As a nex1 step in the request for a Planned Action designation, the Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis (2006 Consistency Analysis) was prepared in May 2006. The 2006 Consistency Analysis included environmental analysis of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan and compared it to the assumptions and environmental analysis included in the 2003 EIS. The Consistency Analysis also evaluated the request for designation of proposed uses in Sub-District 1-B as Planned Actions under SEPA. The Consistency Analysis concluded that the environmental impacts of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-District 1-B (and the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment plans for both Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B) were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 1 Source: Boeing '•""BLUMEN ~CONSULTING ...,,GROUP, INC Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Consistency Analysis Figure 1-1 Boeing Renton Plant Site Districts 1.1 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1-B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the City of Renton (the Ci ty) have been working together since 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with Boeing's 737 facility in Renton , Washington (the Renton Plant site). The City issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement in October 2003 (2003 EIS). The 2003 EIS evaluated potential environmental impa cts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Renton Plant site with a mix of residential and commercia l uses (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Co nsistency Analysis for a depiction of the EIS site area). Sub- District 1-8 comprises a portion of th is overall site area . In December 2003 , Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement that establi shed certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redeve lopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant site. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, conceptual planning was anticipated to occu r incrementally, and would be completed for th ree discrete areas of the site , known as Sub-Dis tricts 1-A and 1-B and District 2 (see Exhibit 1 in the 2008 Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the Ci ty of Renton , and Figure 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Ana lysi s for a depiction of these districts). The Renton City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan fo r Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004 . Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub- District 1-A is now known as "the Landing " project which is currently under const ruction as an u rban retail center, including retail, residential , resta urant and theatre uses . S ub-District 1-B is located immediately so uth of the Landing and totals approximately 50 . 7 acres (see Figure 1-1 ). A Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted t o the City in Oct ober 2005 and approved in November 2005 (called the Original Conceptual Plan herein ). Thereafter, Boeing sought a Plan ned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B from the City (pe r the State Environmental Policy Act rules , WAC 197-11-164 and RCW 43-21C.031). Under SEPA a "P lanned Action " designation indi cates that the significant environmental impacts of a project have been adequately addressed in an EIS prepared at the plan level (in this case the 2003 EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning stage), and that the project is consist ent with the City's Comprehensive Plan . As a next step in the request for a Planned Action designation , the Boeing Renton Sub -district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis (2006 Cons is tency Ana lys is) was prepared in May 2006. The 2006 Consistency Analysis included environmenta l analysis of the redevelopment proposed under the Origina l Conceptua l Pl an and compared it to the assumptions and environmental analysis included in the 2003 EIS . The Consistency Ana lysis also evaluated the request for designation of proposed uses in Sub-District 1-B as Plann ed Actions under SEPA. The Consistency Analysis concluded that the environmental impa cts of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-District 1-B (and the cumu lative impacts of the redevelopment plans for both Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8) were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 1 Source: Boeing '•,..BLUMEN ~CONSULTING .... GROUP , INC Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Consistency Analysis Figure 1-1 Boeing Renton Plant Site Districts • A Planned Action was approved for Sub-District 1-B in December 2006 by the Renton City Council, under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007, the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan (BSP) for the same area under the name of "Lakeshore Landing 2". The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub- District 1-B: Lots 5A, 58, 5C, 50, 5E, 7A, 78 and 7C. Due to a change in market conditions, redevelopment of the northern part of Sub-District 1-B did not proceed. Based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City, and the provisions of the Urban Center -North (UC-N1) or District One zone, Boeing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels for Sub-District 1-B that are within those evaluated for this district in the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see the following description of the Amended Conceptual Plan for details). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub-District 1-B's UC-N 1 or District One zoning classification. Boeing is now seeking approval of their Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Planned Action designation by the City. Goal of this Analysis. This environmental analysis is intended to determine whether the range of redevelopment and associated impacts under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan are within the range addressed in the 2003 EIS. If determined to be within this range, Sub- District 1-B would be eligible for designation as a Planned Action. 1.2 COMPARISON OF REDEVELOPMENT RANGES 2003 EIS The 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS evaluated a site area that included approximately 275 acres of Boeing property and 15 acres of contiguous property owned by others. Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B are portions of this overall site area. Sub-District 1- B is generally equivalent to Subarea C in the 2003 EIS (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). Four redevelopment scenarios were analyzed in the 2003 EIS (Alternatives 1 -4). These scenarios encompassed a broad range of land uses that the Boeing Renton Plant site could potentially accommodate in the future, given existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies and designations (note: the UC-N1 or District One Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification were adopted for the site area in November 2003). The redevelopment assumed in Sub-District 1-B by 2015 in the EIS ranged from approximately 880,000 to 1,830,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The assumed redevelopment by 2030 ranged from approximately 880,000 to 2,570,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The Sub-District 1-B redevelopment ranges included 480,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 660,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 3 and 4 within the overall totals (see Tables 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 3 2006 Consistency Analysis The Original Conceptual Plan for redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed a range of land uses and potential redevelopment levels for Sub-District 1-B by 2015 and 2030. These land uses and potential redevelopment levels were within the ranges addressed in the 2003 EIS. In the 2006 Consistency Analysis, it was assumed that redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B by 2015 would range from approximately 1,265,000 to 1,808,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. By 2030, the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed that redevelopment would range from approximately 1,535,000 to 2,258,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. All of Sub-District 1-B was assumed to be fully built out by 2030 (see Table 1-3 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a summary of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan in the 2006 Consistency Analysis; see Figure 1-3 in Appendix A for the Sub-District 1-B Original Conceptual Plan). Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan As indicated above, based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City and provisions of the UC-N1 or District One zone, Boeing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B (the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan is on file at the City of Renton). As reflected in the Amended Conceptual Plan, Sub-District 1-B is comprised of two areas: the North 1-B and Boeing Remainder areas (see Figure 1-1). The approximately 21.2-acre North 1-B area is located in the northern portion of the district, immediately south of N. 8" Street. The North 1-B area has been identified for surplus by Boeing, and is available for near-term development. The approximately 29.5-acre Boeing Remainder area is located in the southern portion of the district, immediately north of N. 6" Street. The Boeing Remainder area contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space in several buildings that are owned and currently used by Boeing as part of ongoing airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these buildings and associated parking structures are approximately 12.9 acres of land with future redevelopment potential. Figure 1-2 shows the general locations of the assumed future uses for Sub-District 1-B redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan (the oval shapes labeled O -Office, L - Lab, H -Hotel, R -Retail, and P -Parking Garage). Existing garages and office buildings (the rectangular shapes labeled 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20) are also depicted on Figure 1-2. Table 1-1 provides breakdowns of the assumed redevelopment levels for the various areas in Sub-District 1-B by 2015 and 2030 under the Amended Conceptual Plan. In total, it is assumed that Sub-District 1 B would feature between 852,500 and 1,325,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015 and between 1,765,000 and 2,238,000 square feet of redevelopment by 2030. It is also assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub-District 1-B until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 4 North 8th Street O\L\R R O\L p p 10-18 p .c Existing Garage ~--'§ DP-1 330,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP-2 260,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB Legend 0 Office L Lab H Hotel R Retail P Parking Garage Source: Boeing '• ... BLUMEN •:J CONSULTING ~GROUP. INC DP-3 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP-4 125,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Consistency Analysis z "' ... ' 0 ... R H Existing Garage DP-4 10-16 Existing Garage Figure 1-2 Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan Table 1-1 SUB-DISTRICT 1-B AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS • 2015 & 2030 Redevelopment Areas Land Percent Total Building Percent Area Buildout Area -Square Feet Buildout Acres (2015) (2015) (2030) annrox. North 1-B Options Lots 5A & 7B 21.2 100% 100% Retail and/or Office, 270,000 -743,000 Emolovment, Hotel, Retail SUB-TOTAL 21.2 270,000 -743,000 Boeing Remainder DP-1 Options 4.9 100% 100% Office or Lab 330,000 DP-2 Options 3.9 50% 100% Office or Lab 130,000 DP-3 Options 1.8 50% 100% Office or Lab 60,000 DP-4 Ontions 2.2 50% 100% Office or Lab 62,500 Existing Office Uses 16.7 100% 100% SUB-TOTAL 29.5 582,500 TOTAL 50.7 852,500 -1,325,500 Source: Boeing, 2008. Total Building Area - Square Feet (2030) 270,000 -743,000 270,000 -743,000 330,000 260,000 120,000 125,000 660,000 1,495,000 1,765,000 -2,238,000 Note: For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 6 that the 660,000 square feet of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses (see Table 1-1). North 1-B For the North 1-B area, the Amended Conceptual Plan identifies three possible redevelopment scenarios: Scenario 1 features retail uses that would complement the Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2 features a combination of office and employment uses (on Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel and retail/restaurant uses (on Lot 78 of the BSP); or Scenario 3 which features some combination of those uses of Scenarios 1 and 2, within the overall redevelopment levels assumed for North 1-B. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of the site containing a data hub for the Boeing Renton Plant (Lot 5E of the BSP) would be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. Under Scenario 1, the North 1-B area could feature up to 270,000 square feet of retail uses, under Scenarios 2 and 3, the North 1-B area could feature up to 743,000 square feet of office, employment, hotel and/or retail uses. The North 1-B area is assumed to be fully built out by 2015 (see Table 1-1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Boeing Remainder All of the available redevelopment parcels that comprise the Boeing Remainder area (DP-1, DP- 2, DP-3 and DP-4) are assumed to be redeveloped as either office and/or lab uses under the Amended Conceptual Plan. By 2015, it is assumed that DP-1 would be fully built out and DP-2, DP-3 and DP-4 would be 50 percent built out. It is assumed that the overall Boeing Remainder area could feature up to 582,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015. By 2030, it is assumed that all of the development parcels in the Boeing Remainder area would be fully built out and that this area could feature up to 1,495,000 square feet of redevelopment; this includes assumed reuse of the existing office space by others by 2030 (see Table 1-1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Comparison Table 1-2 provides a comparison of the Sub-District 1-B redevelopment levels assumed under the EIS Alternatives (evaluated in the 2003 EIS), the Original Conceptual Plan (evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis) and the Amended Conceptual Plan (evaluated in this Consistency Analysis). As shown in Table 1-1 and 1-2 and described in this section, the proposed Sub- District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see Figure 1-2 and Table 1-1). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub-District 1-B's UC-N1 or District One zone. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 7 Table 1-2 SUB-DISTRICT 1-8 REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS COMPARISON- 2015 & 2030 2015 2030 Total Building Area -Total Building Area - Square Feet Square Feet 2003 EIS 880,000 -1,830,0001 880,000 -2,570,000 1 2006 Consistency 1,265,000 -1,808,0002 1,535,000 -2,258,000' Analysis 2008 Amended 852,500 -1,325,5003 1,765,000-2,238,000 3 Conceptual Plan Source: Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS, 2003, Boeing 2006, Boeing 2008. 1 Includes the assumed reuse of 480,000 -660,000 SF of existing office space, depending on the EIS Alternative. 2 Includes the assumed reuse of 660,000 SF of existing office space. 3 For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 8 1.3 COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SUB-DISTRICT 1-B AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN As described in the previous section, the proposed Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. As a result, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B under the Amended Conceptual Plan are expected to be within the range of potential impacts identified for redevelopment under the EIS Alternatives and the Original Conceptual Plan (see Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for the 2006 Consistency Analysis on the Original Conceptual Plan). No new analysis of environmental impacts was determined to be necessary for the Amended Conceptual Plan. However, an analysis of the potential total vehicle trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan is included in this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The 2006 Consistency Analysis compared the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Original Conceptual Plan (and Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B plans cumulatively) to the potential impacts from redevelopment disclosed in the 2003 EIS for the EIS Alternatives. Stormwater Drainage, Transportation, Land Use Patterns, and Relationship to Plans and Policies were the key environmental elements analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. As such, more expanded analyses of these elements were provided. A comparison of potential impacts on all other elements of the environment was presented in matrix form. The 2006 Consistency Analysis determined that the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, and for Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B plans cumulatively, were within the range of impacts adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be within the range of potential impacts identified in the 2006 Consistency Analysis and adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS for all environmental elements. Transportation As indicated above, an analysis of the potential trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan was conducted for this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. Trip generation assumptions for redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan were compared to the assumptions that were used to evaluate transportation impacts in the EIS. Below is a brief summary of the results of this analysis; see Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for the complete transportation analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest). A potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-District 1-B were analyzed from a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpoint in the transportation analysis for this Consistency Analysis (see Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for details on these worst-case assumptions). Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the 2003 EIS were used to estimate AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the mix and level of uses under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan (see Table 1 in Appendix B for a comparison of the estimated 2015 and 2030 AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation from redevelopment Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 9 under the Amended Conceptual Plan compared to trip generation under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS -the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the EIS). Attachment A to Appendix B also contains detailed trip generation estimates for both Sub-District 1-A and 1-B and compares them in a cumulative manner to those estimates included in the 2003 EIS for all EIS Alternatives. Total off-site vehicle trip generation under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be significantly less than the trip generation estimated under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS for both Sub-District 1-B independently, and for Sub-Districts 1-B and 1-A cumulatively. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-District 1-B relative to Alternative 4 would range from approximately 203 AM peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 PM peak hour trips in 2015. Trip generation levels during the AM and PM peak hours at both the 2015 and 2030 periods would be less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and identify mitigation in the 2003 EIS. Therefore, based on the estimated trip generation, there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation with redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, as compared to those disclosed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, these conclusions regarding trip generation, transportation impacts and mitigation reached in the transportation analysis are consistent with those reached in the 2006 Consistency Analysis (see Appendix A). Further, based upon the review of potential trip generation from redevelopment in Sub-District 1- B and evaluation of transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the 2003 EIS, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B or cumulative redevelopment of Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B, as compared to those infrastructure improvements outlined in the 2003 EIS. 1.4 CONCLUSION Redevelopment and associated environmental impacts/mitigation under the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-District 1-B are considered to be within the range of redevelopment and associated impacts/mitigation under the EIS Alternatives analyzed in the 2003 EIS, as well as the range of redevelopment and impacts/mitigation under the Original Conceptual Plan analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. Sub-District 1-B is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation by the City of Renton without undergoing any additional SEPA review (per RCW 43.21 C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315). Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 10 APPENDIX A Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis -2006 APPENDIX A Provided Separately APPENDIX B Boeing Amended Conceptual Plan (Sub-District 1-B) Transportation Consistency Analysis • 2008 DATE: TO: CC: FROM: RE: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC August 25, 2008 Memorandum Neil Watts, Director, Development Services Department, City of Renton Mike Blumen, President, Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. Michael J. Read, P.E., Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Boeing Conceptual Plan (Sub-district lB) -Transportation Consistency Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan \:\Oth the 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan 1\mendment EIS DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The memorandum summarizes a detailed comparative trip generation analysis of the Boeing Conceptual Redevelopment Plan -Suh-distrill 1 B, a proposed amended conceptual redevelopment plan calling for mixed use development \\Othin Sub-district 1 R of the overall Boeing Renton Plant site. Redevelopment of the 290-acre Boeing Renton Plant site was evaluated in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment (BRCPA) EIS (2003). Suh-district IB is noted as Subarea C in the 2003 EIS. This analysis addresses consistency \\0th the transportation clement of the EIS, and specifically with the land use and trip generation assumptions that were used to evaluate the transportation in1pacts of redeveloptnent. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-R was submitted to the City of Renton in October of 2005 and approved in November of 2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined_ that the uses proposed for Sub-District 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District 1-A, were \Vl.thin the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the EIS. As part of the Original Consistency Analysis, TEN\'(! completed a detailed evaluation of trip generation and transportation infrastructure assumptions and compared them to the 2003 EIS, and found that the range and mix of land uses would not generated additional impacts beyond those levels originally evaluated. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected development of North 1-B did not proceed as evaluated m the Original Consistency Analysis. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B \\0th a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/ development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted v.~thin the underlying UC-Nl zone. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated \VJ.th the majority of the Boeing Ren1ainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. This analysis evaluates the A.mended Conceptual Plan to ensure the range and mix of land uses ren1ain 'k1.thin those parameters evaluated m the 2003 EIS and the Original Consistency i\.nalysis. www.tenw.com PO Box 65254 •Seattle.WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub-district 18 of the BRCPA EIS August 25, 2008 Page 2 For traffic analysis purposes, proposed uses under the Boeing Conceptual Plan -Suh-district I B were assumed to comprise approximately 1,578,000 square-feet of new development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings at build-out in 2030. The Amended Plan assumes approximately 1,182,500 square-feet in new office/lab space, a 176 room extended stay hotel facility, and 13,000 square feet of restaurant uses developed by 2015. By 2030, an additional 252,500 square feet of new office/lab uses were assumed to be constructed. l:nder the 2015 horizon year, the existing 660,000 square-feet of Boeing- occupied office space 'w1thin Sub-district lB was assumed to continue to be used by Boeing. By 2030, this space was assumed to be sold or leased to non-Boeing owners/tenants. Existing Boeing employees s\1thin these buildings were assumed to be consolidated within Boeing operations located in facilities west of Logan /\venue N ., consistent with the BRCP A EIS assumptions. This traffic assumption (related to relocation of Boeing employees) provides a worst-case analysis of transportation i1npacts fro1n redevelopment (Refer to the Consistency Analysis Memo by Blumen Consulting Group for more information on the assumed breakdown of uses under the amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-district IB). This men1orandum analyzes a potential range and mix of land uses \Vithin Sub-district 1 B frorn a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpornt. Therefore, \Vithin individual Development Parcels (DP) noted mthin the ;\mended Boeing Conceptual Plan -Suh-dtslrict 1 ll office uses \Vere prllnarily ass urned; it should be noted that retail uses in the northern portion of the Sub-district and laboratory/ technology uses in the southern portion could be developed in lieu of office space. Retail and lab uses have different trip generating characteristics than traditional office use. For trip generation comparisons however, new corruncrcial buildings were all assun1ed to contain traditional office uses (\\.1th the exception of the hotel and restaurant uses noted above) in order to evaluate a worst-case scenario. Trip Generation Comparison Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRC:I' A EIS were used to estimate a.rn. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by redevelopment under the Amended Boeinx Conaptual !'Ian--Suh-d1Jtnd IB. Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated 2015 and 2030 a.rn. peak and p.rn. peak hour vehicle trip generation of redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan compared s\1th those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportation irnpacts and outline rnitigation 1neasures for Alternative 4 in the BRC:PA FTS (i.e., the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the ETS). Detailed trip generation comparisons to all EIS alternatives arc provided as Attachment A. In addition, trip generation con1parisons of cun1ulativc impacts of both development oi Sub-district 1 B together ,vith development of Sub-district 11\ (The Landrng) is also provided herein. The Landing project \:Vas approved and is under construction . .As shown in Table 1, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels of redevelopment under the Boeing Conceptual Plan are significantly less than those estimated under Alternative 4 in the BRCP1\ EIS. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-district lB would range from approximately 203 a.rn. peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 p.rn. peak hour trips in 2015. These trip generation levels \Vould all be less than those levels usc<l to evaluate traffic impacts and develop rrutigation for the 2003 EIS. _________ ____cT'-'rawn.,sp.,o,,_rt .. a,,,tio,cnuEdn,,.gecin,,e,.ewrin,,.gwN~o"'rtwh~w~es~t~L~L.,,C~_ --·----- PO Box 65254 + Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub-district 1 B of the BR CPA EIS August 25, 2008 Page 3 Table l -Sub-district l B 2015/2030 Trip Generation Comparison Development Scenario Enter Exit Total Development Scenario Enter Exit Total estimates evaluated m the BRCPA EJS, and thcn:fore, should b(· considered ronservativt'. Tnp generat\on estim;itcs from tht'. BRCPi\ EI5' can he found in Attachment B of Appnidix E lll Volume II of the Draft EIS Therefore, based upon this comparative analysis maximum redevelopment according to the Amended Hoeing Conceptual Plan far S ub-dzstnd 1 B would result in less peak hour vehicle trip generation as compared to the trip generation reported and evaluated in the 2003 EIS for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site; there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment under the proposed Plan as compared to those disclosed ln the BRCPA EIS. Redevelopment of approximately 1,578,000 square-feet of new mixed use development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub-district 1 B, as assumed under the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan, is ""thin the range of development alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, the conclusions regarding transportation impacts and mitigation reached in this consistency analysis are consistent -....vith those reached in the 2006 Original Consistency Analysis. As noted previously, the potential range of uses proposed mthin the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan -Sub-district 1B could result in a different mix or total square footage of redevelopment than evaluated in this report (less office use and more lab and/ or retail use). However, to evaluate a worst-case trip generation scenario, office uses at certain levels of development in the individual Development Parcels (DP) within Suh-district 1B, that were estitnated to generate the highest number of vehicle trips, were used in this consistency analysis of transportation impacts (refer to the Consistency Analysis Memo prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest L PO Box 65254 + Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub-district 18 of the BRCPA EIS August 25, 2008 Page 4 Blumen Consulting Group for more information on assun1ed uses 2nd dcvdopment scenarios). Attachment A contains detailed trip generation tables of both Sub-distr1ets lA and lB and compares these in a cumulative manner to those assumptions from the 2003 BRCPA FIS. On a cumulative basts, trip reductions of between 1,119 p.m. peak hour trips in 2015 to over 3,000 a.m. peak hour trips by 2030 are estimated versus those land use assumptions tested and enluated in the BRCPA FIS. Infrastructure Comparison Based upon the review of potential trip generation from development in Sub -district lB and evaluation of key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlinccJ in the BRCP A EIS, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support development under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 113 or cumulative development under the Sub-district L\ and 113 plans, as compared to those levels of infrastructure i.tnprovcments assutned within the EIS. Transportation EngineeritJgJ~_ourJhwwweds~t ~L~LC~--------~---- PO Box 65254 + Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • To!I Free (888) 220-7333 Attachment A Detailed Project Trip Generation Estimates Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation BRCPA EIS The Landing (2/2006) Peak Period nter xit otal XII otal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak /!our AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peil_k Hgur Difference from Subarea A & B (BRCPA EIS} nter xlt ota -41 244 Kote These comparisom Jo not consider additional mode ~plir adjustments mcide in rh<.' tnp gcnerauon e~r1mates enluatcd ,n the BRCP:\ EJS, ,md therefore, should be considernJ conso::n·at1-vc Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 1 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation BRCPA EIS Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) Peak Period nter xTt otal otal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HQur Difference from Subarea C fBRCPA EISl nter xit ota Note: Thest cornpari,;ons Jo not considtr addmonal mode split adjustments made m the trip gencrntion cstimati.:~ e1·aluated in the BRCPA EIS, and thtrcfort, should be considered conseffativ<:. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 2 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Peak Period nter AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour I, PM Peak Hour 5 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour l'[YJ_Peak Hal![ BRCPA EIS xit otal The Landing and Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) nter I Exit I ToTaf Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) nter I Exit I I otal ~otc Thc~c co:np::m,on, Jo nut consider aJJitional mode split ,1J1u.,tmc,1b mi<lc in thc trip gcnnatiun csum:itc~ e\·:du:1tcJ m the BRCPA EL\ am! therefore, should [w nm~uleffd con;ervativt Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 3 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The Landing (2/2006) Peak Period Enter Exit Total nter I Exit ~ I I otal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Note· The,;e comparisons Jo not cons1dcr addi1ional mode opht ad1ustmo.:nc:; made m the trip gnieration estimates c,·a!uatcd in the BRCP.-\ EIS, anJ thnt'forc, should be consi&;red consnvat.i,·c. Difference from Subarea A & B (BRCPA EISl otal By 2U30, no increase in additional dt>vdopm1cnt 1s assumed with S:.:ban:a Li. Huwen:r, othc"r redewlopmcnt assum.pt.1ons ,n Subarr.:a lB increase between 21115 and 2fl3() and therefore, "int~·rnaL,e" more ,·ehicle cnpo w,thm the Bocmg Renlon Plant an:a J~ a whole \s such, a sUght rcJuct,on m total off-site trip generation by Subarca la\~ cxpu:tcd by]()_',() over those kvds estimated in 2015. This char::ictt·n~tK !S cons1Ment with tl11: trip gcm:r:11..mn methodologie~ rnd c,.ssumrtions applied in the BRCP:\ ELS Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 4 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Peak Period Enter Exit Boeing Conce!'!__F'lan @/2_0081 Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak /-lour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Pfl§k Hour Note: Thc,;c compAnsnns do not consiJcr adJitional :rnde srlit :i.djnstment~ made m tile trip gent-ration c,umatcs enluatcd m th\: HRCP:\ E[S, ,md rhnefore, ~houlJ be com1Jcrc:J con.,erv;,t,w Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Difference from Subarea C iBRCPA EISl otal Page 5 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Peak Period AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Ex:it Total The Landing and Boeing Concee_t Plan (8/~0_()81 '\lore: The~e cumpansons do not cons1der additional mode ~pht adp1stments made in the tnp generation estinutes e,·aluated in the BH..CP:\ El.:S, and thtrefore, ~hould be considered consi::rl'atl\'t Transportation Engineering Northwest 811912008 Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) x,t otal Page 6 City of Renton Department of Community & Economilvelopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r:=-1 ((_, COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 1;-2008 -- , APPLICATION NO: LUAOS-112, PA. CP DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMB~" ; -, a APPLICANT: The Boeino Comoanv PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee ! - PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian vtr 24 200, - for Sub-District 1-B --. ·-------- EXISTING BLDG AREA (qross): N/A --SITE AREA: 50.7 acres ,, - LOCATION: S of N 8th St btw Loqan & Garden Avenues PROPOSED BLDG AREA (qross) N/A , --- WORK ORDER NO: 77968 ·,. j , SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysls has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housmq Aw Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Ammals Transportation Er1vironmun/€1/ Hc;:i/1/J Publi"c Services Energy/ His/oric!Cu,1/ural Natural Resources Pres&rvatron Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS !Vt' 5,P£C../;C/? u?/1'/1',:/VT..S ~,r 77,l/_s .77.,,A-?/. We have reviewed ttus application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DATE: TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT J\1EMORANDUM September 30, 2008 Vanessa Dolbee, Planner FROM: Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer ~ SUBJECT: Boeing Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District lB LUA 08-112 PA,CP I have reviewed the application for the Boemg Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B located south ofN. 8th between Logan and Garden and have the following comments: 1. I have no utility related comments at this time. JI 08-012 .doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPL/CATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION NO: LUAOS-112. PA, CP I " PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of N s'h St btw Lo an & Garden Avenues COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBE PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian EP ;_ ~ 2008 u EXISTING BLDG AREA ross : NIA PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross NIA WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The sub1ect site is 50. 7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-NI and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing A,c Aesthetics Wci/ur Lmlit/G/are Plants Recrei;iUon Land/Shoreline Use Utilities A111ma1s TransportaNon Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriciCulturol Natural Resources Preservation A1rpor1 Environment 10 000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additio I information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .Tri APPLICATION NO: LUAOS-112, PA. CP PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of N 8th St btw Lo an & Garden Avenues COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian ( ,,·,·,,11,, ·,· _,·. RECEIVED EXISTING BLDG AREA ross : NIA PROPOSED BLDG AREA WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Gode) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino A" Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shore/me Use Utilrt1es Arnrm:ils Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ H1stonc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLIGY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas m which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information 1s needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'Rlnls APPLICATION NO: LUA08-112, PA, CP APPLICANT: The Boeina Comoanv PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of N 8'h St btw Loaan & Garden Avenues COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian EXISTING BLDG AREA lnross\: N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA tnross\ N/A WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office. employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Eanh Housina M Aesthefics J.A/:1/er Liaht/Glare Plants Recreauon Land/Shoreline Use Utilrt1es Animals Transportation Environmun/al Health Public Services Energy/ Hi stone/Cultural lVatural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feer B. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is nee ed to properly assess this proposal. C/-cx 0 '08 Date Fonn No. 14 Subdtvlston Guarantee Guarantee No.: NCS-319710-WAl GUARANTEE Issued by First American Title Insurance Company 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121 Title Officer: Mike Cooper Phone: (206)728-0400 FAX· (206)448-6348 Rrst Amenam Title Insurance Company Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee (+10-75) Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: I ' '"r11, ~.,. (' ~ -First American Title Insurance Company UAB1U1Y $ FEE $ Nalionil/Commoma/Sentkes 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121 (206)72B·O'IOO • (B00)526·7544 FAX (206)448·6348 SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE 3,000.00 ORDER NO.: 500.00 TAX$ 45.00 YOUR REF.: First American Title Insurance Company a Corporation, herein called the Company NCS-369710-WAl Multiple APN's, King County, WA Subject to the Uability Exd uslons and Limitations set forth below and In Schedule A. GUARANTEES Perkins Cole LLP herein called the Assured, against loss not exceeding the llablllty amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any Incorrectness In the assurances set forth In Schedule A. LIAB1U1Y EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee Is given nor llablllty assumed with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The company's llablllty hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but In no event shall the Company's llablllty exceed the llablllty amount set forth above. 3. This Guarantee Is restricted to the use of the Assured for the purpose of providing title evidence as may be required when subdividing land pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 58.17, R.C.W., and the local regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to said stature. It Is not to be used as a basis for dosing any transaction affecting title to said property. Dated: September 23, 2008 at 7:30 A.M. Rrst American 71tle Insurance CDmpany Forni Na. 14 Subdlvtslon Guarantee (4·10-75) SCHEDULE A The assurances referred to on the face page are: A. Title is vested In: The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation Guarantee No.: NCS-l69710•WA1 Page No.: 2 B. That according to the Company's title plant records relative to the following described real property (lndudlng those records maintained and Indexed by name), there are no other documents affecting title to said real property or any portion thereof, other than those shown below under Record Matters. The following matters are exduded from the coverage of this Guarantee: 1. Unpatented Mining Oalms, reservations or exceptions In patents or In acts authorizing the Issuance thereof. 2. Water rights, dalms or title to water. 3. Tax Deeds to the State of Washington. 4. Documents pertaining to mineral estates. DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: NEW LOTS SA· 1, SB· 1, SC· 1, SD-1 AND SE· 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-08·072-LLA, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080916900008, IN KING COUN1Y, WASHINGTON. PARCELS: LOTS 7A, 78 AND 7C, BOEING L.AKESHORE LANDING 2, A BINDING SITE PL.AN, RECORDED JANUARY 11, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080111000854, IN KING COUN1Y, WASHINGTON. PARCELC: PARCEL B OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. 93-89, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 14, 1989 UNDER RECORDING NO. 8911149006, IN KING COUN1Y, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 9, 1989 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8911090473. PARCELD: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: First American 71tle lnsuranaJ Company Fonn No. 14 SUbdivlslon Gua11ntee (+ 10-75) Guarantee No.: NCS-31i971C>-WA1 Page No.: 3 BEGINNING AT TliE INTERSEcnON OF TliE WEST LINE OF PARK STREET WITH TliE NORTli LINE OF SIXTH AVENUE NORTli; TliENCE NORTli ALONG SAID WEST LINE 185 FEET; 11iENCE WEST 107.5 FEET; lHENCE SOUlH 185 FEET; TliENCE EAST 107.5 FEET TO TliE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO TliE Cl1Y OF RENTON BY DEEDS RECORDED JUNE 9, 1972 AND JUNE 7, 1994 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NOS. 7206090448 AND 9406070574. PARCEL E: LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 4, RENTON FARM ACREAGE ADDffiON, ACCORDING TO TliE PLAT 1liEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 37, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCELF: LOTS 1 AND 2 OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. 282-79, ACCORDING TO TliE PLAT TliEREOF RECORDED JULY 10, 1979 UNDER RECORDING NO. 7907109002, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGElHER WITH LOTS 1 1liROUGH 8, BLOCK 1, SARTORISVILLE, ACCORDING TO lHE PLAT TliEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 8 OF PLATS, PAGE 7, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF ABOVE SAID LOTS 1 TliROUGH 3, BLOCK 1 OF SARTORISVILLE, CONVEYED TO TliE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 14, 1972 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7203140338; TOGETliER WITH LOTS 1 lHROUGH 13, BLOCK 11, RENTON FARM PLAT, ACCORDING TO lHE PLATlHEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 97, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF ABOVE SAID LOTS 6 TliROUGH 13, BLOCK 11 OF RENTON FARM PLAT, CONVEYED TO TliE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 14, 1972 AND JUNE 7, 1994 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NOS. 7203140338 AND 9406070578. APN: 088661-0010·03 APN: 088661-0020-0l APN: 088661-0030-09 APN: 088661-0040-07 APN: 088661-0050-04 APN: 088661-0060-02 APN: 088661-0070-00 APN: 088661-0080-08 APN: 082305·9209-00 APN: 082305-9019·00 APN: 722300-0115·08 APN: 756460·0055·04 First American 71tle Insurance Company Form No. 14 Su~dlvlslon Guarantee (4·111-75) RECORD MATIERS: 1. General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: 088661·0010·03 Amount BIiied: $ 5,944.72 Amount Paid: $ 2,972.36 Amount Due: $ 2,972.36 Assessed Land Value: $ 0.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 608,000.00 (Affects New Lot SA-1 of Parcel A) 2. 3. General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: 088661 ·0020-0l Amount BIiied: $ 12,514.23 Amount Paid: $ 6,257.11 Amount Due: $ 6,257.12 Assessed land Value: $ 0.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 1,279,900.00 (Affects New Lot 58-1 of Parcel A) General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount BIiied: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: 088661 ·0030-o9 $ 231,754.59 $ 115,877.30 $ 115,877.29 $ 0.00 $ 23,702,800.00 (Affects New Lot SC-1 of Parcel A) 4. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. Tax Account No.: 088661·0040-07 Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 4 Note: The public tax records are not currently available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects New Lot 5D· 1 of Parcel A) Rrst American ntle Insurance Campany Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 5 Subdivision Guarantoe (4-1D-7S) 5. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. 6. Tax Account No.: 088661-0050-04 Note: The public tax records are not currently available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects New Lot SE· 1 of Parcel A) Genera I Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: 088661-0060-02 Amount BIiied: $ 123,172.30 Amount Paid: $ 61,586.15 Amount Due: $ 61,586.15 Assessed Land Value: $ 0.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 12,597,500.00 (Affects Lot 7A of Parcel B) 7. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. Tax Account No.: 088661-0070-00 Note: The public tax records are not currently available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects Lot 78 of Parcel B) 8. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. 9. Tax Account No.: 088661-0080-08 Note: The public tax records are not currently available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects Lot 7C of Parcel B) General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount BIiied: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. C) 082305-9209-00 $ 11,066.70 $ 5,533.35 $ 5,533.35 $ 1,130,600.00 $ o.oo First American TTtle /nsuranre Company Form No. 14 SubdlYislon Guarantee (H0-75) 10. 11. 12. General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount BIiied: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. D) General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. E) General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount BIiied: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. F) 082305·9019·00 $ 3,606.30 $ 1,803.15 $ 1,803.15 $ 343,700.00 $ 23,900.00 722300-0115-08 $ 16,738.79 $ 8,369.40 $ 8,369.39 $ 1,710,700.00 $ 0.00 756460-0055-04 $ 335,879.45 $ 167,939.73 $ 167,939.72 $ 3,730,300.00 $ 30,620,600.00 13. Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: • Gualll\lee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 6 Recording Information: April 23, 1942 under Recording No. 3235807 In Favor of: The Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Wisconsin corporation For: Spur Track Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 14. Easement, indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 6, 1944 under Recording No. 3426556 In Favor of: The Oty of Renton For: Sewer Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein Rrst American Tille Insurance Company Ftlrm No. 14 Guarantee 11<1.: NCS.369710-WA1 Page No.: 7 Subdivision Guarantee (H0-75) 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 1, 1944 under Recording No. 3432120 In Favor of: United States of America, acting through the Federal Public For: Affec:15: Housing Authority Storm, sewer and sidewalk (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 1, 1944 under Recording No. 3432121 In Favor of: United States of America, acting through the Federal Public For: Affec:15: Housing Authority storm, sewer and sidewalk (Parcel A) as deserlbed therein Easement, tndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 1, 1944 under Recording No. 3432122 In Favor of: United States of America, acting through the Federal Public Housing Authority For: 6 Inch water pipeline Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, Including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: May 12, 1954 under Recording No. 4445036 For: sewer service Affec:15: (Parcel F) as deso1bed therein Reservations and exceptions, Including the terms and conditions thereof: Reserving: Minerals Reserved By: Pacific Coast Railroad Company Recorded: February 9, 1956 Recording Information: 4662540 Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: June 6, 1962 under Recording No. 5436445 In Favor of: Toe Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle For: Underground sewer line Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, induding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 16, 1962 under Recording No. 5453013 In Favor of: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington For: sewer pipe lines system Affects: (Parcel A) as deserlbed therein Rrst Ameria,n 77Ue Insurance Company Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: NCS•3ti9710-WA1 Page No.: 8 Subd~lslon Guarantee (4-10·75) 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28, Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Informatlon: December 4, 1964 under Recording No. 5819195 In Favor of: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of For: Affects: Washington Sewage pipe lines and any other public utllltles (Lot 78 of Parcel BJ as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Informatlon: December 8, 1967 under Recording No. 6276238 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company For: Elect11c line, lndudlng all necessary poles, anchors, underground cables, conduits, manholes, wires and fixtures Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 24, 1968 under Recording No. 6295580 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company For: Electric line Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein Easement, induding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 29, 1973 under Recording No. 7311290292 In Favor of: Washington Natural Gas Company, a public utlllty corporation For: Gas pipeline Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, lnduding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: May 2, 1977 under Recording No. 7705020589 In Favor of: Washington Natural Gas Company, a public utility corporation For: Gas pipeline Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, induding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 17, 1977 under Recording No. 7708170733 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or dlstrlbutlon system (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 7, 1977 under Recording No. 7709070598 In Favor of: City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of For: Affects: Washington Public utilities (induding water and sewer} (Lot 7B of Parcel B} as described therein Rrst American Title Insurance Company Fonn No. 14 Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 9 Subd~islon Guarantee (H0·7S) 29. Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions rontalned therein: Recording Information: October 3, 1977 under Recording No. 7710030507 In Favor of: The Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 30. Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: October 25, 1977 under Recording No. 7710250275 For: Ingress and egress Affects: (Parcel C) as described therein 31. Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 18, 1977 under Recording No. 7711180856 In Favor of: The City of Renton, a municipal rorporatlon For: Public utilities Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 32. Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: May 21, 1979 under Recording No. 7905210642 In Favor of: The City of Renton For: Utilities Affects: as desclibed therein 33. Covenants, conditions, restlictlons and/or easements: 34. 35. Recorded: July 10, 1979 Recording No.: 7907100783 (Affects Parcel No. F) Easement and conditions contained therein as reserved by: Ordinance No.: 3327 Approved On: July 2, 1979 Recording Jnfonmatlon: August 13, 1979 under Recording No. 7908130670 In Favor of: City of Renton For: Utility and related purposes Affects: (Parcel B) as described therein Easement, induding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 28, 1980 under Rerordlng No. 8003280586 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system (Parcel F) as desalbed therein First American Title Insurance Company Fo,m NQ. 14 Guaranbee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 10 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Easement, lndudlng tem,s and provisions contained therein: Recording Infom,atlon: April 28, 1980 under Recording No. 8004280538 In Favor of: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities (lndudlng water and sewer) with necessary appurtenances Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein Easement, lndudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording Infomiatlon: July 25, 1980 under Recording No. 800nS0713 In Favor of: Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Underground communication lines and conduit (Parcel F) as deseribed therein Easement, lndudlng temis and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 19, 1981 under Recording No. 8101190465 In Favor of: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities (lndudlng water and sewer) with necessary appurtenances Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Infonnatlon: July 24, 1981 under Recording No. 8107240568 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: coporatlon Electric transmission and distribution lines as described therein Easement, Including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Infomiatlon: October 26, 1984 under Recording No. 8410260692 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington coporatlon For: Electric transmission and/or distribution system Affects: (Parcel B) as deseribed therein Easement, Including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 7, 1984 under Recording No. 8411070958 In Favor of: Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation, Its successors and assigns Underground communication lines and above ground cabinets (Parcel F) as deseribed therein First Amerta,n ntte Insurance Comf]4ny Farm No. 14 Guarantee NO.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: II SubdivtSIOn Guarantee ('4·10-75) 42. Reservations and exceptions, lndudlng the terms and conditions thereof: 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Reserving: Mineral Reserved By: Gary M. Riffle and Linda R. Riffle, husband and wife Recorded: Marcil 15, 1985 Recording lnfonnatlon: 8503150405 (Affects Parcel No. D) Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording lnfonnatlon: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160946 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or distribution lines (Parcels C & D) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording lnfonnatlon: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160947 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light CCmpany, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or distribution lines (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, lnduding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160949 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light CCmpany, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or distribution lines (Parcel A) as described therein Easement, induding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 3, 1986 under Recording No. 8612031434 In Favor of: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation of King County, For: Affects: Washington Public utilities (indudlng water and sewer) (Parcel C) as described therein Covenants, condltlons, restrlctlons and/or easements: Recorded: December 23, 1986 Recording No.: 8612231613 Document(s) dedaring modifications thereof recorded August 29, 1989 as Recording No. 8908290477 of Official Records. Rrst Amerta,n TTtle lnsuranre Company Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 12 Subdlv~lon Guarantee (4-10-75) 48. Easement, Including terms and prov1Slons contained therein: Recording Information: D~mber 28, 1987 under Recording No. 6712280271 In Favor of: The Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Roadway and utilities Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein 49. Easement, lnciudlng terms and provisions contained therein: 50. 51. 52. 53. Recording Information: February 24, 1988 and March 29, 1988 under Recording Nos. 8802240805 and 8803290822 In Favor of: For: Affects: The Sank of califomla, N.A., a national banking assodatlon, Stewart Title Company of Washington, Inc., and H & M IV Associates, a Washington general partnership Parking facility (Parcels B & F) as described therein Easement, lnciudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 22, 1988 under Recording No. 8808221055 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system (Parcel F) as desaibed therein Easement, lnciudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 30, 1988 under Recording No. 8808300587 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Ugh! Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system (Parcel B) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 30, 1988 under Recording No. 8808300593 ln Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Underground electric distribution system (Parcel F) as described therein Easement, lnduding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 30, 1988 under Recording No. 8808300594 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Underground electric distribution system (Parcels C & D) as described therein First Arnetfcan 71tle Insurance Comf]i1ny Form No. l4 Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WA1 Page No.: 13 SubdlvlSIOO Guarantee(1·l0-75) 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Easement, lndudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording lnfonnatlon: September 7, 1988 under Recording No. 8809070561 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or distribution line (Parcel C) as described therein Easement, lndudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording lnfonnatlon: October 21, 1988 under Recording No. 8810210273 In Favor of: City of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Roadway and utilities Affects: (Parcel B) as descnbed therein Easement, Ind udlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording Jnfonnatlon: December 29, 1988 under Recording No. 8812290204 In Favor of: Qty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities (lndudlng water and sewer) with necessary appurtenances Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein Easement, lnduding terms and provisions contained therein: Recording lnfonnatlon: April 24, 1989 under Recording No. 8904240682 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system (Parcel F) as described therein Easement, lndudlng tenms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 29, 1989 under Recording No. 8908290480 In Favor of: Qty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utllltles (lndudlng water and sewer) Affects: (Parcel B) as descnbed therein Easement, lndudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording Infonnatlon: August 29, 1989 under Recording No. 8908290481 In Favor of: Qty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Roadway, slopes and sidewalk areas Affects: (Parcel B) as described therein First Ameriam 'fltle Insurance Company Fenn No. 14 Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 14 SubdiYlsion Guaramee (4·10-75) 60. Easement, lnciudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 9, 1989 under Recording Nos. 891109M75 and 8911090474 In Favor of: For: Affects: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation Public utllitles (Including water and sewer) (Parcels Band F) as desalbed therein 61. Resbicttons, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Short Plat No. 93·89 recorded November 14, 1989 under Recording No. 8911149006, In King county, Washington. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. (Affects Parcels No. B and C) The terms and provisions contained In the document entitled Agreement and License for Fire Main Inter-lle at North 8th St. and Park Avenue, exeruted by and between Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation and Toe Boeing Company by and through Its division, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, recorded May 23, 1991 as Instrument No. 9105231158 of Official Records. Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 9, 1992 under Recording No. 9201090734 In Favor of: Tile City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation For: Public utllltles (lndudlng water and sewer) Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 13, 1992 under Recording No. 9207130661 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or distribution lines (Lot 7B of Parcel B) as described therein Easement, lndudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 13, 1992 under Recording No. 9207130662 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation An electrical transmission/distribution lines (Parcel E) as described therein Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: September 2, 1994 Recording No.: 9409020504 (Affects Parcel No. F) Rrst Amertcan ntte Insurance Company FDITTl No. 14 Subdiv~lon Guanmtee ( 4-10-75) 67. Easement, lndudlng terms and provtslons contained therein: Guarantee No.: NCS-3H710-WA1 Page No.: 15 Recording Information: November 22, 1994 and November 23, 1994 under Recording Nos. 9411220523 and 9411230706 In Favor of: For: Affects: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system (Lot 7B of Parcel B) as described therein 68. Covenants, conditions, restrlctlons and/or easements: Recorded: Marcil 18, 1997 Recording No.: 9703181422 Said Instrument Is a re-record of Recording No. 9612120855, recorded on December 12, 1996. 69. Covenants, conditions, restrletions and/or easements: Recorded: November 17, 2000 Recording No.: 20001117000535 70. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: November17,2000 Recording No.: 20001117001354 71. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: June 1, 2001 Recording No.: 20010601000022 (Affects Parcel No. F) 72. The terms and provisions contained In the document entitled Development Agreement, executed by and between The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation and Oty of Renton, a munldpal corporation, recorded August 2, 2002 as Instrument No. 20020602000224 of Official Records. 73. The terms and provisions contained In the document entitled Development Agreement, executed by and between The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation and Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation, recorded December 10, 2003 as Instrument No. 20031210001637 of Offldal Records. First American 77tJe Insurance Company Ferm No. M Subdivision Guarantee (4·11>-75) Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 16 74. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Boeing Lakeshore Landing Binding Site Plan recorded December 23, 2004 under Recording No. 20041223000856 and also In Volume 225 of Plats, Pages 83 through 86, In King County, Washington. Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded March 14, 2007 as Recording No. 20070314001933 of Official Records. (Affects Parcels No. A, B and C) 75. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: December 28, 2004 Recording No.: 20041226001871 76. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Sb'ander Agreement, executed by and between The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation and Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation, recorded April 20, 2006 as Instrument No. 20060420001032 of Official Records. 77. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Boeing Lakeshore Landing 2 Binding Site Plan recorded January 11, 2008 under Recording No. 20080111000854, In King County, Washington. (Affects Parcels No. A and BJ 78. Mechanics Lien. dalmant: Against: Amount: For: Date Work Commenced: Date Work Ceased: Recorded: Recording No.: Straight Line Striping, Inc. Millennium Building Co. $4,221.70 Labor and/or Matelials and/or Equipment October 1, 2007 October 18, 2007 January 11, 2008 20060111001220 Document(s) dedaling modifications thereof recorded January 18, 2008 as Recording No. 20080118001094 of Official Records. Affects: (Parcel A and other property) 79. Terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions as contained In recorded Lot Line Adjustment (Boundary Line Revision) LUA-08·072-LLA : Recorded: September 16, 2008 Recording Information: 20080916900008 (Affects Parcel No. A) Rrst American TTtle Insurance Company Fonn No. I~ Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) 80. MattErs that may be disclosed_ upon recordatlon of final subdlvlslon. Rrst American Tltle Insurance Company Guarantoe No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 17 • fOITTl No. 11 Subdivision Guara .... (+!0·75) INFORMATIONAL NOTES Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 18 A. Any sketch attached hereto Is done so as a courtesy only and Is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon It. B. If this preliminary report/commitment was prepared based upon an application for a policy of title Insurance that Identified land by street address or assessor's parcel number only, It Is the responsibility of the applicant to determine whether the land referred to herein Is In tact the land that Is to be described In the policy or policies to be Issued. Rrst American ntle Insurance Company • Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10·75) Guarantee No.: NCS-369710-WAl Page No.: 19 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE OF THIS GUARANTEE 1. Except to the extent that specific assurance If! pJOvided In SChedule A cf thiS Guarantee, die COmp,any assumes no liability fer loS$ or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, hens, ena1mtmmces, 1ctverSe daims or other matters against the l1lle, whether or not shown by the pubJtc records. (b} (1) Ti!Xe$ or assessments of anv taxing authorttv that levies~ or assessments on real property; or# (2) Pl'DCffdlngs by a pubUc aoeRCV which may result In taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, wheltler or not the matters exduded under {1) or (2) are shown b-,1 the records: of the laXlnO authority or by the publlc records. {c) Cl) Unpatent.ed mining datms; (2) reseMbons or exceptions in patents or m Acts, authonzing lhe issuance thereof; (3) Mter righlS, daim5 or title to wa.ier, whether or not the matters e:xduded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown try tl'le pubJIC records. 2. Notwithstanding any specific assurances which are Provided In SChedufe A of this Guarantee, tl'ie Compeny ltSSIJmes no HabUttv for Joss or damage by reason or die following: (a) Defects. !tens, encumbrance5, adverse daims Gt otner matter$ affec:tlng the title tD any propertv beyond the lines of ttie lartd expresgy desaibed in the desaiptlon set forth m Schedule (A), (C) ct In Part 2 of thi5 Guarantee, or ttt!e lO street$, roads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways to which such land abuts. or lhe right tu maintain therein vaults, tunnets:, ramps, or any sb'ucture or improYements; or arry righ.ts or easements therein, unless Sllch property, rights or easements are expressly and specfflcally iet rarth in said desoiJ)tlon. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, actverse dalms or other matten, whecher or not shown by the J)Ubllc rea,rds; (1) whtch afl! cruted, suffered, assumed or 1greed to by one or more or the Assureds; (2) which result In no Joss tu the Assured; or (3} whldl do not result in the tnvdldltv or patenaal lnVatldity or any judicial or non-Judldal proc.eed1rg which ts within the scope and purpose of the assurances provided, (c) The ldenbty ar any party shown or referred ta 1n Schedule A. (d) The validity, legal effect or pnonty of any matter shown or refen~ min ttus Guarantee. GUARANTEE CDNDmDNS AND mPULATJONS 1. Def1Nt10n of Te:mu. The ratlowlng terms when used in tht Guarantee mean: (a) the ·Assurecr: lhe party or parties named as the Assured ln this Guarantee, or on a supplemental Wfltlng executed by tl'le c.ampany. Cb) "land": Ille land described or referred ta fll SChedule (A) (C) or In Pa<t 2, and improvements affixed tnereto which by law constitute real property. The term •1and• does not mdtlde any property t,eyond the lines of the area cfescr1bed or referred to in Sd'ledule (A) (CJ or in Part 2, nor any right, tiUe, Interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roadS, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. (c) •mortgage•: mongage. deed or trust, lnlstdted, orottier sea.ity inStrument. (d) •J)UblJc records• : records established ur.der state statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purp:,se of Imparting constructM! notice of matters rN:llno to real rnoperty m purchasers for value and without knowdedge. (e) '"date·: the effective dab!. 2. Notice of ctalm to be Given by Anured Clatmant. An Assured shall notify the Comr;,anv promptly In writing In case knowledge shall come le an AssuN!d hereunder of anv claim of tide or interest whlCh IS adverse to lhe title to the estate or 111terest. as stated llerein, and wt11cn miC,U: cause k>ss or dalMQe tor which the Company may be bahle tr, wtue of thlS Guarantee. If prompt nota shall not be given to the company, then all liability of the Company Shall tenninate with regard to tile matter or matters far 'M'l!ch prompt notla! is requlredi provl• however, mat failure lo notify the Company $haU In no case prejudk:e the rights of any Assur~ under this Guarantee unless the company shall be prejudu:ed by Ille failure and then ontv to the extent or the J)rejudiee. 3, No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. The Company shall have no d\Jtv to defend or prosecute eny action or proceeding lO whleh the Assured IS a party, notwil.llsti!!lndlng lhe nature of any aUegatiOn In such adlon or proceeding. 4, Company's Option ta Defend or Prosecul8 Actions; l>utJ' Df Allured Clalmant to Coop a ate:. EV1!'n though the Company has no <luty to def'end or proSttJJte as set fartll m Paragraph 3 above: (a) The Company shall have the right. at its SOie option and cost. to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a Clerense, as limited in (b}, ar to cSo any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable tc establlsti the trtle to the estate or interest as stated herein. or to estnbUsh the lien rights of lhe AssUred, er to prevent er reduce loss or damage lO the Assured. 1he Company may take any appropriate action under the terms or thlS Guarantee, whether or not It shall be liable hereunder, ;iind $ha0 not therebV ccnc:ede Uability or WIIYe any prOVislon of thi'5 Guarantee. lf the company Shall exetdse itS righ~ under thlS paragraph, It Shall do so e1mgentty. (b) Jf the Company elects to exercise its o,:,Uons as Stzlted In Paragraph 1{a} the Company shall have tnt right to select counsel or Its choice (subiea to the right of sudl Assured to obJe(I for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shal not be tiable tor and will not pay tht fees or any other counsel, nor wil the Company pay any fees, costs or expenses inCurred by an Assured In die defense or tttose causes or action which allege matters not covered by lhlS Guiiuantee. (c) Whenever ltle! company shaU have brought an action or lnlerposed a defense 11s permitted by the provlSlons of this Guan11ntee, the Company mav pursue any ~tlgal:!On to tlnal detenntnation by a court of cumpetent JuriSdletlon and expressly reserves tne right, In its sole discretion, to al)?eil from an advl!!rSe Judgment or order, (d) In all cases where thiS Guarantee pennd:5 the COmpanv to PfOSeCUte or J)rovide ror the defense of any lctlon or praCffding, an Assured shall secure tD the Company lhe right to so proseo.tt! or provide far the defense of any aet:1on Gt .J)roceedlng, and au appeals therein, and permit tht c.ompany tD use. at its opUcn, lhe 11ame or such Assured for thiS PlJrpose. Whenever reQUeSted by tl'le Company. an Assured, at the C.Ompally's expense, Sl'lall oive the COmpany all re11SDnabte aid in any a:ttion or proceeding, securing evidence, obtalntno witnesses, proseDJting or defending tne action or lawful act whleh In the opinion of the company mav be necessary or deSiJable to estabUsh the title to the estare or Interest as stated herein, or to establlSI\ the lien rights or the Assured. If the Coms,,ny iS prejudleed by lhe failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company'5 obligations to Ule Assured under lhe Guan11nt:te shall terminate. s. Pnaof of Loll or Damage. lfl addition ta and aftl!r the nol:2CeS ,eqUlred under Section 2 of these Conditions and Stlpulatlons have been provided ta lhe Company, • proof of km o, damage signed and sworn ta by tile Assl.<ed shaD be furnished to Ille Company within ninety (90) aays after the Assured shall ascertain the facts giving rtse to the loss or damage. The proof of loss or damage shall desalbe the matters covered by this Guarantee whldl constitute tne basts or IOsS or damage and shall state, ta ttle emnt possible, tne buis of calculating the amount of the lo$5 or damage, If the Company Is prejudtced by the failure of the A5sured to provldt! the required proof of loss or damage, lhe Company's obtigatton to such Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. In addition, the Assw-ed may reasonably be required to-submit to examination umler oarh by any authOmd representative of the Company and shall produce ror examination, Inspection and copying, at such reasonaD!e Umes and places as may be designated by any authoriled ,epresentatlve of the Company, all reamls, books, ledlJerS, Ched:S, correspondence and memorcmda, whether bearing a dare before or after Date of Guarantee, wtileh reasonat>tv pertain to the loss or damage. Further, If requested by any authortzed representatiW!' of the Company, the Assured Shau grant rts permi5510n, In wnttng,, for any auttumzed representative of the Compafft' to examine, Inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in ttte custody or control or a third party, which reasonably pertain m the Los:s or Damage. All lnformatton designated as conftdential bv the Assured provideCI to the Company, pursuant to thlS 5ectian snau not be dlsdosed ta others unless. In the reasonable Judgment or the C.omp,any, lt ts nea!55ilry Ln the admlr115trati0n of the dalm. Fallure of the Assured to submft ror exam1nat10n under oath, produce ol11er reasonably requested 1nrormati0n or grant permlSSiOn to set\lre reasonably necessary Information from third partleS as required In the above paragraph, unless prohibited t,y laW or governmental regulattoo. shall lennlnate any llabUity of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for that daim. Form No, 1281 (Rew'. l2/lS/9S) Rrst Amer/eon Tltle Insurance Company . ' 6, Optl0!1s to Pay or Otherwise 5elUe Clolmt: Termlnatlan of Uablllty. In case of a claim under this Guar1ntee, the Company Shall have the foHowlng addibonal options: (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Liability or bl Purchase the Indebtedness. The Company shall have the option to pay or settle or compromise, fnr or In the name or the As.sured any darn which could result In los.t to the AssLred within the ~ of this Guarantee, or to pay the fu~ amount or ttlis Guarantee or, If thl5 GuallWltee Is Issued for the benefit or a holder of a mortgage or a llenholder, the Company shall have the option to purctlase the Indebtedness seared by said mort;age or said Hen for the amount owing thereon, together with any costs. reuanable attorneys' fee5 and expenses incurred by the Assured dal1111nt which were authorized bV the company up to the time or purdlase. Such purchase, payment or tel'lder or payment of the full amount of the Guarantee shall terminate all llabilitv of the OJmpany hereunder. In the event after notice of Claim l'tas been given to the Company by the Assured the Company offers to purchase said fndebtedness, the owner of such Indebtedness sh!II transfer and assign said indebtedness, together with a,ny collateral security, to the Company upon payment of the purchase price. Upon the exercise by the company of the option provided for In Paragrttph [a) the ComPi!nv's obllgation to the Assured under th15 Guarantee fo, tlte di~ toss or damage, other thin to make tt'N!! Jlayment required In that paragraph, shaU tenntnate, OOutling any obligatiOn to continue the defense or proseaJtlDn of any titigaUon far whkh the Company has exercised Its options under Parao,aph 4, and the Guarantee shaft be surrendered to the Companv for cancellation. {b) To Pay or Otherwise: Seme: With PartltS other Than ~ Assured or With the Assured OalmanL To pay or ottlerwlSe settle with other parties rar or In !tie name of an Assured claimant any daim Assured against under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys" fees end expenses incurred b't' the Assured dllmant v.hich were authartzed trt the Company up to the tlme of payment clfld which the ComP1nY ts obtigated to pay. Upon the exerdSe by the COmPony of the opllon provided for In Paragraph (b) the Company's obligation to the Assured urKfer this Guarantee fa, lhe dalmed loss ot damage, other than to make the payment required in that paragraph, shall terminate, Including any obligation to amUnue the defense or prosecution ar any NHgaHon for which the COmPony has """""5ed It! options under Paragraph 4. 1. Deb!nnlna-and EXtent ol U.bUlty. ThlS Guarantee iS a conuact of Indemnity against actual manetary loss er damage sustained or Incurred by the Assured claimant Ylho has suffered loss or damage bv reason of rell8nce upon the assurances set forth in this Guarantee and lffllv to the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of This Gui91'antee. The Liability af the COmpany under this Guarantff to the Assured shall ntit exceed the least af: (a) the amount ar liability stated In Schedule Aot In Part 2; (b) the amount of die unpaid prl"ICipal indebtednes-s secured by tne mortgage of an Assured mortgagee, as limited or p:rOVfded under section 6 of these COndlUons and Stipulations or as reduced under Section 9 ar theSe CDndltlons and Stipulations, at the time the ross or damage Assured IDBlnst bv this Guarantee ocan, together with Interest thereon; or (c) the difference between the vakse of the estate or Interest covered hereby as stated herein and IN! vab.J! of tne date or Interest subJed to any defect. lien or el"IOJmbraru::e Assured against br;' this Guarantee. a. Um-on ol Uablllty. (a) Jr the company estabfishes the title, or removes the alleged defed. lien or encumbrance, or C\lre5 any olher matter Assured against bV this Guc1ran~ In a reasooabtv dil!gent manner by any method, Including llttgatton and the compfetton of anv appeals tl\er!rrom, it Stlall nave fully performed itS abllgatJons with respect to th.at matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (b) In tne event af any Utlgation by lhe Company or With the CCmpanv's consent. the COmPif\Y shatl have no Dabltity for loss or dimage until there has been a ftnal detenntoauon by a court of competent ~n. and dlStlmitlon of all appeals therefrom, adverse tD the titf:e, IS stated herein. (cl The Cornpanv shall l'Clt be liable for loss or damage to anv Assured for Uabllity volunblnty assumed bv the Assured ln settling any dalm or suit without the pno, written consent of the Company. I, Reducttan ol U.blllty or Term1..-of Uablllty. All payments under this Guarantee, except paymems made for costs, attameys' fees and~ pursuant to Paragraph 411 5hall reduce the amount of llabllitY pro tanto. 10. Payment of i.-. (a} No payment shaH be made without produdng this Guarantee for ertdorseffll!!nt of the payment unless the Guarantee hl5 been Jost or destroyec:11 In which case proof of loss ar destruction Shall be furnished m the sand&ction of the r.ompany. (b) When l~blllty and the .....,t of loss or damage hos been deflnitelv r..e. 1n ao:omance with the5I!! conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shan oe: pavatJ!e within thirty (30) days thereafter. 11, SUbroaltlon Upon Payment or Settlement. Whenever the Company shatl have settted and paid a dalm umJer this Guarantee, &U right at subrogation 5'1all vest In thl!! company unaffected bf any act of the Assun!!d claimant The company shalf be subrogated to and be entfUed tu au rights and remedies wNch the Assured would have had agalnSt anv person or property In respea tD the dajm llad this Guarantoe not been issued. If reciuested by the COmPIO'/, the _,red s11a1 transfer to the Company all rlghlS and remedies against any person or property necessary In order to perfect thlS right or subrogation. The Assured shall permit tht COmpanv to sue, compromise or settle •n tile l1iWne of the Assured and to use the name cf the Assured In any transaction or lltlgatton Involving these l'lghts or remltdles. If a payment on account of a dalm does not fu[tv cover the loss of the Assured the c.ampany Shall be sutm>gated to an rtghlS and remedies of the Assured alter the Assured Shall have recovered l'5 prindl)II, Interest. and exists of cotlecaon. 12. Amltratlon. Unless prohibited by applicable law, either tile Company or the Assured may demand arbitration pursuant ta thl!! T1tte Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Assodatton. Arbltrable matters may lndude, but are not Umlt2d tD, any controversy or dalm betwetn the company and the _,red arising out of or relat!ng to thlS Guarantt:e. anv sel\lf:ce of the Campany in connectfcn with ltS issuance or the bleach or a Guarantee p,ovtslcn ar other obllgattan. Al arbitrabte matters when the Amount ar Liabllltv is $1,000,000 o, less shafl be arbitrated at the option tir either the Company ar the Assured. AU arbttrable matters ~ the amount of liability Is In excess of $1,000,000 shan be Btbltrated onty when agreed to by bottl the! company and the Assured. The Rules In effect at Date of Guarantee Shall be binding upon the parties. The aWilfd may lndude attom<yS' fees only If the laws of the state In wnlCh the land ~ located pennltl a court ta award attorneys' fees to a )'.Jff!Vaillng party. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbltrator(S) may be entered in any court having Jurlsdicticn thereof. The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the nue Jnsuranct ArtJitratiOn Rule$. A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Companv upon request. 13, Uilbllltf Umlted to This G,...rantee; Guarantee EnUre COnbaet. (a) Tills Guarantee together with aH endorsements. 1r any, attKhed hereto by the c.ompany is the entire Guar1ntee and contn:ict between the Assw'ed and the Company. In lnt!!rpreUng any provtstcn or this Guarantee, thlS Guarantee shall be canstrued as a whale. (b) Ant dalm of loss or d,mage, ~r or net bra:!ied on negligence, GI any action asserting such cl.aim, shall be restnc:ted to Uus Guarantee. (c) No amendment of or endorsement ID tNs Guarantee can be made except by a wrltlng endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by etttier the President, a Vice Pr@Sld!t\t. the Secretary, an Assistant Secret1ry, or validating officer or authorized ~tory of the company. 14. N-WhontSent. All notices requirec:I to be given tne c.cmpany and any stat2ment 1n wnting required to be fumished the Company shall ltldudt the number of this Gu11antee and shitll be addressed tD the Company at 2 First Ameriean Wirf, Bldg. 2, Santa Ana, CA. 92707. Form NcJ. 1212 (Rn. 12/15/95} First American 77tle Insurance Company PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: Ni" ,,u,.NN\~ 0 s\/cg~~ii t1cN1oN 0C1 -1 1(J(J'ri RECt.\\Jc.O The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproJect proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer,'' and "affected geographic area," respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE 1 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project. if applicable: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan, Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B ("Amended Conceptual Plan"). 2. Name of applicant: The Boeing Company 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jeffrey R. Adelson The Boeing Company Box 3707. M/C 7H-AH Seattle, Washington 98124 4. Date checklist prepared: September. 2008 Note: This checklist accompanies the Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Amended Conceptual Plan prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. in September. 2008 ("2008 Consistency Analysis"). It is for Planned Action consistency purposes only and is not for purposes of triggering a threshold determination under SEPA. 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): See. Table 1-1 of 2008 Consistency Analysis. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The proposal contemplates eventual redevelopment of Boeing's Sub-District 1-B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE 2 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared. directly related to this proposal. 1. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, October, 2003 ("2003 EIS") 2. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., May, 2006 ("2006 Consistency Analysis") 3. 2008 Consistency Analysis 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes. explain. Unknown. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1. Approval of Amended Conceptual Plan 2. Planned Action Ordinance for Sub-District 1-B 11. Give brief. complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. See, 2008 Consistency Analysis at 4-7. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan. vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist General location: SE QUARTER OF SECTION 7, AND SW QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E. W.M., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON See. title reports submitted with Amended Conceptual Plan for full legal description See, Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 of 2008 Consistency Analysis. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE J B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH The Earth impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _______ _ See above. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) See above. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See above. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. See above. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. See above. f Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 4 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? See above. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See above. 2. AIR The Air impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis. Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. See above. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air. if any: See above. 3. WATER The Water impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE o 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. See above. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. See above. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. See above. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. See above. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so. describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. See above. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. See above. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE 6 c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, if so, describe. See above. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. See above. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See above. 4. PLANTS The impacts on Plants of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: See above. __ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs __ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? See above. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE 7 ct. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See above. 5. ANIMALS The impacts on Animals of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: See above. Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other _______ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other --------Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _______ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See above. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain See above. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: See above. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES The Energy and Natural Resource impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957 2 PAGE 8 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. See above. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: See above. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH The Environmental Health impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill. or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. See above. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. See above. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: See above. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic. equipment, operation, other)? See above. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE~ 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts. if any: See above. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE The Land and Shoreline Use impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? See above. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. See above. c. Describe any structures on the site. See above. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? See above. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? See above. f_ What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? See above. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? See above. cNVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957 .2 PAGE10 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. See above. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? See above. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? See above. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: See above. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: See above. 9. HOUSING The Housing impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. See above. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: See above. ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957 2 PAGE 11 10. AE~THETICS The impacts on Aesthetics of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s}, not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s} proposed. See above. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: See above. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE The Light and Glare impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? See above. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? See above. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? See above. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: See above. cNVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14 727957.2 PAGE 12 12. RECREATION The Recreation impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? See above. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: See above. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION The Historic and Cultural Preservation impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. See above. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts. if any: See above 14. TRANSPORTATION The Transportation impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, 2008 Consistency Analysis, including Appendix B, the Transportation Consistency Analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest. LLC. dated August 25. 2008; see also the 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE 13 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? See above. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? See above. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? See above. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. See above. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See above. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See above. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES The impacts on Public Services of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Would the proJect result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection. health care. schools, other)? If so, generally describe. See above. ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE14 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. See above. 16. UTILITIES The impacts on Utilities of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. See above. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service. and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See above. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might iss 1in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentatio~ o c~. off~ ~ure on my part. Proponent: -~:K;: Name Printed: Date: I I \ c., \ ~' \ oZ::$ D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS r· (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and 1 · programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) ' Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE 15 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals. fish, or marine life are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: See. 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE16 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis SIGNATURE I. the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might · ue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentati 01 ill ul .ackff full d~closure on my part. Proponent: _ _ l~ Name Printed: Date: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE17 C!TY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA 3ILL Alff: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: October 6, 2008 Dept/Div/Board .. Development of Community & Economic Development Staff Contact.. .... Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Agenda Status x7314 Consent.. ............ X Subject: Public Hearing .. X Planned Action for Sub-district 1-B of the Boeing Correspondence .. Renton Plant property and Boeing Sub-district 1-B Ordinance ............. X Amended Conceptual Plan Approval. Resolution ............ Old Business ........ CONCURR~NCE Exhibits: New Business ....... DATE~ II.TE Issue Paper Study Sessions ...... ~ Draft Ordinance Information ......... -· c1. fo:::. ,, z Wt. J' ., Proposed Conceptual Plan ( [. &! ;,,._,,,t ,.__,_ J ~ ~ Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban J /R//'U~'f ()'P,\4·' Center-North «~/,{.,,, tP'/.?J. --,-~~- Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer Planned Action and Amended Conceptual Plan to Committee of the Whole and set a public hearing for October 20,2008 Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept.. .. .. Other.. ............ . Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/ Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: X The Boeing, Co. is requesting the adoption ofan ordinance designating a Planned Action and the adoption of the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan for a second phase of redevelopment of surplus property for Sub-District 1-B of the Boeing Renton Plant property. Sub-District 1-B is 50.7-acre site bounded by Logan Avenue Non the west, Garden Avenue Non the east, N 8th Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south. The 2003 Development Agreement with the Hoeing Company requires Council adoption of a Conceptual Plan prior to redevelopment. This Conceptual Plan will serve as the basis for all future land use approvals related to this development. A public hearing to consider the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan and Planned Action Ordnance should be set on October 20, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. • Adopt the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: o Park Avenue be designated as a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;1 ' and, o Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, o Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; and, o That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations and parking) be allowed within the "North 1-B" area should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and sunnorted by the oroperty owner(s). \\DAEDALUSl~"iYS2\SHARED\Divis ion.s\Oeve!op.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\08-112. V Wlessa\Agenda Bill 08-112 .doc ,;: 1--· CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board .. Development of Community & Economic Development Staff Contact.. .... Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner x7314 Subject: Planned Action for Sub-district 1-B of the Boeing Renton Plant property and Boeing Sub-district 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan Approval. Exhibits: Issue Paper Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North Draft Ordinance Proposed Conceptual Plan Recommended Action: Refer Planned Action and Amended Conceptual Plan to Committee of the Whole and set a public hearing for October 20,2008 Fi seal Im pact: Al#: For Agenda of: October 6, 2008 Agenda Status Consent. ............. Public Hearing .. Correspondence .. Ordinance ............. Resolution ............ Old Business ........ New Business ....... Study Sessions ...... Information ......... Approvals: Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept.. ... . Other .............. . Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/ Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Total Project Budget Revenue Generated ....... .. City Share Total Project .. SUMMARY OF ACTION: X X X X The Boeing, Co. is requesting the adoption of an ordinance designating a Planned Action and the adoption of the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan for a second phase of redevelopment of surplus property for Sub-District 1-8 of the Boeing Renton Plant property. Sub-District 1-8 is 50.7-acre site bounded by Logan Avenue Non the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8'h Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south. The 2003 Development Agreement with the Boeing Company requires Council adoption of a Conceptual Plan prior to redevelopment. This Conceptual Plan will serve as the basis for all future land use approvals related to this development. A public hearing to consider the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan and Planned Action Ordnance should be set on October 20, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. • Adopt the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: o Park Avenue be designated as a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" and, o Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, o Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. ?1h Street; and, o That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations and parking) be allowed within the "North 1-B" area should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and suoported by the orooertv owner(s). \\DAE DAL US\S YS2\SHARED\Division.s\Develnp.ser\Dev&plan. ing\PROJECTS\08-112. Vancssa\Agcnda Bill 08-112.doc DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM September 29, 2008 Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Dennis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator (x 6592) ~ CU~RENCE DATFLl'l-og NAME INITIAL/DATE fffff:11- <Lt<w,I •. 1 ;/qyyAL tt ', P'J //(Mb= J t/7 c ·7/·Co BOEING SUB-DISTRICT 1-B CONCEPTUAL P & PLANNED ACTION Should the City of Renton approve an Amended Conceptual Plan, in accordance with the December 2003 Development Agreement between the City and The Boeing Company, for the 50.7-acre portion of the Boeing Renton Plant, known as Sub-District 1-B; and adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance prepared by The Boeing Company, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October of2003? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: • Park Avenue be designated as a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" for the purposes of the Urban Center Design Guidelines. • Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas: and, • Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; and, • That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations, parking, etc.) be allowed within "North 1-B" should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s) and; Further, staff recommends adopting the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev&plan.ing\projects\08-112.vanessa\issue papper 08-112.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 29, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Dennis Law, Mayor FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE: Alex Pietsch, Administrator (x 6592) BOEING SUB-DISTRICT 1-B CONCEPTUAL PLAN & PLANNED ACTION Should the City of Renton approve an Amended Conceptual Plan, in accordance with the December 2003 Development Agreement between the City and The Boeing Company, for the 50.7-acre portion of the Boeing Renton Plant, known as Sub-District 1-B; and adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance prepared by The Boeing Company, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October of2003? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: • Park Avenue he designated as a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" for the purposes of the Urban Center Design Guidelines. • Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, • Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension of'N, ?1h Street; and, • That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations, parking, etc.) be allowed within "North 1-B" should funding opportunities arise and development or such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s) and; Further, staff recommends adopting the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. h:\division.s\develop.ser\dcv&plan.ing\prujects\08-112.vancssa\issue papper 08-112.doc Doeing Subdistrict 1-H Amended . ptua\ Plan Page 2 of 8 September 29, 2008 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: 2003 Boeing Development Agreement and Conceptual Planning In 2003, the City of Renton worked with The Boeing Company to change its land use policies and regulations to bring about the potential surplus and sale of portions of its Renton Plant for redevelopment. In addition to a substantial Comprehensive Plan Amendment, creation of two new zoning designations (Urban Center North 1 [UCN-1 J and Urban Center North 2 [UCN-2]), and expanded design guidelines, Boeing and the City established a Development Agreement detennining the public and private responsibilities necessary to bring about successful redevelopment. One of the key provisions of the Development Agreement was Conceptual Planning. In order to give the City some assurance and comfort about when and how properties would be made surplus and redeveloped in the future, the Development Agreement requires that Boeing plan, and the City Council approve. in a conceptual way, three large "subdistricts" that make up the Renton Plant "at !he time at which the Owner wishes to subdivide. develop, sell, or olhenvise alter any property within the subdistricts for uses no/ related to airplane manufacturing or supporting uses. " The Development Agreement included a Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-A and it was approved by adoption of the Development Agreement. This property was purchased by Harvest Partners. However, while another development group, Center Oak, was considering purchase of the property, it presented and the Council adopted a slight revision to the Sub- District 1-A Conceptual Plan in October 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I -A in early 2006. Sub-District I-A is now know as 'The Landing" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theater uses. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of2005 and approved in November of 2005. Thereafter, Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B; which was approved by the City in December of 2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007, a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan (BSP) for the same area under the name ''Lakeshore Landing 2" was approved resulting in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District 1-13: Lots SA, 5B, SC, 50, SE, 7A, 7B, and 7C. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B (Lots SA and 7B) of the BSP; formerly described as the "Right of First Offer (ROFO) Arca," now referenced as ''North 1-B," were planned for retail uses complementary to the Harvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to changes in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1-B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center - North I zone. Now, The Boeing Company seeks to sell a portion of Sub-district 1-B and has presented the attached Amended Conceptual Plan for the Council's consideration. In addition, the Boeing Company is requesting approval of Planned Action legislation, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October 2003. The approval of Planned H.\Dmsiun.s\Develop ser\Dev&plan.inp.\PROJFCTS\08-112 Vanessa\lssue Papper U8-l l 2.dur: Boeing Subdistl'ict 1-B Amended .eptual Plan • Page 3 of8 September 29, 2008 Action legislation would streamline the penmttmg process by utilizing ex1stmg environmental documentation, as allowed by RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315. As a result of approving Planned Action legislation, the applicant would be required to submit an environmental consistency analysis with each phase of the project and receive subsequent approvals from the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The consistency analysis would be required as individual master plans and/or site plans are proposed. In addition, the adoption of Planned Action legislation provides added entitlement and scheduling predictability as the developer begins to prepare for the redevelopment of the 50.7-acrc site. Requirements of a Conceptual Plan Per the 2003 Development Agreement, a proposed Conceptual Plan will include: • A narrative describing the conceptual redevelopment proposal and its relationship to the Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North; • The estimated timing and sequencing of property surplus and sale (if applicable); • A description of the proposed uses. including the general mix of types, estimated square footage of each building and parking for each structure, heights and residential densities; • The general description of use concentrations (i.e., residential neighborhoods, office or retail cores. etc.); • Vehicular and pedestrian circulation that includes a hierarchy and general location of type, including arterials, pedestrian-oriented streets, other local roads and pedestrian pathways; • General location and size of public open space; and • An economic benefit analysis demonstrating the conceptual development's anticipated economic impact to local, regional and state governments. The Development Agreement states "the Council will base its approval on the proposed Conceptual Plan's fulfillment of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies jiJr the Urban Center-North. " Once adopted, the City will use the Conceptual Plan lo evaluate all subsequent development permit applications within the subdistricts based on consistency. Proposed Sub-district 1-B Conceptual Plan The attached Conceptual Plan proposal outlines Boeing's plans for the redevelopment of the property south ofN. 81h Street and east of Logan Avenue N. It divides the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North 1-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment, and the southern portion of the Sub-District currently know as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres of remaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. The area noted as North l-B, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative scenarios: Scenario l, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B ofthe 13SP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. J-1:\Division.s\Develop scr\Dcv&p!an.ing\PKOJECTS\08" 112.Vancssa\lssue 1-'apper 08-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict 1-B Amended eptual Plan Page 4 of8 September 29, 2008 Scenario I (Attachment A) describes redevelopment of the North 1-B property as complementary to the urban retail development currently being developed as 'The Landing" by Harvest Partners to the north. It includes the possibility of as much as 270,000 square feet ofretaiL with one large-forrnat (big-box) retailer on the eastern side of the property. Small and medium-sized shops would also be developed on either side of Park Avenue. The plan also shows pedestrian connections between the remaining properties to the south, through the retail development and to Park Avenue N. Scenario 2 (Attachment B) has two components; the "office and employment" component and the "hotel retail" component. Lot 5A (otlice and employment component) would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include technology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. In addition, small-scale ground floor and/or freestanding retail uses may be included in this development. The build-out of the office and employment component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand, future buildings may include structure parking to achieve maximum density. Lot 78 (hotel retail component) would be developed with a seven to nine story hotel and two separate, small-scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complement and support the hotel use. All uses would be surfaced parked and be oriented toward Park Avenue N. Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios I and 2. Any combination implemented would not exceed the overall development capacities contemplated for North 1- B. Two economic benefit analyses were completed for the subject site, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment scenarios for Sub-district 1-B. The economic benefit analysis for Scenario I suggests that redevelopment of the North 1-B property would create 1,061 direct and indirect new jobs, predominately retail-oriented, and annual tax revenues to of $856,000 beginning in 2008, and $667,000 in one-time revenue to the City during construction. The supplemental economic benefit analysis completed for Scenario 2 suggests that redevelopment of the North 1-B property would create 3,150 jobs, predominately office employment. The report concludes that the current/revised conceptual plan for Sub-District 1-B essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic benefits to those anticipated as part of the original conceptual plan. The property south of North 1-B known as the "Boeing Remainder" is influenced by the presence of four, I 980s-vintage office buildings that arc located throughout. For the purposes of this Conceptual Plan, Boeing has assumed that the existing office bui I dings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. As indicated within the Conceptual Plan there are four specific sites within the Boeing Remainder that have redevelopment potential terrned DP 1-DP4 herein. DPI is a 4.9-acre property in the southwest comer of the subdistrict may be available for redevelopment more quickly (2010). The subject Amended Conceptual Plan indicates DP! 's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more H \Division s\Develop ser\Ikv&plan ing\PROJECTS\08-112 Vanessa\lssuc Papper 08-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict 1-B Amende Page: 5 of8 September 29, 2008 ·eptual Plan structures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. DP! could accommodate the parking needs of either use onsite. DP2 and DP4 provided infill opportunities that may exist when parking requirements for the exiting office buildings are reduced. The Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment of DP2 and DP4 with new buildings containing either lab or office uses, consistent with the current development pattern. The potential redevelopment of these parcels would result in approximately 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. To accommodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on DP2, any additional parking requirements could be provided within existing parking structures. DP3 is located in the northwest comer of61h Street and Park Avenue N. The subject Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses. in a single story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. The building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. Overall, redevelopment with all office, all labs, or a mix of office and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. If the property was redeveloped to the full potential outlined in the Plan, the economic benefit analysis shows that more than 2. I 00 direct and indirect new jobs would be created by full redevelopment. One-time revenues to the City would top $6.2 million and new recurring annual tax revenues to Renton would nearly reach $2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter. The Vision and Policies of the Urban Center-North (Attachment C) Renton's Vision for redevelopment of the Urban Center-North, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, is one of dramatic change as existing large scale industrial buildings are reconfigured into a dynamic new retail, flex tech, and office center. This vision would be supported by the proposed plan for the North 1-B area. The Vision states, "Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office, and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. " In addition, Renton 's vision for the Urban Center -North includes "a dense employment center; "the concept of combining new structures and re-utilizing high-quality existing structures will meet this vision ofjob growth which is anticipated to occur in "high-quality, we/1-designedflex-tech development and low-to mid-rise office, lab, and research and development buildings that provide attractive environmentsfi,r companies offering high-wage careers in in.formation technology, [ and] life sciences.. Scenario 1 supports the City's vision and applicable goals for the urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on North 1-B that complement existing retail uses located north ofN. S'h Street. Scenario 2 similarly supports the City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North 1-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios I and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center North and District One. I [·\Division s\D~-...c:lop.scr\Dc:v&plan mg\PROJECTS\08-112. Vanessa\Jssue Papper 08-112.<loc Boeing Subdistrict 1-B Amended Page 6 of 8 September 29, 2008 eptual Plan The Purpose Statement for the Urban Center -North envisions redevelopment at a larger scale than found in Downtown Renton with a wider range of uses, taking advantage of the greater size of available land holdings. These uses are anticipated to include some industrial- type uses as ongoing within the larger context of commercial/retail, office, and residential. The building heights proposed by the conceptual plan would be consistent with both the existing buildings to remain and Policy LU-265: "Support more urban intensity of development (e.g. building height, [etc.]) than with land uses in the suburban areas of the City ... " The combination or large-format retail development with medium-format retailers and smaller, specialty retail shops along Park A venue in scenarios I meets the intent of Policy LU-301: "Ensure that big-box [large:format] retail/unctions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urhan-scale retail developments. " Scenario I of the Amended Conceptual Plan has a pedestrian orientation within the site, with connections to the perimeter along N 6th St. and Park Avenue N. This concept is consistent with Policy LU-303: "Encourage pedestrian-oriented development ... "although Scenario 2 dose not address this Policy. The eventual proposed parking ratio of3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet is consistent with Policy LU-311: "Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunitiesfor infill development, and provide for efficient use of/and by setting maximum parking standard,. " Scenario 2 provides for hotel uses in combination with retail / restaurant as supporting uses. This concept is consistent with Policy LU-268: "Allow hospitality uses such as hotels, convention and conference centers. " All three scenarios would add to the City's tax base, provide additional jobs and help to expand the overall mix of uses currently located in District One. This concept is consistent with Policy LU-266 and Policy LU-267: "Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base" and "Support a range and variety of commercial and office uses." Possible Conditions of Plan Approval While the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent with the Vision and Policies of the Urban Center-North, staff asks the City Council to consider approving the plan with four conditions. First, given the fact that Boeing proposes pedestrian connections through the property to Park Avenue, making it the main pedestrian access to the retail/entertainment development expected to develop in Sub-District IA to the north, and the large number of office/lab workers that will one day be in the area when the existing office buildings are re-occupied and in-fill development occurs, staff believes that Park Avenue should have a strong pedestrian orientation. The Urban Center Design Guidelines provide enhanced streetscape and urban design requirements on streets specifically designated as "pedestrian oriented." Staff proposes that Park Avenue between N. 6th and N. gth Streets be designated as a "Pedestrian-Oriented Street" in the Conceptual Plan approval. This is consistent with the H:\Dmsion.s\Develop st:r\Dev&plan.inglPROJECTS\08-112 Vancssa\Issuc Pappcr 08-112.doc Boeing Subdistnct 1-B Amended eptual Plan Page7of8 Scptemhcr 29, 2008 Vision: "Initial development may be characterized by ... a strong pedestrian-oriented .1pine along Park Avenue·· and Policy LU-288: "Orient buildings to streets to emphasize urban character, maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District. " Second, in order to extend the network of planned pedestrian connections throughout the area, designated pedestrian connections should be provided for in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B. These pedestrian connections would be consistent with Policy LU-283, which "Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans .. , The pedestrian connections should align with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in sounding areas. Furthermore, in order to provide for the possibility of an interconnected grid street pattern in the area, staff recommends that provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1- B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy CD-59 requiring a street system that provides for a "continuous, efficient. inlerconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the City." The preservation of this corridor would facilitate in further redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B at higher densities and intensities over time by providing for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity and access. This is consistent with Policy LU-285 "Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and inlensities over time. " Finally, staff proposes preserving the possibility of siting a transit facility in the North 1-B area. As the City Council is aware, the City, the State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Sound Transit have been planning a I IOV Direct Access Interchange on Interstate 405 at N. S'h Street. Additionally, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is being planned as a high-capacity transit strategy, linking Renton to Bellevue and other locations on the Eastside. Current plans for BRT, have busses exiting the freeway at N. s'h and landing in the redevelopment area, before traveling south along Logan Avenue to the Downtown Transit Center. lfthe City, State, and Sound Transit can outline a plan and funding for development of a transit facility, that may include passenger load/unload areas, structured parking, etc, that is supportive of redevelopment and supported by the property owners, the Conceptual Plan should allow such a facility to be developed. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective NN: "Implement Renton ·s Urban Center consistent with the 'Urban Centers criteria of the /King County] Countywide Planning Policies to create an area of concentrated employment and housing with direct service by high capacity trans ii ... " and Policy LU-211: '·Renton 's Urban Center should be maintained and redeveloped with supporting land use decisions and projects that ... support development of an extensive transporlation system to reduce dependency on automobiles ... " CONCLUSION: Planned Action: If the proposed Planned Action Ordinance were adopted by Council, the permitting process would be streamlined by utilizing existing environmental documentation. H.\Division s\Develop.scr\D~v&plan mg\PROJl::::C l'S\08-112 Vanessa\Jssuc Papper 08-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict 1-H Amende Page 8 of8 Sepkrnber 29, 2008 cptual Plan ' Amended Conceptual Plan: The Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B is generally consistent with the Vision and Policies established in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North and should be supported with the following conditions: 1) Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" and, 2) Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, 3) Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension of N. 7'" Street; and, 4) Transit facilities would also be an allowed within the "North 1-B" area, should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). Approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan will form the basis for all land use approvals going forward, unless the Plan is amended with City Council approval. Attachment~ A: Proposed Conceptual Plan, Scenario I B· Proposed Conceptual Plan, Scenano 2 C' Urban Center-North Vision, Objectives, and Polic1e~ cc Jay Covington -AJLS Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch-CFO Administrator Gregg Zimmerman -Pubhc Work Admmistrator Keil Watts -Development Services Director C E Vmcem-Planning Director Suz.anne Dale-Estey --Economic Development Director Jennifer 1Ienning Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee CED Associate Planner 11.\Division.s\Develop ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\08-112 Vancssa\fssuc Pappcr 08-112.doc Scptc:mbc, 26 2005 FULLER SEARS ARCHITECTS ~ONCEPTUAL PLA r~ SUB-DISTRICT 1-B M AX. 30% LOT COVERAGE 14'--------IF 1-STORY RETAIL ------"'"C""""---#--+......._==r-----+ LEGEND : R RETAI L L LAB 0 O FF IC E DP-1 · __...../ MA,X ,~ITS PER AC F\E MULTI-FAM ILY RES I DENTIAL -(535 UNITS) NOTE: !,\AX. 30% LOT CO.VEMGE,ir 1-S TO RY 'Rl:fAll (6 5,000 SF) p PA RKING GARAGE MF MULT I-FAMI LY --P E DES TR IAN CO NNECl IO NS (270,000 S F) ------ MAX TWO 6 -STORY LA.B BLDGS . (3 60,000 SF TOTAL) NOTE : MA X ONE &-STORY BLOG IF OFFIC E (1 20.000 S~) p.3 MA X. O N E 6-STORY LAB BLDG. (180,0 00 SF) WI SHARED PA RK ING IN DP-2 G ARA GE NOTE : MAX.ON E 6-STORY BLOG IF O FFICE (120,000 SF) W llttNEW PA RK ING GARAGE I ; ~ 1 EXISTING . a:? GARAGE DP-4 MAX. TWO 6-STORY LA.BB o . (360 ,000 S F TOTAL) SUPPORTED BY E XIST. PA RKING GARA G E NOTE : MAX.TWO &-ST0f1Y OLDGS . IF O FFICE (300,000 S F) WI TH NEW 2 -3 ST0f1Y PARKING GARAGE NO T A PART Attachment A Conceptual Plan Diagram, Exhibit 2 Conceptual Plan 1 Sub-District 1 B l f;-_ao.EING ·--~ ·=·---· -----~_J • North 8th Streel O\L •• ••• • • O\L\R 0 R --r: • • •• Iii • l . R • I ~ 'lo' O\L • p I O\L _] I ~ H € 0 z ¢1 :::J C ¢1 l ~ eP'~. -""7-7~~...,,. tzB~ -t fZ/2?-C./:J P I I ~ Existing I Existing P I ';;_ Garage Garage .. 0 ~ I • __ : ! = ·O\t. g I .. I -'.k.ti . ;:Q,L . ~ . ~ ... -I ,1. . ! O\L DP-2 DP-3 V ~P-4 ...J / DP-1 .~-~ ~---1 i DP-1 i 33C O(}J SF 1 ror:..L I OFFIC E I OR LAB _I ____ _ I OP-2 250.000 SF ! TOTAL OFFIC::OR LAB r~£r.,~ sr:~4-/1 10-16 I TOTAL '.' 125,0DQ SF j OFFIGE OR i T ~TA.L 1 LI\B J 0 . F•CE OR ' f I l._~._.~.........,..~-:....WC..t.<::..-.J 0 L H R p Legend Office L ab Hotel Retai l Par king Gnrnge ' I LAB i I I ! I l ' . I I • -~ ·..i=·. -•• ~ ---·, L..:.-ar-.~ ;z_.;....::-....:::..,;:.:.'""".! AMENDED CONCf:PTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003 -0 l05/LEGAL 14505979 .7 9/1 l /08 M """ • 0 ..... Existing Garage Attachment B Conceptual Plan Diagram , F;xhibil 2 Conceptual Plan Sub-District 1 B € 0 z (1) ;;J C (1) ~ C n! Cl 0 _j r ___ L Nort th Street , DP-1 i 330000 SF I TOTJ;.L I OFFICE OR LAG ! ,,,_.,.. ..... -- --- P-2 260.000 S F I TOTAL I OFFICE.OR LA.6 I 0 L H R p Legend Offi ce Lab Hotel Re tai l Parking Garage l ~-DP-3 120.00,J SF 1 1 TOT AL O FFICE OR I L A.6 ! t i i__ AMENDED CONC EPT UAL RED EVELOPMENT PLAN 03 003-0 I 05 /LEG AL 14 50 59 i 9 .7 9/1 [108 I ·-"--. DP -4 1 125,000 SF : TOTAL ! OFFICE OR / L.4B ! <tJ-_ aoEING H DP-4 10-16 Existi11g Garage Attachment B Amended 12/10/07 Objective LU-WW: Improve the visual and physical appearance of buildings to create a more positive image for downtown. Policy LU-258. Site and building designs, (e.g. signagc; building height, bulk and setback: landscaping; and parking, should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Policy LU-259. Incentives should be developed to encourage rehabilitation (e.g. facade restoration) of older downtown buildings. Objective LU-XX: Maintain and expand the available amenities to make the Urban Center -Downtown more appealing to existing and potential customers, residents, and employees. Policy LU-260. Design guidelines should assist developers in creating attractive projects that add value to the downtown community. attract new residents, employees, and visitors, and foster a unique downtown identity. Policy LU-261. Design guidelines may vary by zone within the downtown area to recognize and foster unique identities for the different land use areas (i.e. South Renton' s Burnett Park Suharea). Policy LU-262. New downtown parks should complement existing park facilities and be compatible with planned trails. Trails should he integrated with the existing trail system. Policy LU-263. Urban Center -Downtown development should he designed to take advantage of existing unique downtown amenities such as the Cedar River, City parks and trails, the downtown Transit Center, IKEA Perfom1ing Arts Center, and Renton High School. Policy LU-264. Public amenities such as art, fountains, or similar features should he incorporated into the design of public areas, major streets and gateways of the Urban Center -Downtown. URBAN CENTER NORTH LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban-scale, mixed- use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant Attachment C IX-43 Amended 12/10/07 tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district. Policy LU-265. Support more urban intensity of development ( e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking standards) than with land uses in the suburban areas of the City outside the Urban Center. Policy LU-266. Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base. Policy LU-267. Support a range and variety of commercial and office uses. Policy LU-268. AlJow hospitality uses such as hotels, convention and conference centers. Policy LU-269. Co-locate uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style, mixed-use development. Policy LU-270. Support incorporation of public facilities such as schools, museums, medical offices, and government offices into redevelopment efforts by developing a public/private partnership with developers and other Renton stakeholders such as the school district, technical college, and hospital district. Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center. Policy LU-272. Support uses that serve the region, a sub-regional, or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-273. Support integration of community-scale office and service uses including restaurants, theaters, day care, art museums and studios. Policy LU-274. Support transit stations and transit usage connecting to a system of park and ride lots outside the Urban Center-North. Support park and ride facilities within the Urban Center only when they are included in structured parking as a stand-alone use or are developed as part of a mixed-use project. Policy LU-275. Support an expanded and extended public right-of-way in the vicinity of the present Logan A venue to provide new arterial access within the Urban Center. Additionally, this will provide a physical buffer between redevelopment and continuing airplane manufacturing operations. Policy LU-276. Support extension of Park Ave. to Lake Washington. IX-44 Amended 12/10/07 Policy LU-277. Recognize the need for secure limited access within large manufacturing facilities by retaining private drives and roads in areas where airplane manufacturing operations continue. Policy LU-278. Support creation of a significant gateway feature within gateway nodes in the Urban Center-North. Policy LU-279. Support private/public partnerships to plan and finance infrastructure development, public uses and amenities. Policy LU-280. Use a hierarchy of conceptual plan, master plan and site plan review and approval to encourage the cohesive development of large land areas within the Urban Center-North. Incorporate integrated design regulations into this review process. Policy LU-281. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of gateway features, signs. circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing through master plan and site plan review process. Policy LU-282. Fully integrate signage, building height, bulk, setbacb, landscaping, and parking considerations in structures and site plans across the various components of each proposed development. Policy LU-283. Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans. Policy LU-284. Allow phasing plans for mixed-use projects. Policy LL'-285. Consider placement of structures and parkiug areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities over time. Policy LU-286. Support structured parking to facilitate full redevelopment of the Urban Center over the 30-year planning horizon. Where structured parking is infeasible for early phases of development, parking should be located in the rear or the side of the primary structure. Policy LU-287. Discourage parking lots between structures and street right-of-way. Policy LU-288. Orient buildings to streets to emphasize urban character, maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District. Policy LU-289. Use design regulations to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation. IX-45 Amended 12/10/07 Policy LU-290. Support a combination of internal and external site design features such as: I) Plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Significant natural features; 4) Distinctive focal features; and 5) Gateways. IX-46 Amended 12/10/07 --Urban Center Boundary IX-47 Amended 12/10/07 Policies for Surrounding Residential Arca (North Renton Neighborhood, south of N 61h St) Policy LU-291. Provide a transition in land use with respect to intensity of development where areas mapped Residential Single Family and Residential Options border Urban Center -North designations. Policy LU-292. Create boulevard standards for arterial streets connecting or running through adjacent residential neighborhoods that address noise, pedestrian sidewalks, planting areas between vehicular lanes and pedestrian areas, traffic calming techniques, lighting standards, a landscape planting plan for street trees and other vegetation, and street furniture. Policy LU-293. Support a mix of activities within the Urban Center -North designation that supports populations in adjacent residential areas as well as new development within the re-development area. Examples of uses that serve the needs of existing populations include neighborhood-scale retail that addresses the day-to-day needs of residents, restaurants and coffee houses, public facilities, and places of assembly such as parks and plazas. Policies for Public Facilities Policy LU-294. Evaluate public facility needs for projected new populations within the Urban Center -North to accommodate a wide range of future users. Policy LU-295. Support a partnership with community stakeholders such as the Renton School District to provide a transition for public properties adjacent to the Urban Center - North such as the Sartori School and Renton Stadium facilities. Transition of these facilities could range from accommodating a new clientele as the area transitions to mixed-use activities, or physical redevelopment of properties addressing the needs of employees or residents of the Urban Center. Policy LU-296. Recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as an Essential Public Facility. (See section on Airport Compatible Land Use policies). Urban Center North Districts The proposed Urban Center-North is divided into two districts for planning purposes. Each district has a different emphasis in terms of range, intensity, and mix of uses. These are District One, east of Logan A venue, and District Two, west of Logan A venue. The implementation of planning concepts for District Two will be dependent on decisions by The Boeing Company regarding continued airplane assembly operations at the Renton Plant. For this reason, initiation of redevelopment in District Two will likely occur after transition of the area east of Logan A venue, District One, has begun. Consolidation of Boeing operations may cause certain property located within District One to be deemed surplus, making it available for redevelopment within the near future. IX-48 • Amended 12/10/07 District One is envisioned to include a variety of uses. The intensity of these uses would require substantial infrastructure improvements. More extensive development, ultimately anticipated with the future development of District Two, will likely require even more significant infrastructure upgrades. Redevelopment in both districts of the Urban Center -North will be responsive and protective of the North Renton residential neighborhood to the south. While the North Renton neighborhood is not a part of the Urban Center, its residents will benefit from the significant amenities provided by development of a new urban community. Redevelopment within both districts will occur in a manner that is not incompatible with the operations at the Renton Municipal Airport, recognizing that the airport is an Essential Public Facility located within an urban area. Redevelopment within both districts will be consistent with the City's Airport Compatible Land Use Program. The program responds to State requirements to consider how land use in the surrounding areas affects the Renton airport. The current supply of underutilized land north of N. 8'h Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area-Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two. The following "visions" have been developed for each District. Vision -District One The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large- scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial development may be characterized by large-fonmat, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian-oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new fmm of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially IX-49 Amended l 2/!0/07 may be handled in surface lots, their configuration, juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format ("big- box") retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers. Cafes with outdoor seating, tree-lined boulevards and small gathering places invite shoppers to linger after making their initial purchases. Retail development takes an urban form with high-quality design considering a human scale and pedestrian orientation. While retail development will add to the City's tax base and create a modest increase in employment, the vision for the Urban Center-North is that of a dense employment center. Within the initial phases of redevelopment, job growth will also occur in high-quality, well-designed flex/tech development and low-to mid-rise office, lab and research and development buildings that provide attractive environments for companies offering high- wage careers in information technology, life sciences and light ("clean") manufacturing and assembly industries. Redevelopment in this area will also include residential opportunities in low-to mid-rise buildings with upper-story office and/or ground-related retail. Additional supporting retail will also be constructed. Logan Avenue is extended and redeveloped for public use as a major, tree-lined parkway. During the second generation of redevelopment in District One, changing property values and further investment will allow for higher density development in the form of offices and residences mixed with other uses. As this area is transformed into a mature mixed- use district, community gathering spaces and recreation facilities to support the City's neighborhoods and business districts become viable. Cultural facilities, as well as convention and conference centers may be located within the District and could be incorporated into mixed-use development with retail, office and hotels. Small parks, open space, and community gathering places will be incorporated into site design. Facilities such as multiple-screen theaters and other cultural facilities may add to the amenity value of the District. District One Policies Objective LU-YY: Create a major commercial/retail district developed with uses that add significantly to Renton's retail tax base, provide additional employment opportunities within the City, attract businesses that serve a broad market area and act as a gathering place within the community. Policy LU-297. Support office and technology-based uses with retail uses and services along portions of the ground floors to facilitate the creation of an urban and pedestrian environment. IX-50 Amended 12/10/07 Policy LU-298. Support uses supporting high-technology industries such as biotechnology, life sciences, and information technology by providing retail amenities and services in the area. Policy LU-299. Allow for the development of destination retail centers that are consistent with a district-wide conceptual plan. Policy LU-300. Encourage the placement of buildings for retail tenants along pedestrian- oriented streets to create urban configurations. Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments. Policy LU-302. Encourage a variety of architectural treatments and styles to create an urban environment. Objective LU-ZZ: Create an urban district initially characterized by high-quality, compact, low-rise development that can accommodate a range of independent retail, office, research, or professional companies. Support the continuing investment in and transition of low-rise development into more intensive, urban forms of development to support a vital mixed-use district over time. Policy LU-303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. Policy LU-304. Support urban forms of setback and buffering treatment such as: a) Street trees with sidewalk grates, b) Paving and sidewalk extensions or plazas, and c) Planters and street furniture. Policy LU-305. Allow phasing plans for developments as part of the master plan and site plan review that: a) Provide a strategy for future infill or redevelopment with mixed-use buildings. b) Preserve opportunities for future structured parking and more intense employment-generating development. Policy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or under-building parking is not viable. Policy LU-307. Support development of parking structures using private/public partnerships when the market will not support structural parking without subsidy. Policy LU-308. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of blocks, screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers. JX-51 Amended 12/ I 0/07 Policy LU-309. Consider public/private participation in provision of structured parking, to stimulate additional private investment and produce a more urban environment. Policy LU-310. Support shared parking by averaging parking ratios for co-located and mixed-uses. Policy LU-311. Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunities for infill development, and provide for efficient use of land by setting maximum parking standards. Policy LU-312. Support the co-location of uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style mixed-use ( commercial/retail/office/residential) development. Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads. Vision -District Two Ongoing Boeing airplane manufacturing is supported by the City and expected to continue across District Two for the foreseeable future. This important industrial base will continue to provide high-wage jobs within the Urban Center -North as redevelopment occurs in District One. Should Boeing surplus property west of Logan Avenue, redevelopment that follows will take on more urban characteristics, incorporating mixed-use (residential, office, and retail) development types. Planning for the redevelopment of District Two will take into consideration the unique issues involved in the transition of a site historically used for heavy industry adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport. Redevelopment will be consistent with the Renton Municipal Airpo11 Compatible Land Use Program. Eventually, redevelopment will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to the region. The South Lake Washington neighborhood will be a center of activity in the Puget Sound region-a premiere address for residents, a hub of economic activity providing capacity for high-wage jobs, and a world-class destination for shopping, dining, recreation, and entertainment Mixed-use projects will be high in design and construction quality, and offer landmark living, shopping, and working environments planned to take advantage of a regionally centralized location, efficient access, mass transit, potential passenger ferry connections, stellar views of lake and mountains, and restored natural environments along the Cedar River and Lake Washington shorelines. Development within District Two will be organized into neighborhoods with housing, shopping, employment, and recreation opportunities located within walking distance. Low-to mid-rise buildings will be located to the south while development to the north will be primarily mid-to-high-rise in order to maximize views. While some on-street or surface parking may occur, the majority of parking will be provided in the lower levels of IX-52 Amended 12/J 0/07 mixed-use buildings or in stand-alone structures designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This environment attracts a residential population living in up-scale neighborhoods featuring higher-density condominium and apartment forms of housing north of N. 8th St. Townhouse developments south of N. S'h St. provide a transition to the adjacent North Renton neighborhood in terms of scale and use of buildings. Residents of both neighborhoods will find ample shopping and employment opportunities in the immediate vicinity. Residents, employees and visitors will enjoy new public open space. These range from public access to the lakefront through small parks, overviews, and trails, to large public plazas and central greens that provide gathering places, recreational opportunities, and a celebration of views of the Seattle skyline, the Olympic Mountains, and Mount Rainier. District Two Policies Objective LU-AAA: Support ongoing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses. Policy LU-314. Support existing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses while alJowing for the gradual transition to other uses should The Boeing Company surplus property within District Two. Policy LU-315. Allow airplane manufacturing and related accessory uses such as airplane sales and repair, laboratories for research, development and testing, medical institutions, and light indushial uses including small scale or less intensive production and manufacturing, and fabricating with accessory office and support services. Objective LU-BBB: If Boeing elects to surplus property in District Two, land uses should transition into an urban area characterized by high-quality development offering landmark living, shopping and work environments planned to take advantage of access and views to the adjacent river and lake shorelines. Policy LU-316. Should The Boeing Company elect to surplus properties in District Two support the redevelopment with a range and variety of commercial, office, research, and residential uses. l) Support a mid-to high-1ise scale and intensity of development. 2) Support retail and service activities as ancillary uses that are synergistic with commercial, office, biotech, research, technology, and residential activities. Traditional retail (Main Street), general business and professional services, and general offices arc examples of the types of uses that are supported in combination with other activities. 3) Support urban scale residential development in DistJict Two. North of N. 8'h Street structured parking should he required. IX-53 Amended 12/10/07 4) Allow a limited range of service uses, such as churches, government offices and facilities, commercial parking garages, and day care centers through the conditional use process. 5) Allow eating and drinking establishments and cultural facilities as part of office or mixed-use development. 6) Prohibit new warehousing, storage including self-storage, vehicle sales, repair and display (including boats, cars, trucks and motorcycles), assembly and packaging operations, heavy and medium manufacturing and fabrication unrelated to production of new commercial airplanes. 7) Support development of public amenities such as public open space, schools, recreational and cultural facilities, and museums. 8) Allow commercial uses such as retail and services provided that they support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close-in urban mixed-use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian-oriented. These areas are anticipated lo provide medium to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub-regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provide a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto-oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed-use type of development. Policy LU-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 14 (R-14), Center Village (CV), and the Residential Multi-family zones (RMF, RM-U, RM-T). Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re-zone with the vision for a Center Village designation Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub-area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the IX-54 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT October 20, 2008 Sub-District l-B Planned Action Ordinance and Amended Conceptual Plan (Referred October 6, 2008) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Planned Action Ordinance and adopt the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed by the Boeing Co. for the redevelopment of 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District 1-B". The project site is bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden A venue N on the east, N gth Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south. The Amended Conceptual Plan divides the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North 1-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment, and the southern portion of the Sub-district currently know as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres ofremaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. The Amended Conceptual Plan contains several alternative scenarios: Scenario 1, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. To enhance the Plan and its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Committee recommends the following conditions be imposed on the Amended Conceptual Plan: I) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the sub-district and the planned retail/entertainment center developing to the north; and, 2) Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, 3) Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; and, 4) That a transit facility be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail, office and/or employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Amended Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. In addition, the adoption of the proposed Planned Action Ordinance would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation. The Committee further recommends that the Planned Action ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first and second reading. Marcie Palmer, Council President cc: Jay Covington-AJLS Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch-CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman -Public Work Administrator C. E. Vincent, Planning Director Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer I lenning, Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbet, Associate Planner H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\08-112.Yancssa\COMMITrEE OF THE WHOIJ-: Subdist 1 b 08-112.<loc @~~ CI1 'OF RENTON ~*'; Den·1s I .• a,v, Mayor Depart1E~~;i~fcOD~cl~~m~~1 ,r G,, Alex Pietsch, Administrator "?3NctO'JI----------------------- September 23, 2008 Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B LUAOS-112, PA, CP Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of the Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis for the subject land use application along with a copy of the Amended Conceptual Plan. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or email them to me at vdolbee@ci.renton,wa.us I would appreciate your comments prior to the City Council Hearing, preferably by October 6, 2008, if possible. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner cc: Project File Jan Illian, City of Renton -Plan Review ---i,r1. IJ'1'1R>1'0'JJJf'lECC1. 1-.:sm\OS<c-t111.,..2.vva"'H"'es,:,sar1t11trr1 rrrmflllt10'1'-T "'a8cc-lH-I2o>,.ctrtnu,,-, ---------------R~E N T Q N 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD Ol' TIIE CURVE '\'.Y O CIT ' OF RENTON o"-~.~ "~\ Department of Community and • >+-• Economic Development ~ ~ i;: Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~N~o;,,....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- September 23, 2008 Jeffrey Adelson The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, MIC 7H-AH Seattle, WA 98124 Subject: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment for Sub-District 1-B LUAOS-112, PA, CP Dear Mr. Adelson: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing in front of the City Council on October 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. We recommend that the applicant or representative(s) of the applicant be present at the public hearing. Please contact me at ( 425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner -------10_5_5 -So-u-th_G_r_a-dy-W-ay_-_R_e_n_to_n_, Vl-'-as_h_in-gt_o_n_9_8_05_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled matenal, 30% post consumer AH E,\D OF THE CURVE NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the D epartment of Community & Economic D evel opment (CED) -Pl annin g Division of the City of Rent on . The following briefly descri bes the app lication and the necessary Publi c Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Amended Conce ptu al Redevelopment Plan for Sub-Dis trict 1-B LU AOB-11 2, PA, CP PROJE CT DESCR IPTION : The app li cant is reques ti ng to amend lhe Conceptual Redeve lopment Plan and the SEPA P lanned Action appli cable to Boeing's Sub-D is tr ict 1-B property rt1e sub1ect site is 50 7 acres and is located im mediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenu e N an d Park Avenue N. T he subject sile is zone UC-N1 and is with in Desig n D istrict C. T he Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Pl an would allow for a greater ra nge o f uses for the northern 21 .2 acres of Sub-Distric t 1-8 including ; hotel. o ffi ce, employment, research/development. business and re lated uses in addition to reta i l. T he proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potentia l uses for th e northe rn portion of 1-8 An Environme ntal Consis tency Ana lys i s has been prepa r ed for the Amended Conce ptual Plan. T he rema inder of S ub-Dist rict 1-8 is approximatel y 29 .5 acres and is currently improved wi th office buildings and w ou ld continue lo be util ized a s part of on-going airplane manufact uri ng p lant operatio ns. Inter spersed between t hese existing office-buil dings ar e app roximately 12 85 acres that have been identified as po tent ia l development parcels. PROJECT LOCATION : PUBLIC AP P ROVALS : South of N 811 ' Street between Logan Avenue N & Garden Avenue N Planned Act ion Ordnance, Conceptual Plan A PPLI CANT /PROJECT C ONTACT PERSON Je ffrey Addelson . The Boeing Company. Tel : (206) 650 -5960 Comm ents on the above applicat ion must be subm itted in writing to Va nessa D o lbee, Assoc i ate Planner, D ep artm ent of Community & Ec o nomic D evelopment , 1055 South Grady Way, Renton , WA 98057, by 5:00 PM o n Oct obe r 7 , 2008. If you have questions about this proposal. or w ist1 to be made a part y of record and rece ive addit io nal notifica tion by mail , contact th e Project Manager at (425) 430-73 14 Anyo ne who subm its written comments w ill automati ca lly become a part y of record and will be noti fi ed of any decision on l his pro1e ct PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION : NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION : DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: Septemb er 22 , 2008 S e ptember 23, 2008 September 23 , 20 08 If you would l ike to be made a party o f record lo receive further i nforma tion on th is prop osed pro j ect, complete this form and re turn to: C ity of Renton , C E D . P lanning Division, 1055 South G rady 'Nay, Renton WA 98057 . File N ame / No Amended Conceptual R edevelo pment Plan for Sub-Distric t 1-B : LU A08-11? 1-'A, CP NAM E ____ _ MAILIN G ADDRESS TELEP HO N I: NO •. ... City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: The Boeing Company PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Subdistrict 1-B ADDRESS: Box 3707, M/C 7H-AH PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98124 Approximately 50. 7 acres of land just south of 8th Street, between Logan Ave. N. and Garden Ave. N. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 650-5960 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0886610010;0886610020;0886610030; 0886610040; 0886610050;0886610060;0886610070; 0886610080; APPLICANT (if other than owner) 0823059209;0823059019;7223000115; 7564600055 NAME: EXISTING LANO USE(S): office, retail, laboratOI)' and multi-family COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): office, retail, laboratOI)' and hotel ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Urban Center North CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION Qfappllcable): NIA TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: UC-N1 CONT ACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING Of applicable): NIA NAME: Jeffrey R. Adelson SITE AREA (in square feet): Approx. 2,208,492 (50. 7 acres) SQ. FT. OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA COMPANY (if applicable): The Boeing Company SQ. FT. OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA ADDRESS: Same as above PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE CITY: ZIP: (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NIA TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: (206) 650-5960; Jeffrey.r.adelson@boeing.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (If applicable): NIA C:\Document, and Settings\c366226\I.ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Filcs\OLKC~terappcovcr (3).DOC 03003--0186/LEGALl4680474. I • I • PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) ~--~----~-------------, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA PROJECT VALUE: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE NIA IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN(~ applicable): 660,000 (not Including parkina structures on the various orooerties) NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if Cl FLOOD HAZARD AREA Cl GEOLOGIC HAZARD Cl HABITAT CONSERVATION N/A sq. ft. ALL N/A sq. ft. applicable): NIA Cl SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES N/A sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA Cl WETLANDS NIA sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following Information Included) SITUATE IN HlE SE 1/4 QUARTER OF SECTION I, AND SW 1/4 QUARTER OF SECTION!!, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE SE, W.M., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Amended Conceptual Plan 2. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $_No fees associated AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Prlnt Name/s) ---------------·· declare that I am (please chock one)_ tho current owner of the property Involved in this application or the uthorlzed representative to act for a corporation (pleaH attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and e and the infonnation herewith are In all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed thls instrument and acknowledged It to be hi ::._-::e:;:,/th:.::e::;:i'c;:fre:::,e::::a::n:;-d =vo:c1u=n1=a=ry-::ac=t.:fo=r the (Signature of Owner/Repra.sentative) Alan E. DeFrancls Authorized Signatory (Signatura of Owner/Representative) uses and purposes mentioned in the Instrument. Notary (Print) _ _,,_ _________ _ My appolntm t expires:. ________ _ C:\Documents and Seltings.\c366226\Local Scttings\Tempornry Internet Files\OLKCE\mestemppcover (3).DOC 03003-0186/LEGAL 14680474. l .z. J ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of, ___ ..,Ca=lifo=m~ia,_ ____ _,) ) ss County of, __ _.L.,.osu:,Au,ng.,e.,,les.._ ___ ~) On -~S~eup~te~m..,ber.,.._..,.19~.~29-08~-before me, ___ _,,S~USAN=..,.N~. ~J1ME-N,.EL..._.N.,,OcT,.AR,,._Yc.,P..,u"'B""Ll""C-~ personaUy appeared Alan Defrancis who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/a,a subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ohallhay executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and 1ha1 by hlsAaa,~hair slgnalure(s) on the Instrument the person(&), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. (Seal) PROJECT DESCRIPTION, CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1-B The Boeing Company proposes to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District lB property. Sub-District 1-B is located in the City of Renton immediately to the south of The Landing urban retail center and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B was approved in November of2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" (the "13SP"). The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District 1-B Lots SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, 7 A, 7B, and 7C. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B (Lots SA and 7B of the BSP; formerly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as "North 1-B") were planned for retail uses complementary to The Landing to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1-B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B for a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center -North, District One zone ("UC-NI" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District 1-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the "Boeing Remainder>' Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.85 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("DP I" through "DP4") Boeing's proposed amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District 1-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the retail alternative proposed for North 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes office and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots SA and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the UC-NI zone. The proposed Planned Action likewise reflects a broader scope of potential uses for North l-B. PROJECT DESCRIPTJON, CONCEPTIJAL REDEVELOPr..-fEi\"T PLAN ANO PLANNED ACTIO.'\' FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1-B 03003-0186/LEG-Al,14681005. l 9/18/08 _ pLANNiNG DEVE6i~~~WENTON SEP 7. ?. 2008 RECE\\/EO PAGE! CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. --- DRAFT 09/17 /080-91 nn1nonn1no, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, \VASHINGTON, DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT I-B OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN AVENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, AND 6TH STREET. WHEREAS, RCW 43.21C03 l and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -l 72 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled the "Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS" has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of Boeing's Renton Plant property; and WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District 1-B (see Exhibit A); and \VHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area -Industrial (EA-I), Employment Area -Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Office (EA-0) to Urban Center North (UC-N); and \VHEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center North I (UC-NI); and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the EIS, which is recorded under King County recording number 20031210001637 ("Boeing Development Agreement"); and 03003-0186/f .EOAl,14525442.2 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17 /080-91 nn1nonn1no1 \VHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District 1-B ; and \VHEREAS, on -----the City approved an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B ("Amended I B Conceptual Plan"), attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub- District I B, which compares the Amended I B Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District 1-B as "Planned Actions" that are consistent with the Urban Center North I (UC-NI) designation and zone; NO\V, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAJN AS FOLLOWS SECTION I. Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District 1- B as "Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21 C.031; and B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a Planned Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District 1-B will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District 1-B area that is consistent with the Amended I B Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. CITY OF RENTON, W...\SJIINGTO~, ORDINANCE NO. 03003-0186/LEGALl 4525442.2 PACiE 2 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Findings. The City Council finds that DRAFT 09/17/080-9,1 nn,nonn,no, A. The EIS addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the Amended IB Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and B. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation fees (Parks, Fire and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of development pursuant to the Amended I B Conceptual Plan; and C The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance economic development; and D. Opportunities for public involvement have been provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Plan review and approval process for Sub-District 1-B. SECTION III. Designation of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Establishing Projects as Planned Actions. A Planned Action Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District 1-B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated off~site improvements. Uses and activities described in the Amended I B Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, are designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43 .21. C 031. Additionally, the CITY OF RENTO:\", WA.SHINCffON, ORD1NANCE NO 03003-0 l g6iLEGAJ, 14525442.2 PAC!E3 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17 /08091 nn1nonn1no1 Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the proposed development on Sub-District 1 B, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the EIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. flanned Action Review Criteria. 1. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43 21 C.031(2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following conditions: (a) The project is located on Sub-District 1-B, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District 1-B; and (b) The project is consistent witb the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RC\V 36.70A; and ( c) The Director has determined that the project's significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC J 90-11-315; and CITY OF RENTON, \l./ ASBINGTON, ORDINANCE NO 03003-0186/1 .E(i-AL14525442.2 PAGE4 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09117108091 nn1nonn1no1 (d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and (e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District 1-B development; and (f) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and (g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. D. Effect of Planned Action. I. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under SEP A 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. CITY OF RENTON, WASH[NGT()N, ORD!I\A;'\'CE KO 03003~0 186/LEGAL 145 25442.2 PAGE 5 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/080-91 nn,nonn,no, 4. Amendments of the approved Amended Sub-District 18 Conceptual Plan may be approved administratively, so long as such amendments remain consistent with the spirit and intent of the adopted Plan. For development of Sub-District IB qualifying as a planned action pursuant to this Ordinance, a proposed amendment of the Amended Sub- District 1 B Conceptual Plan is consistent with the adopted Plan's spirit and intent if such amendment does not exceed the maximum development parameters analyzed in the EIS. If amendments oftbe Amended Sub-District lB Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the EIS, supplemental environmental review may be required under the SEP A rules. E. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: 1. Development applications shall meet the requirements of !Uv1C Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEP A checklist or revised SEP A checklist [ where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)) or such other environmental review forms provided by the Planning/Building/Public Work Department. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application; 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. CITY OF RENTON, WASHl.\UfO:'J, ORlJINANCE NO. 03003-0 l 86/LEGAL14525442.2 PAGE6 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/0809/ nn,nonn1no1 3. If the project application is within Sub-District 1-B, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in section Ill of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or EIS shall be required. 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 6. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEP A review procedure consistent with City SEP A procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEP A requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the EIS. CITY Of RE:.'\TO:\", WASHINGTON, ORD IN Al'ICE NO. 03 003-0 186/LEGAL 14525442.2 PAGE7 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/0809/ nn1nonn1no, SECTION IV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall he reviewed no later than December 31, 2018, by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements. Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified. SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. SECTION VI. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining po11ions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of December, 2008. CJTY OF RENTON, \VASIIINGTON, ORDINANCE NO (JJOOJ.(J 186/J ,E(JAI .14525442.2 Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk PAGE 8 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this of December, 2008 ---- Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Dec. 2008 (summary) CITY OF RE;\lTON, WASHINGTON, OROf;\'ANCE NO._ 03003"0186/LEG AL 1452 5442.2 DRAFT 09/17/080-9+ nn,nonn,no, PAOE 9 Background CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Sub-District 1-B December 2008 Amendment Renton, Washington The Boeing Company ("Boeing") has been working with the City of Renton (the "City") since early 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with its 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the "Renton Plant Site"). In October of 2003, Boeing prepared an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the Renton Plant Site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (the "EIS"). In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment (the "Development Agreement") that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: • Renton commitments to fond and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • Boeing commitments to fund certain private aspects of redevelopment; and • Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects to subdivide, develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not related to airplane manufacturing. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated lo occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub-Districts I-A and l-B, and District 2 (see Exhibit!). City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub-District 1-A is now known as "The Landing" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-B Sub-District 1-B is located immediately to the south of The Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit 1, and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub- District 1-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of 2005 and approved in November of2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub-District 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative AMENOHl CONCEPTUAL RcDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OS/LEGAL 14505979 7 9111/08 PA(il---: l impacts ofthe uses approved for Sub-District 1-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the EIS. A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of 2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" (the "BSP"). The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District l-13: Lots 5A, 513, SC, SD, 5E, 7A, 713, and 7C. The Original Conceptual Plan addressed infrastrncture improvements imposed as conditions of development pursuant to the Development Agreement to support redevelopment of Sub- Districts 1-A and 1-B. In particular, a portion of Sub-District 1-B was reserved for a four-lane extension of gth Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues (the "Extension"). The Extension and related improvements have been completed. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B (Lots SA and 7B of the BSP; formerly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as "North 1- B") were planned for retail uses complementary to the Harvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1- B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center -North, District One zone ("UC-Nl" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District 1-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the "Boeing Remainder." The Boeing Remainder is illustrated on Exhibit I. Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.85 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("DP!" through "DP4"). · This amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District 1-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the retail alternative proposed for North 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes office and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots SA and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the UC-NI zone. Boeing seeks the City's approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan so that it can market North l-13 to potential developers under a greater range of uses. The timing of a land snrplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the fnturc. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL RFDFVEI.OPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05/LEGAL 145 05979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE2 Submittal Included within this submittal is a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub-District 1-B, a Conceptual Plan Diagram (see Exhibit 2), and a benefit analysis demonstrating a range of potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the North 1- B portion of the Sub-District (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots 5A and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2010 for DP 1 and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/f ,EGAl,14505979. 7 PAGEJ 9/11/08 Aerial, l:x hihit l AME ND ED CO NCEPTUA L REDEV ELO PMENT PLAN 03003-0 l 05/LE(jAl, I 4505979. 7 9/l 1/08 PAG E 4 Conceptual Plan Diagram. Fxhihir 2 l Conceptual Plan I Sub-District 1 B J {[J-BOEING € 0 z QI :l I: QI ..... --.-.-..-.. ~ . ..,., .... _ .. ..., ....... -.:_~---~---.-... -- O\L O\L p North 8th Street Existing Garage p p O\l\R O\L Ei 0 z R R H Existing Garage ~ O\L ! / / DP-1 O\L ~ ~ OIL ~ OIL __ / 1 OP-2 OP-3 ~ / OP-4 I . __ L ; DP -1 330.00•:0 SF TOTAL O FFICE 1 ____ ___ r· -~~r:!--~h Stre et /_ DP-2 ! DP-3 r-:-::----~----- 260.co o SF 120.000 SF I DP-4 I 10-16 OR LAB TOT AL TOTAL I 125,000 SF OFFIC:c OR O FFIC= OR TOTAL '----------' LAB LAB ii OF FICE OR L!I.B Legend O Offi ce L Lab H Hotel R Retai l P Parking Garnge AMl:::N l)F.0 CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003 -0 I 05 /LEGAL 14505979.7 9 i l 1/08 I M ..... c!, ..... Existing Garage PAGE 5 Conceptual Developme nt Plan Thi s Amended Conceptual Plan for S ub-Dis trict 1-B i s compri sed o f t w o s omew h a t di stinct parts . The N ort h 1-B are a makes u p th e northern po1i io n of the prope rty al ong 8111 A venue , has be en id entified as surplu s b y Boeing o pe rations, and is av a il abl e for near-term red evelopment. Th e Hoein g Re maind er makes up the southern p or t ion of the Sub-Di s trict, and contains 660,000 squ are feet of exi sting onice space \vith re -use pote ntial and appro x imately J 2.85 a cres ofland \vith future redeve lopment potential. N orth 1-B Boeing recogni zes that high-quality development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City's vis ion for the Urban Center-North. Potential deve lopers of lot s within Sub-District 1-B must join with the City to en s ure that such development i s ,Ne ll-de signed and i s of a quality and at a scale that i s consi stent with the City's long-term vision for the area. A s planning for Sub-Di stricts 1-A and 1-B has progressed, the land south of s111 has be e n identified as an important component of the overall project. The area, now known as North 1-B, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative s cenarios : Scenario I , a retail compl ement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2 , a combination of office and employment use s (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel use s (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3 , some combination or Scenarios I and 2. Each s cenario is described below. Under all three scenario s, a small portion of North 1-B containing a data hub for the Renton Plant Site (Lot SE of the IlSP), will be retained by Boeing for the fore seeable futur e . 1. Scenario I Under thi s sc enario, North 1-B is envisioned to contain a large format "destination " retailer located al ong Logan A venue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally , the large format re tail development (users with footprints of 50,000 square feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet) is planned to occur along gth and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue . The s upporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and 50 ,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 feet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park Avenue. Scenario 1 anticipates pedes trian connection s to occur internally w ithin the s ite both east toward Park A venue and south toward 6 th A venue. Vehicle access would occur off of Park A venue, with loading and delivery functions rely ing upon Garden A venue and an internal service road running along the s outhern edge of the North 1-8 property line . At a maximum lot coverage ratio of 30%, the N orth 1-B site could accommodate up to 270,000 square fe e t of retail space. AME NDE D CONC EPT UAL RED EVELO PM ENT PL J\N 03003-0 I 05/LEGJ\L 14 5 05 979. 7 9/1 1/08 Pi\GE 6 2. Scenario 2 a. Office and Employment Component Under Scenario 2, Lot SA would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include technology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. Smaller-scale ground-floor and/or freestanding retail uses may also be included in this development scenario. At this maximum density, the majority of accessory parking would be provided in an above-grade structure, and impervious surface coverage would be up to 9S%. Buildings would be three lo six stories in height, with floorplatcs of up to approximately 40,000 square feet. The build-out of the Office and Employment Component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand, future buildings may include structured parking to achieve density ofup to 600,000 square feet on- sitc, or build-out may be limited to a fully surface-parked option, in which overall density would be approximately 300,000 square feet. Development within this range of densities is also possible. b. Hotel/Retail Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 78 would contain a seven to nine story hotel and two separate, small- scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complement and support the hotel use. The hotel would consist of a maximum of 130,000 square feet; the supporting retail uses would total a maximum of 13,000 square feet (consisting of two buildings, one approximately S,000 square feet and one approximately 8,000 square feet). All uses would be surfaced parked. The hotel and retail uses would be oriented toward Park Avenue. 3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios I and 2. In particular, this Scenario anticipates that either Lot SA or Lot 7B is not redeveloped according to Scenario 2 and is instead redeveloped with retail uses. Any combination implemented would not exceed the overall development capacities contemplated for North 1-B. Summary Redevelopment of the North 1-B parcel as contemplated by this Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent with the City's overarching goal for the Urban Center North: creation of a large- scale, mixed-use development including uses such as retail, research and development, labs, office, employment, residential and commercial. See, e.g., City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Urban Center North Land Use Designation ("Comp. Plan, LlJ- UCN"), Purpose Statement. This Plan is consistent with applicable goals for the Urban Center North that encourage "a mix of uses to improve the City's tax and employment base" (Comp. Plan, LU-lJCN, Policy LU-266), "support a range and variety of commercial and office uses" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-267) and "allow hospitality uses such as hotels" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-268). The City's vision for District One AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OJOOJ-o 1 osn .FOAL 14505979. 7 9/l 1/08 PAG.1:::7 anticipates similar new development including retail, office, employment, lab, research and development, and hotel uses that ultimately result in a cohesive mixed-use district (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Vision-District One). In particular, proposed Scenario 1 supports the City's vision and applicable goals for the Urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on Korth 1-B that complement existing retail uses located north of 8th Avenue. Scenario 2 similarly supports the City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North l-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios l and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center Nortb and District One. All three scenarios would add to the City's tax base, provide additional jobs and help to expand the overall mix of uses currently located in District One. Boeing Remainder This portion of the Amended Conceptual Plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, 1980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout the Boeing Remainder (the 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is five to six stories in height, ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet in area, with a total area for all four buildings of 660,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in surrounding surface lots, at an overall ratio of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Boeing currently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in significant rehabilitation, lease or sale of the structures. At the time of the Original Conceptual Plan, a l 960s-vintage lab building, known as the 10-71 building, was located along Logan Avenue. The 10-71 building was demolished in 2008, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building ("DP!"; Lot SB of the BSP). For purposes of this Amended Conceptual Plan, we have assumed that the existing office buildings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. If the existing buildings are occupied by other users at some point in the future, such buildings could be supported by parking at a market-driven ratio of 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a 3.9-acre site between the 10-18 and 10-20 buildings ("DP2"; Lot 50 of the I3SP); a 1.8-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of6'h ("DP3''; the property constituting DP3 was not included in the BSP); and, a 2.2-acre site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 6th ("DP4"; the property constituting DP4 was not included in the BSP). AMENDED CONCf<YTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 l 05/1,E(!AL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PACiE 8 1. DPl This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the North 1-B property. Fronting on 61h Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 office huilding and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-term (2010) redevelopment potential, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions DP! 's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more structures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. Given its size, DP-I could accommodate the parking needs of whichever use was ultimately implemented on the site, such that the site would be self-parked. 2. DP2 and DP4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for the existing office buildings are reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow parking areas for Boeing employees, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment of DP2 and DP4 with new buildings containing either lab or offices uses, consistent with the current development pattern. In some instances where new lab uses could be developed, surplus parking within existing garages could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new, private open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity, this Amended Conceptual Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings are sold or leased to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Renton Plant Site to accommodate its employees. The Amended Conceptual Plan contemplates the potential redevelopment of these parcels with approximately 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. Both DP2 and DP4 could accommodate structures containing as much as 260,000 square feet on DP2 and 125,000 square feet on DP4. To accommodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on DP2, and any additional parking needs would be provided by ear-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On DP4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing 10-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. 3. DP3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the corner of 6tl' and Park Avenues. This Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, in both cases housed within a single six-story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. If developed as lab space, the building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. If developed as office space, parking could either be provided in a new garage on DP3 or accommodated by providing additional parking levels within a DP2 garage. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05n.FGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 9 Summary The redevelopment of the Boeing Remainder proposed by this Amended Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's vision for the Urban Center North and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, commercial corridor south of The Landing between Logan and Garden Avenues, with mid-rise office or lab buildings along street frontages and structured parking behind. Whether redeveloped with all office, all lab, or a mix of office and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at foll build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. Economic Benefit Analysis Summary Boeing's Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B seeks to both allow for the near-term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix of uses that significantly improves the City's tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan (Exhibit 3) and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment Scenarios for North 1-B (Exhibit 4), have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (1) Development on the North 1-B portion of the Sub-District for either retail use or a combination of hotel and office/employment uses (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development on the Boeing Remainder for office and/or laboratory uses (beginning in 2010 for DP! and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). 1'L\1E,DED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LEGAL 14505979 .7 PAGE 10 9/l J/08 EXHIBIT 3 2005 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY SUB DISTRICT 1-B BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Sub District 1-B at its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District 1-B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if fully developed as follows: Lab Multi-Family Total 900,000 535.500 1, 435,500 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targeted Renton Boeing parcels are entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured ( one-time and recurring) in terms of: ~ Jobs ~ Income ~ Property values ~ Public revenues AMENDED CONCEPTUAi. REDEVELOPMENT PLAO: 03003-0 l 05/LEG AL 14505979. 7 9/l l/08 PAGE l 1 State of Washington King County City of Renton II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels comprising 12.85 net acres into modern lab and multi-family space arc only as valid as underlying assumptions.1 These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: J., By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into lab and multi-family uses.2 J., Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 2013. 1 Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figure:~ are expre.fsed in 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PIN, 03003-0 l 05/LEGAL 14 5 05979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE l2 > These lab jobs would generate an additional$ 158 million in recurring annual income at full occnpancy in 2013. > Of this income total, over $88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 2013 and thereafter. > The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast at over $550 million by 2013. > The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the State of Washington is estimated at over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi- family space on the four Boeing parcels at the Renton Sub District 1-B site. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of redeveloping Boeing's four parcels of excess property in Sub District 1-B are now summarized. > By 2013, it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City would be created by 2013. > The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over $6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. > The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of over $2.3 million in 20 I 3 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. AMf'NOHl COV:EPTlJAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/l .EGAL 14505979. 7 9/11108 PAGE l3 Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reJlect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. for example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued City (ax revenues are estimated lo generate over $40,000 during land development and over $6,168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-time municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the lab and multi-family buildings arc completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring lax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City ofRenton's share of property taxes. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $115,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $275,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Redevelopment Scenario Develo ment Develo ment 2008-2012 in 2013 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 1.700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2,100 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 s 123,146,400 Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 s 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 1,952,593 Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ 115,496 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275,07 l Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 Chart I shows that 2,100 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, I. 700 would be direct on-site lab jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. AMENllFD CONCEPTUAi. RFJJEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0I05/LEGAL14505979 7 9/11/08 PAGE14 Chart I City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 3,000 -; 2,100 2,000 ~ - 1,000 +------------, \Vith Project \Vi th out Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2013 and thereafter. $150 1 ____ _ " $100 J -" 0 Q . = ;s $50 +- i Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2013 --$HI-·----- ------------------ $---------~ With Prnject AMENDED CONCEPTUAL RFflEVEl.OPMENT Pl .AN 03003-0105/1 .EGALl4505979 7 9/11/08 Without Project PAGE 15 Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the four Boeing parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under $74 million to nearly $624 million---an increase of $550 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1-8 DEVELOPMENT PARCELS I Without Project -$73.7 I $0 $200 Dollars in millions AMENDED CONCEPTUAi. RFDEVELOPMENT Pl.AN 03003-01 05/1 ,ECJAL 14505979. 7 9111/08 $400 $600 PAGE16 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of over $6,208,000 during the estimated 2008 through 2012 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Sub District 1-B parcels starting in 2009. This will increase each year until 2013 where it peaks at over $2,343,000 million as an annual flow into the City. Chart 4 -----------~--i- 1 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues "' "' = = $3,000,000 "' $2,000,000 ~ ::.: .. " f--$1,000,000 .€ u $- 2008 2009 2010 2011 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-010511.EGAL l4505979.7 9/11108 2012 2013 • Recuning' I D Onetime 1 1 PAGE 17 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY (2005) HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping certain Sub District 1-B property under option by Harvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land uses. This "right of first option" (ROFO) property is the Phase II expansion of Harvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District I B property The ROFO Phase II land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-B Renton property. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: Retail-Shop Space Retail-Big Box Total 91,000 135,000 226,000 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises their option to purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full redevelopment of this property as retail uses between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured ( one-time and recurring) in terms of: AMENDED CONCLPTl:AL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/1.EGAL 14505979 .7 9/11/08 PAGE 18 );, Jobs );, Income );, Property values ).-Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton AMENIJFD CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT Pl.A, 03003-01 OS/LEGAL 145 05979. 7 9/11 /08 PAGE 19 II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions. 3 These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Boeing Renton Sub District 18 property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 between "redevelopment" of the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: >-By 2008 (project stabilization), an estimated 1,667 jobs would be created if the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box retail uses.4 >-Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. >-These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2008. 3 Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document arc intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed in 2005 dollars. 4 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMlNDE/l CONCEPTUAL REDEVEI.OP',1FNT PLAN 03003-0 I OS/LEGAL 14505979 .7 9111108 PAGE 20 'J., Of this income total, nearly $45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-B ROFO parcels and over $35 million in indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. :,,, The corresponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly $53 million by 2008. > The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5.1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3.8 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this excess Boeing property in Sub District 1-B are now summarized: > By 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-B. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City jobs would be created by 2008. 'J., The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667,000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District 1-B parcels. :,,, The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly $856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $66,000 during land development and over $601,000 during construction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03 003-0 1 05/LEG AI, 14505979. 7 9/l l/08 PAGE 2l Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly $856,000. Nearly $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $26,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS HARVEST PARTNERS SUB DISTRICT 1-B One-time Land One-time Building Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2006-2007 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 Indirect Jobs 16 39 Total Jobs 58 131 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 Indirect Income $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 Total Income $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax s 306,257 Total Tax Revenues s 601,458 Recurring in 2008 859 202 1,061 $ 44,657,600 $ 8,889,439 $ 53,547,039 $ 186,873 $ 584,225 $ 58,346 $ 26,325 $ 855.769 Chart l shows that 1,061 permanent jobs arc estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROH) property in Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B area. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 l OS/LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11108 Chart 1 PAGJ::: 22 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 1,200 -i;Oul-.. -- 800 400 With Project Without Project ---------------- Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2008 l I $60 --- $54 ~ $40 I !l r-·--0 Q ~ 0 ~ = s $20 ::; $- With Project Without Project Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from $8.6 million to nearly $61.3 million-an increase of$52.7 million. AMENDED CONCF.PTUAI. REDF.VF.[.OPMFNT Pl.AN 03003-0 l05/LEGAI, 14505979.7 9/1 1/08 PAUi:: 23 Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY Without Project With Project $0 $25 Dollars in millions I . $50 $61.3 $75 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B property starting in 2007. This will increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. AMENDED CONCcPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003~0105/LEGAl .14505979.7 9111108 Chart 4 PAGE 24 r---- New City Of Renton Tax Revenues Sl,000,000 'I; $800,000 " :, = " > $600,000 " ~ is " $400,000 E-- >, ~- .-::: $200,000 u I $- 2008 2009 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05/LEGAL 145 05979. 7 9/11/08 2010 2011 2012 2013 ---ID Re~u-rring . _ ~ Oneti_m_c_ I ---------------' PAGE 25 Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008-2012 CfIT.JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 Indirect Jobs 9 159 Total Johs 34 540 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Jncome $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ Total income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ Cfl'Y TAX REVFNUES Property Tax $ Sales Tax $ 40,234 s 3,049,318 $ Employee I lead Tax $ Real Estate Trans fCr Tax s 3,118,965 $ Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ HARVESTPARTNERSROFOPARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT 1-B PROPERTY One-time Land Redevelopment Scenario Development Cfl'YJOBS Direct Jobs 42 Indirect Jobs 16 Total Jobs 58 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2,121,030 Indirect Income $ 678,445 Total Income $ 2,799,475 CfrYTAXREVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 66,379 Employee Head Tax Real.Estate Transfer Tax Total Tax Revenues $ 66,379 A:v1E\'DED COi'\CFPTlJAI, RP:DEVFI.OPMENT Pl,AN 03003-0105/LEUALl 4505979 7 9/11/08 One-time Building Development 2006-2007 92 39 131 $ 9,432,720 $ s 3,384,707 $ s 12,817,427 $ $ s 295.201 $ $ s 306,257 $ $ 601,458 $ Recurring in 2013 1,700 400 2,100 123,146,400 17,596,700 140,743,100 1.952,593 115,496 275,071 2,343,160 Recurring in 2008 859 202 1,061 44,657,600 8,889.439 53,547,039 186.873 584,225 58.346 26,325 855,769 PAGU6 COMBINED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICTl-B PROPERTY One-time Land Redevelopment Scenario Development CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 67 Indirect Jobs 25 Total Jobs 92 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ J.406,655 Indirect Income $ 1,089,693 Total Income $ 4,496,348 CITYTAX REVFNUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 106,613 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax Total Tax Revenues $ 106,613 AMENDED CONCCPTUAL RFl )EVJ:::LOPME);T PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LEGAL 14505979.7 9111108 One-time Building Recurring Development 2006-2012 in 2013 473 2.559 198 602 671 3,161 $ 59,393,400 $ 167,804,000 s 38,347,461 $ 26,486,139 $ 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 $ 2,139,466 $ 3.344,519 $ 584,225 $ 173,842 $ 3,425,222 $ 301,396 $ 6,769,741 $ 3,198,929 PAGF 27 TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DISTRICT 1-B City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 4,000 i- 3,000 2,000 1,000 ------- S200 t $150 .. ~ ~ $100 ~ .2 ~ $50 $- $4,000,000 " " $3,000,000 = " ;, " <>I $2,000,000 >< ~ £-. c $1,000,000 u $- 3,161 With Pro_ject \\lithout Project ------------ New Joh Annual Income in 2013 J------------------- With Projed \Vithout Project New City Of Renton Tax Revenues ID Recurring] I• Onetime j 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ' ' AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 J 05'1.EGAL 14505979 .7 PAGE 28 9/1 J /08 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT 1-B, NORTH lB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON This Economic Benefit Study (Exhibit 4) was prepared to help align, support and provide context for recent land use amendments applicable to Sub-District 1-B as reflected in the attached Conceptual Redevelopment Plan. The analysis included in this Exhibit 4 was developed by CB Richard Ellis in an effort to conform to prior analyses performed for the Lakeshore Sub District 1-B. CB Richard Ellis obtained the information contained herein from sources we believe to be reliable. However, we have not verified its accuracy and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is submitted subject to the possibility of errors, omissions, and change of conditions. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates used are for example only and do not represent the current or future performance of the property. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAK 03003-0 I 05/LEG AI .14505979. 7 911 I/08 PAGE 29 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT 1-B, NORTH lB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. HISTORY The original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B ("SDIB"), approved by the City of Renton, included a mix of multi-family and retail development. Over the past two years, however, the Puget Sound real estate market has changed. Highest and best use for the north 21.2 acres ofSDlB (referenced by the original Plan as the "ROFO" area; now referenced as "North IB"), has shifted away from retail and multifamily to office/commercial and hotel uses. The redevelopment now anticipated for North 1 B includes a hotel and restaurants on Lot 7B and office/business/R&D uses on Lot 5A. This analysis supplements the Economic Benefit Analysis performed in 2005 to support the original Conceptual Plan for SD I B by generally assessing the economic benefit associated with redevelopment of North I B for office and hotel uses. As discussed in greater detail below, we conclude that the anticipated hotel and office redevelopment of SDIB will benefit the City, County and State at a rate equal to or greater than the retail redevelopment program assumed by the original Conceptual Plan. II. SCOPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HOTEL/RESTAURANT Lot 7B is approximately 5.07 acres. On the south side of N 81h Street, the property is bordered by Park and Garden Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with a regional hotel management and development company with more than 20 years of experience in the Pacific Northwest.. A hotel and commercial development is planned according to the following program: Y Residence Inn by Marriott; "Extended Stay" Y 170 rooms Y 130,000 sq. ft Y Total employees -approximately 45 to 50 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0105/LEG AL 14505979. 7 9111108 PAGE 30 ';,-Average Daily Rate (ADR) -approximately $165 ';,-Annual beginning revenue of approximately $8,500,000 ';,-Completion is projected in early 2010 ';,-2 restaurant pads ';,-2 "sit down" style restaurants; one approximately 5,000 sq. ft., the second approximately 8,000 sq. ft. ';,-Total employees for both restaurants -approximately 100 ';,-Annual beginning revenue of approximately $3,500,000 (for both restaurants) ';,-Completion is projected in early 2010 The combined value of the hotel and restaurant development is projected to exceed $42 million (land + construction). OFFICE Lot SA is approximately 14.21 acres. On the south side of N gth Street, the property is bordered by Logan and Park Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with one of the largest publicly traded office and industrial property developers in the United States. An office/business/R&D development is planned according to the following program: ? Class "A" office project for general office use ? 4 buildings@+/-150,000 sq. ft each; total office of300k to 600k sq. ft. ';,-Project to be 100% built out by 2014 ? 2,000 to 3,000 employees/jobs ? Parking is planned to be a combination of structural and surface, based on the ultimate size of the office buildings ';,-Construction is projected to start in 2009 with completion of the initial phase in 2010 The combined value of the office development is projected to exceed $165 million (land + construction). Ill. ANALYSIS The 2005 Economic Benefit Study addressed and quantified the original Conceptual Plan's positive effect on jobs, annual income and city tax revenues. That analysis continues to be relevant to Scenarios 1 and 3 of the Amended Conceptual Plan now proposed. With respect to Scenario 2, which assumes redevelopment of the North 1I3 portion of Sub-District !B for office/business/R&D/hotel/commercial uses as described above, we conclude the following: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PACiE 31 • Proposed sit-down restaurants and hospitality components complement the current retail development at The Landing. Proposed additional hotel lodging near the downtown core encourages revenue generating traffic and a tourism multiplier that will be beneficial to the City. • Washington state sales tax on the improvements and excise tax on the sale of the land should exceed $15 million. Using an industry standard of 200 square feet for each employee, the office portion should directly bring 3,000 jobs to Renton in additions to the 150 jobs created by the hotel and restaurants. • While there arc many variables, we conclude that the current/revised conceptual plan for SD 1 B essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic benefits to those anticipated as part of the original conceptual plan. Proposed changes to the original Conceptual Plan provide for an increasingly diverse redevelopment of downtown Renton. A new hotel, restaurants, retail space and additional class A office space will continue to draw people to the downtown area. The city, county and state will continue to benefit via additional jobs, increased property values and public revenues. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0105/LEGALl 4505979.J 9/l 1/08 PAGE 32 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS For the Amended Conceptual Plan City of Renton, Washington September 2008 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1-B ENVIROMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY BLUMEN CONSUL TING GROUP, INC. AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC FOR THE CITY OF RENTON SEPTEMBER 2008 In Compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21 C) And the City of Renton SEPA Policies and Procedures 1.1 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1-B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the City of Renton (the City) have been working together since 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with Boeing's 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the Renton Plant site). The City issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement in October 2003 (2003 EIS). The 2003 EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Renton Plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a depiction of the EIS site area). Sub- District 1-B comprises a portion of this overall site area. In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant site. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, conceptual planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the site, known as Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B and District 2 (see Exhibit 1 in the 2008 Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City of Renton, and Figure 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a depiction of these districts). The Renton City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub- District 1-A is now known as "the Landing" project which is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-B is located immediately south of the Landing and totals approximately 50. 7 acres (see Figure 1-1). A Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted to the City in October 2005 and approved in November 2005 (called the Original Conceptual Plan herein). Thereafter, Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B from the City (per the State Environmental Policy Act rules, WAC 197-11-164 and RCW 43-21C.031). Under SEPA, a "Planned Action" designation indicates that the significant environmental impacts of a project have been adequately addressed in an EIS prepared at the plan level (in this case the 2003 EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning stage), and that the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. As a next step in the request for a Planned Action designation, the Boeing Renton Sub-district 18 Environmental Consistency Analysis (2006 Consistency Analysis) was prepared in May 2006. The 2006 Consistency Analysis included environmental analysis of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan and compared it to the assumptions and environmental analysis included in the 2003 EIS. The Consistency Analysis also evaluated the request for designation of proposed uses in Sub-District 1-B as Planned Actions under SEPA. The Consistency Analysis concluded that the environmental impacts of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-District 1-B (and the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment plans for both Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B) were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 1 Source: Boe ing --\ . ' _. \· .-.. , ' ., ' '.- -... -,.-. \. ,.~BLUMEN S coNsULTING . .GROUP INC ~~-.!? ' ;· '. 'I , Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-8 Consistency Analysis Figure 1-1 Boeing Renton Plant Site Districts A Planned Action was approved for Sub-District 1-B in December 2006 by the Renton City Council, under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007, the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan (BSP) for the same area under the name of "Lakeshore Landing 2". The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub- District 1-B: Lots 5A, 58, SC, SD, SE, 7A, 78 and 7C. Due to a change in market conditions, redevelopment of the northern part of Sub-District 1-B did not proceed. Based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City, and the provisions of the Urban Center -North (UC-N1) or District One zone, Boeing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels for Sub-District 1-B that are within those evaluated for this district in the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see the following description of the Amended Conceptual Plan for details). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub-District 1-B's UC-N 1 or District One zoning classification. Boeing is now seeking approval of their Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Planned Action designation by the City. Goal of this Analysis. This environmental analysis is intended to determine whether the range of redevelopment and associated impacts under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan are within the range addressed in the 2003 EIS. If determined to be within this range, Sub- District 1-B would be eligible for designation as a Planned Action. 1.2 COMPARISON OF REDEVELOPMENT RANGES 2003 EIS The 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS evaluated a site area that included approximately 275 acres of Boeing property and 15 acres of contiguous property owned by others. Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B are portions of this overall site area. Sub-District 1- B is generally equivalent to Subarea C in the 2003 EIS (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). Four redevelopment scenarios were analyzed in the 2003 EIS (Alternatives 1 -4). These scenarios encompassed a broad range of land uses that the Boeing Renton Plant site could potentially accommodate in the future, given existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies and designations (note: the UC-N1 or District One Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification were adopted for the site area in November 2003). The redevelopment assumed in Sub-District 1-B by 2015 in the EIS ranged from approximately 880,000 to 1,830,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The assumed redevelopment by 2030 ranged from approximately 880,000 to 2,570,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The Sub-District 1-B redevelopment ranges included 480,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 660,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 3 and 4 within the overall totals (see Tables 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). --------------·--~~-,.-- Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 3 2006 Consistency Analysis The Original Conceptual Plan for redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed a range of land uses and potential redevelopment levels for Sub-District 1-B by 2015 and 2030. These land uses and potential redevelopment levels were within the ranges addressed in the 2003 EIS. In the 2006 Consistency Analysis, it was assumed that redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B by 2015 would range from approximately 1,265,000 to 1,808,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. By 2030, the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed that redevelopment would range from approximately 1,535,000 to 2,258,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. All of Sub-District 1-B was assumed to be fully built out by 2030 (see Table 1-3 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a summary of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan in the 2006 Consistency Analysis; see Figure 1-3 in Appendix A for the Sub-District 1-B Original Conceptual Plan). Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan As indicated above, based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City and provisions of the UC-N1 or District One zone, Boeing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B (the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan is on file at the City of Renton). As reflected in the Amended Conceptual Plan, Sub-District 1-B is comprised of two areas: the North 1-B and Boeing Remainder areas (see Figure 1-1). The approximately 21.2-acre North 1-B area is located in the northern portion of the district, immediately south of N. 8'" Street. The North 1-B area has been identified for surplus by Boeing, and is available for near-term development. The approximately 29.5-acre Boeing Remainder area is located in the southern portion of the district, immediately north of N. 6'" Street. The Boeing Remainder area contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space in several buildings that are owned and currently used by Boeing as part of ongoing airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these buildings and associated parking structures are approximately 12.9 acres of land with future redevelopment potential. Figure 1-2 shows the general locations of the assumed future uses for Sub-District 1-B redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan (the oval shapes labeled O -Office, L - Lab, H -Hotel, R -Retail, and P -Parking Garage). Existing garages and office buildings (the rectangular shapes labeled 10-13, 10-16. 10-18 and 10-20) are also depicted on Figure 1-2. Table 1-1 provides breakdowns of the assumed redevelopment levels for the various areas in Sub-District 1-B by 2015 and 2030 under the Amended Conceptual Plan. In total, it is assumed that Sub-District 1B would feature between 852,500 and 1,325,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015 and between 1,765,000 and 2,238,000 square feet of redevelopment by 2030. It is also assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub-District 1-B until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-8 Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 4 North 8th Street O\L O\L\R O\L p O\L DP-1 330,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB Existing Garage p 10-1 B O\L i O\L I 10-2~· % DP-2 DP-3 Nort Street DP-2 260,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP-3 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP-4 125.000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB Legend 0 Office L Lab H Hotel R Retail p Parking Garage Source: Boeing '• .... BLUMEN •.:lcoNSULTING -.:GROUP INC Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Consistency Analysis ~ t: 0 z .. :, C: " > <( t "- R R H Existing Garage O\L DP-4 I 10-16 I - Existing I") Garage ... ' 0 ... ~ Figure 1-2 Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan Table 1-1 SUB-DISTRICT 1-8 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS - 2015 & 2030 Redevelopment Areas Land Percent Total Building Percent Area Build out Area -Square Feet Buildout Acres (2015) (2015) (2030) 'aoorox.) North 1-B Options Lots 5A & 78 21.2 100% 100% Retail and/or Office, 270.000 -743,000 Employment, Hotel, Retail SUB-TOTAL 21.2 270,000 -743,000 Boeing Remainder DP-1 Options 4.9 100% 100% Office or Lab 330,000 DP-2 Options 3.9 50% 100% Office or Lab 130,000 DP-3 Options 1.8 50% 100% Office or Lab 60,000 DP-4 Options 2.2 50% 100% Office or Lab 62,500 Existing Office Uses 16.7 100% 100% SUB-TOTAL 29.5 582,500 TOTAL 50.7 852,500 -1,325,500 Source: Boemg, 2008. Total Building Area - Square Feet (2030) 270,000 -743,000 270,000 -743,000 330,000 260,000 120,000 125,000 660,000 1,495,000 1,765,000 -2,238,000 Note: For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 6 that the 660,000 square feet of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses (see Table 1-1). North 1-B For the North 1-B area, the Amended Conceptual Plan identifies three possible redevelopment scenarios: Scenario 1 features retail uses that would complement the Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2 features a combination of office and employment uses (on Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel and retail/restaurant uses (on Lot 7B of the BSP); or Scenario 3 which features some combination of those uses of Scenarios 1 and 2, within the overall redevelopment levels assumed for North 1-B. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of the site containing a data hub for the Boeing Renton Plant (Lot 5E of the BSP) would be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. Under Scenario 1, the North 1-B area could feature up to 270,000 square feet of retail uses, under Scenarios 2 and 3, the North 1-B area could feature up to 743,000 square feet of office, employment, hotel and/or retail uses. The North 1-B area is assumed to be fully built out by 2015 (see Table 1-1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Boeing Remainder All of the available redevelopment parcels that comprise the Boeing Remainder area (DP-1, DP- 2, DP-3 and DP-4) are assumed to be redeveloped as either office and/or lab uses under the Amended Conceptual Plan. By 2015, it is assumed that DP-1 would be fully built out and DP-2, DP-3 and DP-4 would be 50 percent built out. It is assumed that the overall Boeing Remainder area could feature up to 582,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015. By 2030. it is assumed that all of the development parcels in the Boeing Remainder area would be fully built out and that this area could feature up to 1,495,000 square feet of redevelopment; this includes assumed reuse of the existing office space by others by 2030 (see Table 1-1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Comparison Table 1-2 provides a comparison of the Sub-District 1-B redevelopment levels assumed under the EIS Alternatives (evaluated in the 2003 EIS), the Original Conceptual Plan (evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis) and the Amended Conceptual Plan (evaluated in this Consistency Analysis). As shown in Table 1-1 and 1-2 and described in this section, the proposed Sub- District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see Figure 1-2 and Table 1-1). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub-District 1-B's UC-N 1 or District One zone. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 7 Table 1-2 SUB-DISTRICT 1-B REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS COMPARISON - 2015 & 2030 2015 2030 Total Building Area -Total Building Area - Square Feet Square Feet 2003 EIS 880,000 -1,830,000 1 880,000 -2,570,000 1 2006 Consistency 1,265,000 -1,808,000' 1,535,000 -2,258,000' Analysis 2008 Amended 852,500 -1,325,5003 1,765,000 -2,238,000 3 Conceptual Plan Source: Boemg Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS, 2003, Boeing 2006, Boeing 2008. 1 Includes the assumed reuse of 480,000 -660,000 SF of existing office space, depending on the EIS Alternative. 2 Includes the assumed reuse of 660.000 SF of existing office space. 3 For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 8 1.3 COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SUB-DISTRICT 1-B AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN As described in the previous section, the proposed Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. As a result, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B under the Amended Conceptual Plan are expected to be within the range of potential impacts identified for redevelopment under the EIS Alternatives and the Original Conceptual Plan (see Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for the 2006 Consistency Analysis on the Original Conceptual Plan). No new analysis of environmental impacts was determined to be necessary for the Amended Conceptual Plan. However, an analysis of the potential total vehicle trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan is included in this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The 2006 Consistency Analysis compared the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Original Conceptual Plan (and Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B plans cumulatively) to the potential impacts from redevelopment disclosed in the 2003 EIS for the EIS Alternatives. Stormwater Drainage, Transportation, Land Use Patterns, and Relationship to Plans and Policies were the key environmental elements analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. As such, more expanded analyses of these elements were provided. A comparison of potential impacts on all other elements of the environment was presented in matrix form. The 2006 Consistency Analysis determined that the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, and for Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B plans cumulatively, were within the range of impacts adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be within the range of potential impacts identified in the 2006 Consistency Analysis and adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS for all environmental elements. Transportation As indicated above, an analysis of the potential trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan was conducted for this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. Trip generation assumptions for redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan were compared to the assumptions that were used to evaluate transportation impacts in the EIS. Below is a brief summary of the results of this analysis; see Appendix 8 to this Consistency Analysis for the complete transportation analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest). A potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-District 1-B were analyzed from a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpoint in the transportation analysis for this Consistency Analysis (see Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for details on these worst-case assumptions). Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the 2003 EIS were used to estimate AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the mix and level of uses under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan (see Table 1 in Appendix 8 for a comparison of the estimated 2015 and 2030 AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation from redevelopment Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 9 under the Amended Conceptual Plan compared to trip generation under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS -the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the EIS). Attachment A to Appendix 8 also contains detailed trip generation estimates for both Sub-District 1-A and 1-8 and compares them in a cumulative manner to those estimates included in the 2003 EIS for all EIS Alternatives. Total off-site vehicle trip generation under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be significantly less than the trip generation estimated under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS for both Sub-District 1-8 independently, and for Sub-Districts 1-B and 1-A cumulatively. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-District 1-8 relative to Alternative 4 would range from approximately 203 AM peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 PM peak hour trips in 2015. Trip generation levels during the AM and PM peak hours at both the 2015 and 2030 periods would be less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and identify mitigation in the 2003 EIS. Therefore, based on the estimated trip generation, there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation with redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8, as compared to those disclosed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, these conclusions regarding trip generation, transportation impacts and mitigation reached in the transportation analysis are consistent with those reached in the 2006 Consistency Analysis (see Appendix A). Further, based upon the review of potential trip generation from redevelopment in Sub-District 1- 8 and evaluation of transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the 2003 EIS, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8 or cumulative redevelopment of Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8, as compared to those infrastructure improvements outlined in the 2003 EIS. 1.4 CONCLUSION Redevelopment and associated environmental impacts/mitigation under the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-District 1-8 are considered to be within the range of redevelopment and associated impacts/mitigation under the EIS Alternatives analyzed in the 2003 EIS, as well as the range of redevelopment and impacts/mitigation under the Original Conceptual Plan analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. Sub-District 1-8 is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation by the City of Renton without undergoing any additional SEPA review (per RCW 43.21 C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315). Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 10 APPENDIX A Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis -2006 APPENDIX A Provided Separately APPENDIX B Boeing Amended Conceptual Plan (Sub-District 1-B) Transportation Consistency Analysis -2008 DATE: TO: CC: FROM: RE: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC August 25, 2008 Memorandum Neil Watts, Director, Development Services Department, City of Renton ~-like Blurnen, President, Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. Michael J. Read, P.E., Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Boeing Conceptual Plan (Sub-district lB) -Transportation Consistency Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment under the .Amended Conceptual Plan ,vith the 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS DRAFT FOR l'<TERNAT. REVIEW The memorandutn summarizes a detailed cotnparative trip generation analysis of the Hoeing Conceptual Redevelopment Plrm -Sub-dis/rid I B, a proposed amended conceptual redevelopment plan calling for mixed use development within Sub-district 1 B of the overall Boeing Renton Plant site. Redevelopment of the 290-acre Boemg Renton Plant site was evaluated in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan ,\mcndment (BR.CPA) EIS (2003). Sub-district 1 B is noted as Subarea C: in the 2003 EIS. This analysis addresses consistency with the transportation clement of the EIS, and specifically v.-ith the land use and trip generation assumptions that were used to evaluate the transportation impacts of redevelopn1ent. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of 2005 and approved in November of 2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B and an Environmental Consistency i\.nalysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub-District 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District 1-A, were W1thin the range of development alternatives and associated enviro111nental impacts addressed in the EIS. As part of the Original Consistency Analysis, TENW completed a detailed evaluation of trip generation anc.1 transportation infrastrucl"un.' assumptions and compared them to the 2003 FIS, and found that the range and mix of land uses would not generated additional impacts beyond those levels originally evaluated. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected development of North 1-B did not proceed as evaluated in the Original Consistency Analysis. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B with a greater range of uses (i.e.) hotel, office, e1nploy1nent, research/ development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying l:C-Nl zone. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. This analysis evaluates the 1\mended Conceptual Plan to ensure the range and mix of land uses remain within those paran1eters evaluated in the 2003 E]S and the Original Consisiency Analysis. www.tenw.com PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Conslstency Analysis of Sub-district 1 B of the BR CPA EIS August25,2008 Page 2 For traffic analysis purposes, proposed uses under the Boeing Conceptual Plan-Sub-distnd 1/J were assumed to comprise approximately 1,578,000 square-feet of new development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings at build-out in 2030. The Amended Plan assumes approximately 1,182,500 square-feet in new office/lab space, a 176-room extended stay hotel facility, and 13,000 square feet of restaurant uses developed by 2015. By 2030, an additional 252,500 square feet of new office/lab uses were assumed to be constructed. Under the 2015 horizon year, the existing 660,000 square-feet ofBoeing- occupied office space 'w-ithin Sub-district 1B was assumed to continue to be used by Boeing. By 2030, this space was assumed to be sold or leased to non-Boeing owners/tenants. Existing Boeing ernployees within these buildings were assumed to be consolidated within Boeing operations located in facilities west of Logan Avenue N ., consistent with the BR.CPA r:rs assumptions. This traffic assumption (related to relocation of Boeing employees) provides a worst-case analysis of transportation itnpacts from redevelopment (Refer to the Consistency Analysis Memo by Blumen Consulting Group for more information on the assumed breakdown of uses under the amended Conceptual Plan for S11h-di1trict 1 B). This 111en1orandum analyzes a potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-district 1 B from a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpoint. Therefore, \V:ithin individual Development Parcels (DP) noted within the Amended Boeing Conaptual Plan-Sub-district IB office uses \vere primarily assumed; it should be noted that retail uses in the northern portion of the Sub-district and laboratory/ technology uses in the southern portion could be developed 1fl lieu of office space. Retail and lab uses have different trip generating characteristics than traditional office use. For trip generation comparisons however, new commercial buildings were all assumed to contain traditional office uses (with the exception of the hotel and restaurant uses noted above) in order to evaluate a worst-case scenario. Trip Generation Comparison Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRCP ;\ EIS were used to estimate a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by redevelopment under the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan-Sub-distrid JB. Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated 2015 and 2030 a.m. peak rnd p.rn. peak hour vehicle trip generation of redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan compared with those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportation impacts and outline rnitigarion measures for Alternative 4 in the BRCPA EIS (i.e., the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the EIS). Detailed trip generation comparisons to all f:TS alternatives are provided as Attachment A_ T n addition, trip generation cornparisons of cumulative impacts of both development of Sub-district 1 B together with development of Sub-district 1 /\ (The Landing) is also provided herein. The Landing project was approved and is under construction. As shown in Table 1, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels of redevelopment under the Boeing Conceptual Plan are significantly less than those estimated under J\Jtcrnative 4 in the I3RCPA EIS. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-district 1B would range from approximately 203 a.m. peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 p.m. peak hour trips ln 2015. These trip generation levels would all be less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and develop mitigation for the 2003 EIS. Transpodat1on Engineering Northwest l LC PO Box 65254 t Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub-district 18 of the BRCPA EIS August 25, 2008 Page 3 Table l -Sub-district l B 2015/2030 Trip Generation Comparison Development Scenario Enter Exit Total Development Scenario Enter Exit Total BRCPA EIS estimate, cnlrn11cd in the HRCPA i::;:[S, and thcrc:ore. should b.:: comidcrcd conscr1·ati\·e Trip grncralion ntim;itu: fmrr: the BRU'.-\ Li[::-; can be' found in ,\11achmrnt B of Appendix J,: in Volum(: JI of 1hc Dr,1:1 1·:lS. Therefore, based upon this c0111parative analysis maximum redevelopment according to the Amended Bow(!: Conceptual Plan for S ub-distnd 1 B would result in less peak hour vehicle trip generation as compared to the trip generation reported and evaluated rn the 2003 FIS for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site; there would be no clifferences tn probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment under the proposed Plan as compared to those disclosed in the 13RCP 1\ EIS. Redevelopment of approximately 1,578,000 square-feet of new mixed use development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub-district 113, as assumed under the 1\mended Boeing Conceptual Plan, is v..1.thin the range of development alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, the conclusions regarding transportation impacts and mitigation reached in this consistency analysis are consistent with those reached in the 2006 Original Consistency Analysis. i\s noted previously, the potential range of uses proposed within the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan -Sub-district 1 B could result in a different mix or total square footage of redevelopment than evaluated in this report (less offiC(.' use and more lab and/ or retail use). However, to evaluate a worst-case trip generation scenario, office uses at certain levels of development in the individual Development Parcels (DP) within Sub-district lB, that were estimated to generate the highest number of vehicle trips, were used in this consistency analysis of transportation impacts (refer to the Consistency Analysis ~\frrno prepared by ______________ Turansoortation Engineering Northwest LLC PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 + Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub-district 1 B of the BR CPA EIS August 25, 2008 Page 4 Blumen Consulting Group for more information on assumed uses and development scenarios). Attachment A contains detailed trip generation tables of both Sub-districts 1A and 1 Band compares these in a cumulative manner to those assumptions from the 2003 BRCPA EIS. On a cumulative baS!S, trip reductions of between 1,119 p.m. peak hour trips in 2015 to over 3,000 a.m. peak bour trips by 2030 are estimated versus those land use assumptions tested and evaluated in the BRCPA EJS. Infrastructure Comparison Based upon the review of potential trip generation from developn1ent in Sub-district lB and evaluation of key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlirn:d in the BRCP A EIS, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support development under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1B or cumulative development under the Sub-district IA and IB plans, as compared to those levels of infrastructure improvements assumed within the EIS. _____________ ----1r..a..®.pJ)1:tati.Q.n_E.nsll!iee.!il'1g .Nortb'6'e_s.L..LLC __ . _____ ----~ --------·-·- PO Box 65254 + Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 + Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Attachment A Detailed Project Trip Generation Estimates Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation BRCPA EIS The Landing (2/2006) Peak Period nter xit otal xit ota AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak r/our PM Peak Hour AM Peak r/our PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak r/our Difference from Subarea A & B (BRCPA EIS) xh ota Note: Thc~c comparison~ do not cons1Jcr acld1t1orul m0Jc ~plit :td1usrmcnt.< m,1dc 111 th,, rrip gc·m·r;it1on ('~11matro n·aluarcd ir. the RRCP,\ FIS, ,1ncl therefore_ ~hould be con~1dered conscn·,1111T Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 1 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation BRCPA EIS Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) Peak Period nter XI\ otal I Enter I Exit I I otal Alternative 1 -No Action AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Difference from Subarea C iBRCPA EIS) nter XI\ ota Note. These compan,om Jo nol con,1dLr add1t.Jo1ul mode split :1djusrmcnts made in th~· mp gcncrat1un estimate, c\·aluatcJ m the BRC:P:\ EJS, and thtrcfor\:, ,hould be considcrul con~cn-at.Jw:. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/1912008 Page 2 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Peak Period AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour BRCPA EIS nter xit otal The Landing and Boeing Concept Pl"-"---l8_120081 ota Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) ntcr otal 7 ~otc: Thr.:,..: comp;:msons do not consider :i.dd1tion:,I mod(:' spin .id1u<rmcnr~ m:idc m the trip gcrwution C:<lmutr.:~ c1 alu:w.:J i11 Lhc BRC:P:\ ELS, an<! thucfo1c. ~hould be considered con~cn-ann-. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 3 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The Landing (2/2006) Peak Period Enter Exit Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour 1, PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour N(itt: Tht:~e compansons dn not consider additional mods· split adju,:tmu1ts made in lht: lnp gcncr:1t1on c~t1rn:1tcs e1·aiuat('d m the RRCP.\ FI\ Jnd thncforc, should he conqdcrcd c1m,:en·1t\\T Difference from Subarea A & B @RCPA EIS) ota l\~ 20.VJ. no mere.1st m :1dd,tion:1.I dew·lopmtnr ,~ ;i,ssurnul with Subar(·a ] a. I Jnwcn,r. other reden:lopmenr a"sumptwns m ~t:b:uc·a lB mcH"ast benvc·c-n 2U15 .1nd 2030 and 1hcrcfurl, "\1ltcmali1.-:" more .-chicle tt1p, \qthin the Boeing Renton Plant area as a w:"'.ok \, ,uch, a ,light ruluccion in total ofi~s1tc tnp gcm:rat1on by Subarca 1 a i, expected by ?.U.10 on.'r thos<.: ten,Js t:st1m:1ted m 211\ 5. 0 !·h,~ ch1r;i[:!('n~nc ,~ nm~i~renr with the tnp g<-'ner:1.win mcthodologie, :ind a,,umptH1ns ,1pplwd in the BRCP1\ I·'.!S Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 4 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) Peak Period Enter Exit Total I Enter I Exit I fatal Alternative 1 -No Action AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Note: 'J hcsc comp,ir1so11, do not consider addmonal mode ,:plit ad1u,:tmcms made m the tnr gct1('.rat10t1 csumatc~ c1·alua1<:J in lhe BRCP \ F[S, ,mJ thnicforc, ~hould he con~iJcrcJ c0r1.,c:r\",!111·c Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Difference from Subarea C (BRCPA EIS) nter xlt otal Page 5 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The Landing and Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) Peak Period Enter Exit Total I Enter I Exit Alternative 1 -No Action AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Pgak Hour Note: Thl',<C comp·,msons Jo nul consider ·.1Jd1t1011al moJ1c ~rl1t ad1u~rmcnts nude m rh,· trip gcncc:it1on csLirn,1tc~ c·1·aluateJ 111 t]1c HR('.P.\ FT.'s, anJ thccrcforL, ~h(iul(l he con,;,JcrcJ con,crva.r1v(· Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Ota Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) . xit I I otal Page 6