HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-071_Misc 2Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
206-382-9540
206-626-0675 Fax
www.buckgordon.com
In the Matter of the Appeals of Brad
Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
&
The Director's Administrative
Interpretation/Policy Decision
No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
March 6, 2007 Meeting re: Document Authenticity
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the Matter of the Appeal of
LUA-06-071, SA-A
Brad Nicholson re:
STIPULATION
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval.
L RECITALS
For the sake of administrative efficiency, the parties desire to enter this Stipulation
related to the above-entitled cause.
II. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through
their counsel of record, that the following documents are ~~J.\Jt~~ ana I!dmissiBl8~tr
I. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, amended-O;ce~ber 12,2005, pp. 1-1-1-16;
pp. IX-l-IX-3; pp. IX-36--IX-38; and pp. IX-43-IX-50.
2. Harvest Partners' Site Plan Review Updates, and all accompanying submittal
materials and City approvals of same, including the following:
Stipulation
Page I of2
a. Update A -originally submitted December 29,2006 and revised
version submitted March 2, 2007. City approval of Update A dated
March 13,2007.
b. Update B -submitted March 13,2007. City approval of Update B
dated March 19, 2007.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745: fax 206.623.7789
c, Update C -submitted February 5, 2007. City approval of Update C
2 originally dated February 8, 2007 and revised approval dated February
3 15,2007.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
d. Update D -submitted February 13,2007. City approval of Update D
dated March 7, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that prior to or at the time of the hearing the parties
will agree in good faith to supplement the above documents with any attachments or
documents that are discovered to be revisions, amendments, exhibits, etc.
This Stipulation should not be interpreted to preclude the parties from entering other
exhibits. {)oJ" r""-ks-h,,,; -It.~ 1i-e(eu<lKI(1 c/ 1f..e a. tt,v.e J!?CJ ... .e..~ ~
DATED this 22",1 day of March, 2007.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P .. S ..
CITY OF RENTON
B U C K & G$ RJpQl\l".r:~
Attorneys for Brad Nicholson
27 #349971 IS449-004 7$lftJlLdoc
28
Stipulation
Page 20f2
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P,S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
8 In the Matter of the Appeals of )
)
9 Brad Nicholson re: ) No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
)
10 The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
) STIPULATION
)
11
12
And
)
)
)
The Director's Administrative Interpretation!
13 Policy Decision
)
)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
)
I. RECITALS
1, For the sake of administrative efficiency and expedition, and in order to avoid the
need for more contentious procedures, the parties desire to enter this Stipulation related to
the above entitled causes.
II. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through
their counsel of record, that the following documents are authentic:
1. Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan, any amendments (see below), and any and
all attachments;
2. Page IX-8 of the Glossary of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan dated revised
11119/03;
STIPULATION
f-\ Buck e Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 3828540
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3. Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment, any amendments, and
any and all attachments;
4. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council flresident Don Persson, dated October
4,2004;
5. Renton City Council Minutes, October 11, 2004, and attached City of Renton
Council Agenda Bill dated October 11, 2004;
6. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council President Don Persson, dated October
14, 2004, and attached Revised Conceptual Plan Submittal;
7. Renton City Council Minutes, October 18,2004, and attached Committee of the
Whole report recommending adoption of the Conceptual Plan and stamped
"Approved by City Council" on October 18, 2004;
8. Planned Action Ordinance No. 5107 dated November 15, 2004, any amendments,
and any and all attachments;
9. Renton City Council Minutes, November 7, 2005;
10. Renton City Council Minutes, November 14, 2005;
11. Second Amendment to the City of Renton's Conceptual Plan for Subdistrict lA of
Urban Center North, District One;
12. Boeing-Renton Sub-District lA Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared by
Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 2006 and any and all attachments;
13. The Planned Action Determination for The Landing Master Plan dated May 12,
2006, any amendments, and any and all attachments;
14. Harvest Partners' Master Plan Application for The Landing under LUA05-136,
SA-M, SA-A. The City will bring the Yellow File to the hearing and someone
from the City or the Applicant's architects will identify what documents in that file
constitute the application.
15. The Landing Master Plan Decision/Approval and Report dated May 19, 2006, and
any and all attachments;
16. Harvest Partners' Site Plan Review Application and Submittal materials and any
attachments under LUA06-071, SA-A;
STIPULATION
7-'2.. Buck ('I Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17. City of Renton Infrastructure Approval dated May 19, 2006 and any and all
attachments;
18. City of Renton, Development Services Division, InterpretationIPolicy Decision
dated July 17,2006;
19. The Landing Site Plan Decision and Report dated August 17,2006, and any and
all attachments; and
20. The Settlement Agreement dated December 11, 2006, and Stipulation signed by
the Hearing Examiner on January 18, 2007 and all attachments.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that prior to or at the time of hearing the parties
will agree in good faith to supplement the above documents with any attachments or
documents that are discovered to be revisions, amendments, exhibits, etc.
This Stipulation should not be interpreted to preclude the parties from entering
other exhibits or contesting the relevancy of the above documents.
It is also stipulated that if ASE or Nicholson appeals Site Plan Review Update A or
Update B, that the hearing on those will be consolidated and held on Tuesday March 27
and 29. It is further stipulated that Update A -D are to be consider as part of the record.
Any appeals will be filed by the start of the hearing.
It is stipulated that neither side will initially call witnesses, but instead argue the
matter. The City will make Neil Watts available at the hearing for questions of the
Examiner. Ifhe is questioned, the parties shall have the right to cross examine him.
Additionally Nicholson shall have the right to present a planner, tentatively identified as
Reid Shockey, to rebut any testimony of Watts.
...N'
DATED this J.l day of March, 2007.
STIPULATION
Buck!", Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STIPULATION
?-~
BUCK&GO
By
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S.
By <--\
~J~om=t~L.~H~i~lh~,~~A~#1~7~04Y-----
ys for Applicant Harvest Partner
Buck(~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12 , 13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ,
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Brad Nicholson re:
)
)
) No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
)
) STIPULATION
)
)
And )
)
The Director's Administrative Interpretation! )
)
--------------------------)
Policy Decision
I. RECITALS
1. For the sake of administrative efficiency and expedition, and in order to avoid the
need for more contentious procedures, the parties desire to enter this Stipulation related to
the above entitled causes.
II. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through
their counsel of record, that the following documents are authentic:
1. Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan, any amendments (see below), and any and
all attachments;
2. Page IX-8 of the Glossary of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan dated revised
11119/03;
STIPULATION
p .. \ Buck Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Se~ttle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 392-9540
,
,
,
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
3. Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment, any amendments, and
any and all attachments;
4. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council President Don Persson, dated October
4,2004;
5. Renton City Council Minutes, October 11,2004, and attached City of Renton
Council Agenda Bill dated October II, 2004;
6. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council President Don Persson, dated October
14, 2004, and attached Revised Conceptual Plan Submittal;
7. Renton City Council Minutes, October 18, 2004, and attached Committee of the
Whole report recommending adoption of the Conceptual Plan and stamped
"Approved by City Council" on October 18, 2004;
8. Planned Action Ordinance No. 5107 dated November 15,2004, any amendments,
and any and all attachments;
9. Renton City Council Minutes, November 7, 2005;
10. Renton City Council Minutes, November 14,2005;
II. Second Amendment to the City of Renton's Conceptual Plan for Subdistrict IA of
Urban Center North, District One;
16 12. Boeing-Renton Sub-District IA Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared by
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 2006 and any and all attachments;
13. The Planned Action Determination for The Landing Master Plan dated May 12,
2006, any amendments, and any and all attachments;
14. Harvest Partners' Master Plan Application for The Landing under LUA05-136,
SA-M, SA-A. The City will bring the Yellow File to the hearing and someone
from the City or the Applicant's architects will identify what documents in that file
constitute the application.
15. The Landing Master Plan Decision! Approval and Report dated May 19, 2006, and
any and all attachments;
16. Harvest Partners' Site Plan Review Application and Submittal materials and any
attachments under LUA06-071, SA-A;
STIPULATION
'?-2.. Buck .. Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Se~tt1e, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382·9540
,
,
,
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17. City of Renton Infrastructure Approval dated May 19, 2006 and any and all
attachments;
18. City of Renton, Development Services Division, Interpretation/Policy Decision
dated July 17, 2006; .
19. The Landing Site Plan Decision and Report dated August 17, 2006, and any and
all attachments; and
20. The Settlement Agreement dated December 11,2006, and Stipulation signed by
the Hearing Examiner on January 18, 2007 and all attachments.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that prior to or at the time of hearing the parties
will agree in good faith to supplement the above documents with any attachments or
documents that are discovered to be revisions, amendments, exhibits, etc.
This Stipulation should not be interpreted to preclude the parties from entering
other exhibits or contesting the relevancy of the above documents.
It is also stipulated that if ASE or Nicholson appeals Site Plan Review Update A or
Update B, that the hearing on those will be consolidated and held on Tuesday March 27
and 29. It is further stipulated that Update A -D are to be consider as part of the record.
Any appeals will be filed by the start of the hearing.
It is stipulated that neither side will initially call witnesses, but instead argue the
matter. The City will make Neil Watts available at the hearing for questions of the
Examiner. Ifhe is questioned, the parties shall have the right to cross examine him.
Additionally Nicholson shall have the right to present a planner, tentatively identified as
Reid Shockey, to rebut any testimony of Watts.
J
DATED this (}l day of March, 2007.
By
STIPULATION
?-3
ON
awrence 1. Warr
City Attorney
Buck Gordon LLP
2025 First AVenue. Suite 500
Seillttle, WA 98121·3140
1206) 382-9540
• I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
II
12
13 , 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STIPULATION
f-~
BUCK&GO
By
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S.
By ~J;:)-LHiltr'~~/~~4·
~ttornhs for Applicant Harvest Partner
\----
Buck. Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
8 In the Matter of the Appeals of )
)
9 Brad Nicholson re: ) No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
)
10 The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
) STIPULATION
)
) 11
12
And
The Director's Administrative Interpretation!
)
)
)
)
)
13 Policy Decision
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I. RECITALS.
1. For the sake of administrative efficiency and expedition, and in order to avoid the
need for more contentious procedures, the parties desire to enter this Stipulation related to
the above entitled causes.
II. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through
their counsel of record, that the following documents are both authentic and admissible:
1. Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan, any amendments (see below), and any and
all attachments;
2. Page JX-8 of the Glossary of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan dated revised
11119/03;
STIPULATION - 1
Y;\WPIASE\5ITE PLAN APPEALIPOl0507.STIPULA TlON TO
AUTHENTICITY.MMN.DOC Buck~Gordon LLP
2025 first Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•
3. Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment, any amendments, and
any and all attachments;
4. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council President Don Persson, dated October
4,2004;
5. Renton City Council Minutes, October 11, 2004, and attached City of Renton
Council Agenda Bill dated October 11, 2004;
6. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council President Don Persson, dated October
14, 2004, and attached Revised Conceptual Plan Submittal;
7. Renton City Council Minutes, October 18,2004, and attached Committee of the
Whole report recommending adoption of the Conceptual Plan and stamped
"Approved by City Council" on October 18, 2004;
8. Planned Action Ordinance No. 5107 dated November 15,2004, any amendments,
and any and all attachments;
9. Renton City Council Minutes, November 7, 2005;
10. Renton City Council Minutes, November 14,2005;
11. Second Amendment to the City of Renton's Conceptual Plan for Subdistrict 1A of
Urban Center North, District One;
12. Boeing-Renton Sub-District lA Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared by
Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 2006 and any and all attachments;
13. The Planned Action Determination for The Landing Master Plan dated May 12,
2006, any amendments, and any and all attachments;
14. Harvest Partners' Master Plan Application and all Submittal materials and
attachments for The Landing under LUA05-136, SA-M, SA-A;
15. The Landing Master Plan Decision/Approval and Report dated May 19,2006, and
any and all attachments;
16. Harvest Partners' Site Plan Review Application and Submittal materials and any
attachments under LUA06-071, SA-A;
STIPULATION - 2
y,\WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEALIP030507.STIPULATION TO
AUTHENTICITY.MMN.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206)382-9540
•
•
,
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17. City of Renton Infrastructure Approval dated May 19,2006 and any and all
attachments;
18. City of Renton, Development Services Division, InterpretationIPolicy Decision
dated July 17,2006;
19. The Landing Site Plan Decision and Report dated August 17, 2006, and any and
all attachments; and
20. The Settlement Agreement dated December II, 2006, and Stipulation signed by
the Hearing Examiner on January 18,2007 and all attachments.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that prior to or at the time of hearing the parties
will agree in good faith to supplement the above documents with any attachments or
documents that are discovered to be revisions, amendments, exhibits, etc.
This Stipulation should not be interpreted to preclude the parties from entering
other exhibits.
DATED this ___ day of March, 2007.
STIPULATION - 3
CITY OF RENTON
By
Lawrence 1. Warren, WSBA #5853
City Attorney
BUCK & GORDON, LLP
By
Peter S. Buck, WSBA #5060
Attorneys for Brad Nicholson
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S.
By
Jerome L. Hillis, WSBA #1704
Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partner
V:\WPIASEISITE PLAN APPEAL\P030S07.STIPULA nON TO
AUTHENTICITY.MMN.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle. WA 98121-3140
(206) 382·9540
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF TIlE CITY OF RENTON
)
)
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Brad Nicholson re: ) No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
)
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
) STIPULATION
)
)
And )
)
The Director's Administrative Interpretation! )
)
------------------------~)
Policy Decision
I. RECITALS.
1. For the sake of administrative efficiency and expedition, and in order to avoid the
need for more contentious procedures, the parties desire to enter this Stipulation related to
the above entitled causes.
II. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through
their counsel of record, that the following documents are both authentic and admissible:
I. Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan, any amendments (see below), and any and
all attachments;
2. Page IX-8 of the Glossary ofthe City of Renton Comprehensive Plan dated revised
11119/03;
STIPULATION - 1
Y:IWP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEALIP030S07.STIPULATION TO
AUTHENTICITY.MMN.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 fi~t Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
{Z06) 382·9540
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ,
3. Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment, any amendments, and
any and all attachments;
4. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council President Don Persson, dated October
4,2004;
5. Renton City Council Minutes, October 11,2004, and attached City of Renton
Council Agenda Bill dated October 11, 2004;
6. Memorandum from Alex Pietsch to Council President Don Persson, dated October
14, 2004, and attached Revised Conceptual Plan Submittal;
7. Renton City Council Minutes, October 18, 2004, and attached Committee of the
Whole report recommending adoption of the Conceptual Plan and stamped
"Approved by City Council" on October 18, 2004;
8. Planned Action Ordinance No. 5107 dated November 15, 2004, any amendments,
and any and all attachments;
9. Renton City Council Minutes, November 7,2005;
10. Renton City Council Minutes, November 14,2005;
11. Second Amendment to the City of Renton's Conceptual Plan for Subdistrict lA of
Urban Center North, District One;
12. Boeing-Renton Sub-District 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared by
Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 2006 and any and all attachments;
13. The Planned Action Determination for The Landing Master Plan dated May 12,
2006, any amendments, and any and all attachments;
14. Harvest Partners' Master Plan Application and all Submittal materials and
attachments for The Landing under LUA05-136, SA-M, SA-A;
15. The Landing Master Plan Decision/Approval and Report dated May 19,2006, and
any and all attachments;
16. Harvest Partners' Site Plan Review Application and Submittal materials and any
attachments under LUA06-071, SA-A;
STIPULATION - 2
Y;\WP\ASEISITE PLAN APPEALIP030507.STIPULA nON TO
AUTHENTICITY.MMN.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite SOO
Se .. ttle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ,
17. City of Renton Infrastructure Approval dated May 19,2006 and any and all
attachments;
18. City of Renton, Development Services Division, InterpretationIPolicy Decision
dated July 17,2006;
19. The Landing Site Plan Decision and Report dated August 17,2006, and any and
all attachments; and
20. The Settlement Agreement dated December 11, 2006, and Stipulation signed by
the Hearing Examiner on January 18, 2007 and all attachments.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that prior to or at the time of hearing the parties
will agree in good faith to supplement the above documents with any attachments or
documents that are discovered to be revisions, amendments, exhibits, etc.
This Stipulation should not be interpreted to preclude the parties from entering
other exhibits.
DATEDthis __ day of March, 2007 .
STIPULATION - 3
CITY OF RENTON
By
Lawrence J. Warren, WSBA #5853
City Attorney
BUCK & GORDON, LLP
By
Peter S. Buck, WSBA #5060
Attorneys for Brad Nicholson
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S.
By
Jerome 1. Hillis, WSBA #1704
Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partner
Y:\WPlASElSITE PLAN APPEALIPOJ0507.STIPULA TlON TO
AUTHENTICITY.MMN.DOC Buck @I Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98'21~3140
(206) 382·9540
INDEX TO NOTEBOOK , MARCH 6, 2007 MEETING
NO DOCUMENT DATE/OTHER
INFORMATION
14. City of Renton Land Use Permit Master Application 12/9/2005
15. City of Renton Department ofPlanningIBuildingIPublic May 19, 2006
Works -Administrative Land Use Action (The
Landing)
16. Site Plan Review Project Narrative (Callison) June 7, 2006
17. City of Renton Department of PlanningIBuildingIPublic May 19, 2006
Works -Administrative Land Use Action (The
Landing)
18. City of Renton Development Services Division-July 17, 2006
InterpretationIPolicy Decision
19. City of Renton Department of PlanningIBuildingIPublic August 17, 2006
Works -Administrative Land Use Action (The , Landing)
20. Settlement Agreement and Release (ASE; Transwestern December 11, 2006
Harvest Lakeshore LLC, WEA Southcenter LLC and
Target Corporation)
,
INDEX TO NOTEBOOK
MARCH 6, 2007 MEETING
NO DOCUMENT DATE/OTHER
INFORMATION
1. Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan Submitted to City of Renton
November 17, 2003
2. Page IX-8 re: ''pedestrian'' Revised 11119/03
3. Development Agreement for Renton Plant Recording No.
Redevelopment; filed by City of Renton 20031210001637
4. City of Renton Economic Development, October 4, 2004
Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department
Memorandum (South Lake Washington Redevelopment
Approvals)
5. Renton City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 11, 2004
6. City of Renton Economic Development Neighborhoods, October 13, 2004
and Strategic Planning Department Memorandum
• (Lakeshore Landing Conceptual Plan)
7. Renton City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 18, 2004
8. City of Renton Ordinance No. 5107 (re designation of a November 24, 2003
planned action for the Lakeshore Planning
Development)
9. Renton City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 7, 2005
10. Renton City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2005
11. Second Amendment to City of Renton's Conceptual 2/23/06 (date at bottom)
Plan for Subdistrict lA of Urban Center North, District
One
12. Boeing Renton Sub-District lA Environmental May 2006
Consistency Analysis -prepared by Blumen Consulting
Group, Inc. for City of Renton
13. City of Renton Development Services Division-May 12, 2006
Administrative Determination and Land Use Decision
(Landing Master Plan)
. '
"
EXHIBIT .. 5 "
.' ,
.• '.',:.r '., '. '-:;
I' .
':-'"
":"
:.'/~:'~'
)
:.'
.'
:" :;' ,,'
,f .r'···· .. ·,,··;;,
.{., .
,1"" "\:
"
i'./ \ ~r" ":~ ..
.,'
'.:-.,' 0" .... ,,-
.' " ·::··'··:·.f
,e'" """"'''''~'~'
",1
,;. .• .,
:," ;;
.'~,
.~' •••• n •• ~.;
:;·,0, •• ,,·,'"
/ .............. ;' ~\' •.• ;.
.i' /'
":.', .' ,I" ,;,: l
-:,
"l ,/ /' t .1 ,.,,, .. -.,.,,, .:: S"-lQm\tted"'to .. the City of Renton
:. , .. ,' "
:",,,j /~oy.e91bie~).7, 2003
':~""~t:I"':'h":"'/' .:~~' /~ "::::,: .. [.:" ~:
',', ,-.. _:, .... o·,.~.
", '1 ,
.':.... . -. ./
··':.,:-"hft",""
.... -.' '.'
..:"; -';'
,;.",.~ ',-
,j .• .-.. '.
." ,.
.: ....... ~:
.. '
., .' .. '
", . .':' ".
'\
/
t' ~) / ~.
.. :i :!
.1 l'
.....
.l"
/ .. ' ." ,r' , .,' .,'
,;"
. ~ ,-
'.'
" .
";'
:;\',.~'" ''.,
" ""'\,.-;'
"-~ ..
/'
" .t·,·f .. '
.;:~
/ ... :}
/ e.·i { f
.."
::' , ....
,,;' '.\-' ,. " . \: ':.
I : t I ~:' ".'
.\ ~, " .,
;': I~.: ~/ .,i'.: " .:'~.">~" '.-"',.
\, ..... ,if ./' : ...... \ CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN
Lot 3 and 10·50 SItes
•
e
.' ..... I "" .' { ", ....... ,
·';1',1'''' ,',' ;:' .,,:' "',
" .:" . " ",/""""" .. ::.
I ...; / .' '. . .~ ;: ":\;':~.:' B8ckg..ounc,l ~, "f~·t:· .~. "'t,/'
Renton, Washmgton
( :.;' ;.,: /' ./ /./ '.. /"'''''' ....
:"Q1e·eqe,IIQ;·Co<pp.,ny M~ been worJdng wrt)l't\>e City of Renton for more than a year
m'i!val~atIl\9"pOten~al !'iiod~!I!pP,F.ent strat. 'egf.eseS' .~ated wIth Its 737 fadhty In
Renton;.Washlngtpn. ;lills ~iiq!ptual PI~n Illilstr'ates the Boeing Company's. visIon
for the re-d~IPPIneI)i of 1;I1e fI~ PIece ,6f,th~'R9nton Plant to be made available for
non-mdustrllil' uses 7."The"Plen I.!idud.es,th~t p9ftJon of the property oommonly
refe!Ted to as the ~ 3 .. imd lp"SO !iites/whICh hay'!!,.been determl!lecl to be non-
essential to the ongDI.!1~ arrpfane rr'alll!acttitn~.a'ctMtr~ as Boerng'fOrrlPletes It'S
·Move-to-the-Lake· consollf'ibO~·pl~.n. .:' i '::.( /
The Plan covers approxlm~t~i3 ~ 55,£~ oF~~. tak, of'~~·d, approximately
8 acres are reserved for the develliil?m¢"t ~f fo~r new ii~j ~ets that are
~I to the ultimate redevelopment of the'.entlre 280-~ ¢'a",!pUs!''''(;Ile ,'"
rema.l~ 45 to 47 acres of land will be roo,rketed'lo. ~ntltles I~ In ~elOPln~i "')
an .ll'ltegril1:ep retaIl center on the site, consIStent w~!fth.ls ~t.¥fa!r. \" /'./
.,:' '::~" "',::",~ ...... " .f .... r ,r .•. "' .. ,., .... ,,~ .. :: ,!; ./ }
Iridu~.,.wlthil'l, thIS submlttel are II narrative descnpqon ~,~ng'S proposal/ a .r' ./'
.¢onceptulll P1a~nrng Dlagrem with supporbng pedestMaI1 Fe¢!: ~, elllt· a'l/ / .
. /econpinlc ,bene"t analYSIS demonstrating a range of potel\trlll:pne1!IJIE(and/rec~'mn,Q
" reY!IIlues,genef08ted by the proposed development. BoeIng sel;!ks the ertt's approVal
/' ofJhls ~nceP,tua1 Plan so that Boeing can complete the n~'~·hn,;·./ ./
l aPJustr):Ients ./lnd.~I\'.IIctrve/y markebng the property to local, reg~lanii na.tlonal
.i developers ilOd·'UseTS. ":. ',." :," ...
""-{:,. .:.... .,l: .f" ,_'-\', ~; :::;'.;:. ~/
"': '.,The aen,;tI o.d· the, . .fOfI~lng' page highlights the location of the proposed retillf'stte In
.reIirt1of\ to ~oel~'s r;ema:!Ill~·flit'id·h.~ldlngs and the surroundIng North Renton
nerghborhQDd. ,: .,< .C· .:' '.'
~\. ':'., ... ...-),/./' .• C"' ... "":: .
'~::t:"1 _.,t' ::./ "'::I'~"'"
'1\' •
... ;;
·:I .. ······!.
"',
".
'.\ .""
.!;,;.",." .•••.•
.' .... ..: .,' ;',
;i .• ·••···
,',.-..
.'
\ ..•.. ./
.,
•
.,
".' ./
"" ....
{t; .. I/?'·· .. ···"~r
,f
,//~; .. :,.!;; •.
;' :' ,. r,
j:: "".,
I .:' ".
r: ,./ i',.:' cQn~al Urban Retail Plan ~':.:. ":\ .. ,.. // ./' ... ,' -;":,
\ / :··tI~ng believes that hlgh-quallty retail development IS essenbal to the successful "" .....,' i trli.nslb9n o~ tmll\irell from Its industrial roots to the Qty's vIsion for the Urban
., ."" .• ,., ::' ~ntet.N9f1'h A W\!II-de51g"".<l..l:j!tall center will proVIde employment, diversify the
.c econl!inJ(: base, offer a new,source· of mUnicipal revenue, and will attlilct other
,_. Jlter.~ve l"id i'Ote&bajly,hlgherp~nd better uses to the surrounding area.
' •. '.. .:,:' ;/':i'" /' / ) ,I ,.(H\:+',... ..... ".\.,!.
:'. The ~Ptu" PIa~ fiill: the ~ 3,.~d 10-!ro .~.'tes, located on the foIlowmg page,
'1IIi1sttBtes:~!:l"~lv\fred~"?'pment.Qf:tI]e ~rceIs mto an urban retail center. The
Plan C!)ntalMs a '1JIX or\a~'fOrnat 'd~sflnil~IO? retailers, mid-sized retail anchors,
as well"~ sma.WShOli Sp8,Fe ~ntrat~d.i'IOn.g Park Avenue, ellVISIOCIed lIS the
slgmflcant·pedestn,!ln-olJented};tr...gi'the"o/"". The Plan responds to the presence
of the BXlstmg Fry!S bu~dmg <in th~' property' to the east of Garden Avenue, and
antiCIpates that ~m~e re4fivelCJP~t of"cthe,.north~m portlon,;l)j\.~at Site Will relate
directly to the deveropmBl'!~occ\'tJ'lng on,Bo~g's pro~ l /
.i :':' ....... • \ .: "":.~
The site IS bound by a cori'lbJl1litioll of E:!iu~lng ~d ~ew pub!!t·.r,eadways, which
segregate the property Into fOur !,uadrants ranging ~~ 6 ~nd 19 aaas In Size.
Boemg IS seelang buyers for the '''!i~ .~o 4,7-acfe property ~ ul¥lertl!!o:&I . .II .. cohesIVe
red~lopment. Generally, the large fo,*,at i!i!~,deve~rn<¥It (JlSers with. /"'" toqtpn~ of 50,000 square feet and larger and buik,Dn~'fea~re fIe.l~~.,~p!c? 45 re,.et /
bill) IS pia. to occur along S"', Logan ail<;l. Gaf'4eh ~\ieS, ~ IOWard';:and .,' ; ~upported ~.well .... rganlZBd parking areas nitemal ~·thll:.SItE!/TIiese·d8stIn.bop" ./'
"retall.o1$BS wl~ naturally locate themselves along the:)vldllist pomO!)S.Qf the propi!rty/
,,". Wlth.:90ciil f~ay visibility, much like the recently airnPl~ F'i¥'s C!~veIojSm!lht oli
.. " the·1aastSm slile of Garden Avenue. "c· ... ,'.. ':' .• ' ,,".
,11,0: ./If ~/ ./ "\\:,., ... P"';'!' :/. !,.t ,/'
.i ~edIUl1'i fornIat I'l!!:lI,Jers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 squ~te ~.Ji1 area,
.. i·,.""thJ:iUlldl~ ~ture;--Ile!ghts up to 40 feet tall) are IISSUmed Inftll ~p' the:farge
.· .. c,. tom'iat t""a,nfs, WIth pn1l)ary pedestrian entrances faCing Inward or dl~ .~W8rd
.\. Park Av,m~. ~TIi; Pllf'!ang IS assumed to be concentrated wllilln each ~t of
":"" the s~e, til' allo)'l to" potential. ~nd-generatlon· redevelopment at higher "il'eniiibes,::;t ac;hlev!lble.i' ".,. . •.....
:. :~. ,i ;~';-' '::
The north~·i:l'liadrqilt;bf thll'PfDpeity IS Jdentlfled as one potential location for a
mld-to hI9h,:flse dEjV'BI9i:)Il~t, wl!Jch"cotil,ftl;lke the fonn of a multi-level podium •
parking struC:tw:p,.·Wltir:mu.!ltfamlly 1'Iisldentlal or¢.fice U$BS above. ThIS ultimate
development could IOltIate'~.~.~ly urban 'iiSIOI)"ftir.,.the area and, together With
pedestnan scale treatri)ents"iii: '!h~ CQmer:Of P'l11c al)tl Logan, would Identify thiS as
the "gateway"' to the Utban-Center milt!>; ;.... ..-'" '\. ·~I:.",,,,,.,,,," .. ,-.::.-.:'r .:.: ,':" .~.:,.~~"'" ":'.
Small, specialty retail shops and amemties.woull;J' be"ConcentrateCl pnmanly along
Park Avenue. The scale of develop'rnent 1~"mol'li'ln~"maJ;E!l1l!J'e, witlfal'l,edectJc mix
of uses, arctutectural styles and gathennO'plac;es ,'·In $Orne.instances, smgle story
retail uses may be topped with one to three I.eve.~ of .lipa~en~lf4ir pro~onal
ofIIce uses, all over1oolang Park Avenue and·the:.'actnllty albng.,the ~ e9ge;""".: . .... :,., :f' ./ .;: ,l .l~· /,. "~:.
Together, the large-and medium-format users toHfl apprmamately 4sttiiloo ~'lare '. '.
feet of space; the smaller shop space totals appnoomately"il0,J'OO .SctPane .. fel!!: .•. 'or .. .": "','
20% of the center. ",,;: . :: :;' ,.; \'" '. ,,: .,' .' . 1 .• ,;;, ........ ','
." .~"./ ~.: :1., " ... ~'~~··:::..,;,/j.i· . "" .......... ;:
~ .;r : ~
·\:.:, ............ r· .. : ./ ./
" ......
" :/
" "', .~ . . '.
" .. r ,.' .. v •
.r
.,~.
"
'." '. ~,
•
"" ',~
,:;'
,.'
k
:; . . ': .
. / .. ~." .. '" ..... .:; CONCEPTUAL .... ~,,;. ':' .
" .' .3 :~ , URBAN
,/,/RET~L " " .'.'
;: .r
./
'~'.
..
:,'"
.:';
,.",.'
.... ,'
, .... ,'.
,,'
",
'.;
,1,1
, ........ .
" " ",
. •...
"
.:""~'" , ',.
" .... "'"
.' ~
" " .i· " ,: ;' '"", " " .; . \ ':" ":
CONCEPTUAL PLANNING DIA~M'::" ,/\,,"" J ,,'
.. " ...... ).~; ::'" .. "<::~ 1 "'_~/~,::':
FULLER· SEARS
ARCHITECTS
rt1--8~EIJyrf /;:''')
·;"h"" .• :" " ... .~.,~'
'r., . . ~~:/
"".0';'
,
,
/r<:~ to Hie successful development of the property IS the reconfigurabon and
" ... Im,rovE\li'lenj: Ilf.P.ark Avenue to serve 8S a cntical pedestnan-onented street In the
,/ p~Je¢' T.o 'accommodate full.~evelopment of the Renton Plant properties, the
.',' u,lbmate.oulld out of'.l'ark AYIlOueWl1i need to allow for four travel lanes and a center
'. tum ... ~, desig~d for v,emCu.lar tiavel up to 35 miles per hour. To support the
',; .,.'; _i;IIs1~ :for tile d~eloPntint of (ii'1Jrb~R'ret1!_d center In thIS location, a generous
:' .slgew~lk. ":(Ith ~ett;~ and ~!ltieet pa,rkW9 for Park Avenue IS being proposed
to; enl1<lnce.,Uli! en1flron.men~ lif1;lle"pub!JC/e~rrt'pnd encourage people to make Park
Avenui! a pedestolln ~, .. 'ArI'lliustrative $tre!lt section for Park Avenue can be
'" ", I ,-'t-. ", -.,. ~ found oll.,~he fqUOWlng page. t' /' _",_ ";,;'
""'''' ", ./ •• / ... { .:,' ).;. ;:' "'1;,:
The other major n~rth-~th ¢&nnettj'o(i'is I,!'igan Avenue, Which extends from 6d1
Avenue to the sotJtb.I\Pd )OllIS Par,k Al(enuE\"m tbe-l'iOt\:!'. The ~ of Logan,
providing direct acce'SS to Ir40S"wlii ,be a(i'lrpportant a1b,mlab~& th/Ough connection
to ensure Park. Avenue fu~o~ as}! p~e;trlanjl~nted sh,!p~!l street. At the
outset of redevelopment In'~'a"!,,, Lqgan IS e..nv1Sl~~as,.a tIlree-lane street, With
one travel lane In each direction ~,hd •. ;'ce~ter~tum lane..;;' U~m~ty, Logan Wlil
expand and funcbon even more so',,.!!'. hl'ghe~-speed alte!:ial. i """""""_'
• -,::1;.,\., • ;: """ .... ~:. . /'.l J/ "":.\. r-\ "
The" eaSJ:·West artenal roadways, 10"' ancl'S"' Aven~es, &ire leSs c:fltlQj.tp tM. ;',/
SliCcesstuI 'ii~opment of the urban retatl'Ceq~,.dh~ ~ii slIDlmij ~S:~cc4s /' ;
polnts.:t..o the ·~ter off of Park. Avenue. conneaions,Jrom.-'10.,,·and 8'" fil Logan,,"'/'
Avenue;"I, con~cted, would be favorable, but the c:'e!Iter wo;iuld ,function as' weD .i
.;" with. a~ orily off of Park., the existing leg of S" and Gard~ A.,1en)leS. ;" .. '-.f
,.' ~. ~ " '" ,', •• < .:,.."
./. urban ce~ Vision and Policies \,. ''', /'./ ,,'"
,\. ,/ ,:,: ,{ •... ~ .. ~.,.. .\:. .:,'}' /
.,/ ."t.!lls.pi'opofed,,cOncePtual Urban Retail Plan meets many of the Clty'l..;1slOn ao<i
, pOlICy .ments ,f'Qr the)Jlban Center-North, wluch can for 'ratan Integril~<flnto
'.o,. pedestnan~enl:i!d ShoPPing dlstnci:s" and recognizes that: .,
". "" ~ I-, "."<,,,,_, •.•. -: i ,t ,I , •• , ••• \ I"
"At the bei;nnnitlg Qf thls'-trahslt!on; U$es such as retall..may be viable WIthout the
office and ;.resl~otial cgi-Qjionen~ that ultimately WIll contrfbute to the urban
character C!if the dlStri,lf.r The't.tys viSion plans for the translbon of the area over a
30-year hothgn an!!"illildP!ltes that tedeveliipment Will need to address the
potenbal for flii!ari Infi~ to ~lIow areas to further !I"9W to ulban denSlbes. This site IS
located WIthin District 1, wllare·t!le DtY IdentifieS Its'first objecbve as follows'
'Create a maJOr comm~~,/re~\;d~~~:~evaj~pelV\(~ ·~s..that add s'lIntficantly
to Renton's retail tax base, pl'Ovlde.,addl~ion~rempi~t'(jppol't;umbes Within the
City, attract bUSinesses that serve iii broa'd·mark.!it area ~.act as a.gathering place
Within the community.· \., ':' t' r / ';! ;1'" '\
'. ,-.,' ' .. ;' /. ./' ./ )" .... "";. ~
Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan seeks t.o bOth aHow fOr Ute n~ar-term ....
redevelopment of Boeing's underublized assets ~hlle!8dvoi:ab~9 foi-8 t:riill'of uses''',.
that Improves the aty's tax and employment ba$i!,,iAs 1$;'llIum~ ~I~j'n the. ';'.
attached economIC benent analYSIS, more than 1,300 Jolis w6uld;be a.ted Iii tile ; :'-"
City of Renton by a redevelopment of thiS scale The at-, .. }!ioulc{'col.1Ii<;t mo~'tnan ,)" ',-
$1.2 mllhon '" one-tlme revenues during development and ~.;aty'w~uld.,.~ .i .:,' .,;:,,""
over $1.5 mIllion In annually recurring tax revenues at full bulld··alit. :;. "'" .• '., .... "',.--.:. . .... ". " r"''''''i'' \'\-.,? ';'
".:. ";i' "
';;':" I''': .. :. .:.,' .. ,'. /. :,. .. '.':,:. "~,'~.·.i" ';·:I,.t,'II"!~·,' ,-'" ,. ~
" .;' ,{
'i. " ..• ,;,,:~':' .:,.,." /:" ,.0;;,,) .':::/' ./ /
;~ J.'
.\. .'; ,,/
;~ It'l
.~. :' '::::I:)~'
,
•
.\~. ,::
",
;'"
;:
•
, •
::'.,
, '~, ....
•
•
\
.'
, ,
.....
I
I:::l
(
tt(
~
.~
: ,~:-;:
'"
• 1,
, .... :.
"
r
.': .
".
......• "". ':;' .t
:"' .
,.:""_.'.'''' ,.
.': '~ .. , .. :
" .. \
',~, '~;,::,,, .... _",." ,I
"
'"
"
"
,~ .. <.r"'·" .
.r
, ... ;
"
·r .:'
,\'
" ~"
" ... .-
'::'.:. i' ",/
, •... " /.
".'
$U!I)mary
.~., .. " . "',: .
... 8Qelng ~heves that Its Conceptual Urban Retad Plan Ulustrates the opbmal
.... deyelop,inent; I!JilfI for thlS 45 to 47 acres of land In North Renton. The Plan offers the
,: ol?,PO~nlo/l:o CClntnbute to the transition of the area from a pnmanly Industnal
" nelgh"ortlood to a l'Itgher InteliSlty., .and range of viable uses, providing both jobs and
Ii slgJilfjeant SOll/'Cl! ilf n~w·.feven~ to support the City's objectives for the area.
,,'."
.<
f ',," /./ l,i' .,' "'.<, " ... ",::~::.:~, ,/ ..... ",> /'
"" .' .... ,." .•• ' { " .. ,'·";\r \:
,:. l'~ I'"~ ' .• ).~t '''., )"'
.: ... ~,. l J' s":& :,. ::.
..1 ,f'f ,.l .... \ ..
'.1;", .... r'" ;'" I;, •
• ' ,( I!" / •.. ~: ,..:
,;'
",:.~
::
... ..•.
" ""~:" . . '.>
... : ..... ,. .' .,.,"' ...... ' .\'
"
,:" .~ .1" ::
.(
.{
,i"
:." ,,'
.l
, .. , ....
.:" ;;
(
"':1""""":" .. ,',.
"1. .,.'
.1:1:.,., .......... '.
""
.')
\.
.., ..
'. ./
".1'
. ;'
:'"
.' ".
,,'
"""": .
. : ::
~ .
,,'
,,'
./
"',;.'
.,'
.;'
,i'
~:.
.,.:' "~""" .' .","
" ..... .. ' "
"'1 •• ,:,: ". ) .'
i"': ""':'., /
"', 'R'-:' .. ,
. :,l ....
'\" ).
" •• , ............ ,r
"
't .. :
"'~:~':-
.:~~
. .:'
: ....
"""' ..
:' .:~}
•
/
.. t
" ,Y
.'.:.;!"
Revised 11/19/03
GLOSSARY
•
use or enjoyment, or for the private use and enjoyment of adjacent property owners. Open space may
also consist of undeveloped or developed areas including urban plazas, parks, pedestrian corridors,
landscaping, pastures, woodlands, greenbelts, wetlands, and other natural areas or street rights-of-way
which provide visual relief within developed areas. The tenn does not include driveway, parking lots, or
other surfaces designed for vehicular travel.
park and ride lot: a parking lot where transit riders can leave their cars and ride a bus or train to
another location.
peak hour: one-hour interval within the peak period when travel demand is usually highest, e.g., 7:30-
8:30 a.m. and 4:30-5:30 p.rn.
pedestrian-{)rientation: an area where the location and access to buildings, types of uses permitted on
the street level, and storefront design are based on the needs of the customers on foot.
pedestrian-oriented development/streets: Development/streets intended to create and or augment
pedestrian use, circulation and activity. Pedestrian-oriented streets are designated during conceptual
planning and master planning. Pedestrian-oriented development occurs on pedestrian-oriented streets
and typically meets the following criteria: 1) Buildings in scale with the street, one to two stories along
residential/minor collectors, and three or more stories along primary and secondary arterials. 2) Building
located close to the street/sidewalk. 3) At least one pedestrian entry oriented to the street. 4) Clearly
identified sidewalks and/or grade separated walkways. In instances where market conditions do not
support higher structures along primary and secondary arterials, development proposals should present
alternative means to address pedestrian-oriented scale and/or allow phased infill to higher densities.
pedestrian facility: an improvement designed to facilitate accessibility by foot or wheelchair, including
,
sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, overpasses and undercrossings, etc.
performance-based zoning and building codes: as opposed to traditional prescriptive techniques, this
system measures individual projects against clearly stated criteria, such as traffic impacts, neighborhood
compatibility, infrastructure capacity, etc. Its main advantage is its flexibility, and that developers are
given a wider range of methods by which to meet housing demand.
planned unit developments <PUDs): a planning technique which provides increased flexibility for the
developer in exchange for a higher quality of development Usually used for larger, multi-unit parcels,
PUDs are characterized by a focus on overall project design rather than lot-by-lot zoning, setbacks, and
placement. Mixed-use, innovative housing types, open space and recreational facilities are often
included. The process typically involves two-way communication between the developer and the
community concerning design compatibility.
platting: essentially a map of a piece of land which shows the location, boundaries, area, detail of lot
boundaries, proposed streets, utilities, public areas, and all other necessary data to demonstrate
compliance with subdivision regulations; state statutes provide for the recording of plats, and the selling
of lots or parcels of land by referring to the recorded plat. It is usually unlawful to sell land by referring
to an unrecorded plat
point source pollution: a contaminant that adversely alters the physical, chemical, or biological
properties of the environment. Pollutants can include solid waste, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, and
municipal waste discharged into water.
Potential Annexation Area (PAA): An area within which people have an opportunity to annex to the
City of Renton. A P AA can not include any land outside of the Urban GTowth Area and may be smaller
the Urban Growth Area.
lands with extremely fertile soil classifications as established by the U.S.
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.
IX·S
:;" ,'"
•
•
::.
":"
"".
":.
Document Titk!(iI),(!l,!:triIn~ions~tauiM ther~rn}".. .'
1 Development Agreement' forRentoltl>lantj{iiilJelo~'inent
:'~, .. : .... /~. ..:' .F ::" .:'.' ,.,,_.~" _"'.. /;;:'.t
Grantor(s) (LJistname first, then first name arid'I!l!It~ls)' .,..,i·":' ''''''''''''''''.", ..
1 The ~m~"CQmpany . .,... ":'., .. ,{,.," ".."".,. '~, ./':~.'.',} ,/
Graateo:(i.) (LastnaDte first, then first name and initlllls) .,,, ... ,,,i .. ,,'''''''''' .. ,J if ,f,/
1 C~tY'of~~ '.~. .<.. .-.,': ...... , .. :: ;;" ,,.::; ,/
Legl!.ioJescriptloii (ablifevtated I e lot, block, plat or sectton, township, r\mgt) .. /.i' i ,i' ,i
Porb'ons ofRen~ Fariri Plat, Renton Farm Plat No 2, Plat of Sartonsv!1Ie;'R!mtQn Bo~ Work$"S!.ort Plat,
R¢hlon Fiinn ACreagli'P1s;,.O.tyofRenton Short Plat, C H Adsit's Lake WashiilgtOn I'Iat;'imdGovemment
.LOts 1,2, an.4'3 -STRoSn05 tAXLOT 55 PCL I BOEING, STR 082305 TAXLO't 1!-5 PGL 2 BOEING,
'STR 0823!Y5 TAXLOT 880 rcL 3,BOEING, STR 082305 TAXLOT 19 PCL 4 BOEING, Sm. 082305
iAx;LOT9 pqiS$oEI.N0;STR08230S TAXWT 37 PCL 6 BOEING, STR 082305 TAXwT 105 PCL
7 BOEThIQ.'s'l'R ~30,5 T A:!'LOJ' 15,2PCL.8 BOEING, STR 072305 TAXLOT 1 PCL 9 BOEING, STR
072305 TAXLOT:46 PCL 1.0 BOEING, 8TR. 082305 T AXLOT 11 PCL 11 BOEING, STR 082305
TAXLOT 187 PCt 12 oofuNo;stR 0823.05 TAXLOT 79 PCL 13 BOEING,
STR 072305 TAXLgr 100 POi. . .14 B<,)EIN(J, sm 0823.05 TAXLOT 204 PCL 15 BOEING
"'~:., "J. :": :r "",:. ,:: ,:' .:.'
[2£] Full legalis OIl pages'~:thr# __ "ofdocu,ri>ent ::' ......
" '" .', ,: ,",
Assessor's Property Tax Pareelf~;mtlllumber .," :' .. ..:' ':
Porbons of the followmg-#7S6460"OQ,~~, #722300-0 )f5.oi 1I?224~08JlO-OO, #082305-9019-00,
#082305-9209-00, #082305-9037-08, #722300-0 1OS-00i#08Z30~9152-'07, #012305-9001-01, #072305-
9046-08, #082305-9011-08, #082305-9187-00, 1I082:ilJ5-9079-Q7, #O!23{)5-911)p-&I;c#08230S-9204-05
......... ;. .' ..... :: " ... .: .
.... ,/ .. .. ....:'." .c· , ........ ..
. '
.. ; .... :.
" '::";, . . ... , ..
. :::.
--,
""'~"/ .' ': ,-." .. ~ ......... . ... ,.
'.~
':',
.:.
VBOEING DeY ApeIrMot 11 24 03 doc]
.,:' .: . .. '-
·.h~._·
"',,:;
."
,f
':. .< ./
\~ :.:, ,l
';, ...
'~'.
'':'' .... ~ :,.,.
.. " .-,,~
" ,. ":.
.,. .:' .: ....
f' .:'./' ". DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN .,/' .. ::: /:'" THE BOEING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF RENTON
. lO~ RJ~~VE~~=::~~~~~~ ~i:.~::NG RENTON
.' . ··~··F .' .' ,/ .... ,:. . .•.. ,. }~ ..... / ..' ,/'~ ~ " .' ~< . t .. ;,.' ::' ,l //:< <;, ." ... 'P~.AMBLE
'Thl'$ DEV1~qjP¥EN;rJ)bRE~MF;ki}t" Agreement',) between TIlE
BOEING CQM!' l\NY (''OWn~,or "Boeirig~1). a Delaware corporation, and the CITY
OF RENTON"("Rent9n")~i mwiicipal' !=orPoration of the State of Washington, is
entered into pursuan(to the al!1hority of R~W)6.:Z0B.170 $rP.ugb .210, under which
a local government ma)"'enttli intp a developIhent a~eqt ~i:h an entity having
ownership or control of real'P.r~pet1Y wiihih i~~scJtcti<?Jl;"'/'
'.".,,.: .,) .,.. .:. .~./ '\;,,;~ / , •..• '::.
'::,:: .;
",. Ii;..' :fu;CI1'ALS/ .".:" ,.:/ ........... ,., ":";""""'.",
.: .':.. ,I"" .~~ .: " ';':, "
.,: .~:~;:, :.). .;, ,;: "':""'~I' •• '·'-'1::, ".:' l ,i'
A. ~er owns approximately28,R~6fx:ewpro~~ ia¥>~as;.the
Boeint Remon Ai,rcraft Manufacturing Facility (''l,tent,onJ'lant'.:.~r "Plant;,', lpcated
in ~ton; King County, Washington, as more particiilarly d#Scrlbe4'in,Exhibit 1,
atUihed/ siribe tile early 1940s, the Plant has been used to. m'ari~'military and
cqiiunetCialjlirpl,8nes.'·... t ,ii' .
,:i ·'s,"'·' :rh~,~~;~'tr:ofthe Renton Plant site has historic~i~ ~p"~ned for
heayy industrl!l1'us~"an~ ~. for several years, been designated Employment Area-
Indu'~trial·bY tIie ~entgh C~mpreli'ensive Plan. Since 2000, a parcel along the Plant's
eastern boundi!ry h3s-·beep: .~eIjJH and designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
Employment kea-T1'8l)Si1ion (:fu.e.pm) arid~ nearby parcel has been zoned CO and
designated by the"Corrt~he~si~e Plan as Efup~~~ent Area-Office.
C. In 2002, ~eriIif6rmed Renton' odtspiIqI to consolidate its Renton
Plant operations to the site'fu,eawestofLowl Av~ile,.:~effort commonly known as
the ''Move-to-the-Lake.'' Move-to-tbe-Lakl i~8m:ong.Q1her fNngs, intended to
release underutilized land as surplus-{oreyentJiaijial~'im4 redevelop.ment. .',...... .. :. .:'; .. :: ..... ".
D. To provide certainty and effiti~n,o/ tp'~er~~ ~s~fto·fu.rther
development of the Renton Plant for airplane riianuf'acturirig pfup6~, to. encOurage
continued airplane manufacturing by Owner at the R~tQii. P,ltint/fllid ip':aJjticipa90rl,
of potential future redevelopment efforts, Owner and Rentoii e¢~edirito.a / ." .::> .... :
Development Agreement (''2002 Agreement") on June 28, 2002,by R.esc!~utiqri .... " .,<,,/', .... ,,:;,.
":'. ...... .:" .~: ,.-~'_"~'~l ""'<:J":t./') )
.' } .:~
.' :: ",
.: ..•. :..,.,.::; '. y ;;
•• oJ:.
~:. ." ·::··:·, .. i·
:).
";'"
" ',-
,
.. '
",
1/, .J' -, .', ' ..
:::'"" :y
.' ,... f
'.i / ,/<No. 3568 which, among other things, established baseline trip counts,
.' ;; >"re4eveIQpmcmt credit and vesting of land use regulations under certain circumstances
" ""./ /fQi-on.going Renton Plant operations and potential redevelopment.
\ .. " .•• "",,,,, • .i'" : ,:' /,j' ¢. , ,,': ;sased" on further cli$~ussions between Owner and Renton regarding
" pQtentiaI op~t.ies 'for r,edevel9Pment of the Renton Plant site, in phases, over
'Wne,Reritqi1 rt;S'olyed,byJu:soJtliion }5~9, on October 14, 2002, to conduct
envifonIDtiltaJ.. .. 're~fu i:Pe forh!\>fan en\rironmental impact statement (''EIS'')
pursuln1t t6, the .. sfute ,Env,ifoIl,lllepki PoliCY .. Mt("SEP A") of (a) potential alternatives
for redeveIOp!llent,.0f all or ~'pOfpon oftg,eR..¢nton Plant site and (b) related public
infrastructure: "Risolllfion)3589,hlsq¢tabli$hed a conceptual pUblic/private
framework for the ey~¥.I mi~gat,ibn6f tlie Un.P.!!;cts ofRenwn Plant redevelopment
,
I
on transportation infriIStfuctl!ie and pciblicserViceS~"\ ./ '}
/' J:: :,f: :.,:'"':/ ..... ;. <. ,'\':: .. /
F. On December4 • .tOOi, OWner and ~tbn.tiite.ied into an agreement
concerning the funding and constrUctj6nbf t!ie extefrSi¢ of'S~an~ Blvd. across
Owner'sLongacres property ("Strander Agre~nt''),'An1oni othef\:4ings. the ..
StrandetAgf~ent establishes a $1.7 mlilion ~~on'i'mtigatiori credit tp"
Boeing that maybe used to pay for transpoitati6n iplpr9wmeii'tsnefdea tqisupport
deve)Opm¢rlt of Owner's properties located in ReIitQ~/ ,/ ,,''---':; ',"'''
,,/ <;i' }Onbber 16, 2002, Owner submi~d ak~ii~ati6~~ ~ton for
~en4ID~rof~ S;omw-ehensive Plan designation applicablet,p tAeRen,tOn Plant site
f'CortJP,r,ehensiv!,Plan AiJl>lication'') from IH to Employment Meat TJilnsition
('!~AT''). R¢t611 el~d tp designate the area under a new Comprenerisive Plan
desw.~j9n"8niI cqinb~rie t!ie 90mprehensive Plan Application with amendments
proposed by ~entt)IJ ¢ the' ?OOing tel4, zoning map and development standard for the
Renton Plant Site'"'' ,/ }' ,./"" ,
H. ~"bec~b~ i.~, 2~~2:Rent6n 4hwsed, by Resolution 3609, a
Moratorium on develop~t 'in'fu-eagof RfntoA. UiClu4ing the Renton Plant, zoned
IH. One stated reason forth~ M.¢lt9riufii waS Rent6n;~~;>ire to ''provide adequate
time for Renton staff to prepare' andpreS:llntpro~ chlmg~ to the Comprehensive
Plan and zoning" of those areas zon¢d he~ry m'du~tria,:1'(IJi). :'".-, "',
-.,.-.... ,,":,... .:' .;' ":: .
I. On JanullIY 13,2003, the cityc~qii:hela aj~~~lic b~a6ngon the
Moratorium. At the request of the Boeing COIl1Pafty, Rentonain<ige<i the",
Moratorium to allow Boeing to consolidate its fiiliiliti{is \!Vithin the}Rentpn,Plap,t." ..
After the January 13, 2002 public hearing, the Rentori City Coqh¢ll ~tM ::" ,::.'"".
Resolution 3613 which continued the Moratorium in those'8reiis :bfRenton,zbried ","':, Y""'"''''
. --.,:: ',. .."~",,,,-:\. '-,".: ..... , ',: .. ~~,./; :.": .-',-:: ';!: ."
-t •• , / ,;" ~;' ./ .'~
.", .... "", ... ,',,...-/' 11124'i03 . '" ""'" ., .f .,' .:' < . .,. .;}. .. ' !i'se 2,,'" /..-
".: i'</' ;1: .,'
[/BOEING Dev Agocm .. t 11·24·m docl
//
~-.
'" ,,::
·i/ h~vy industrial (IH), but also agreed to support Boeing's "Move-to-the-Lake"
i i: .i ~clildingany required building modification or construction.
'.. ., it i/:' ... ::.{ '::. On June 9, 2003, the City Council amended the Moratorium for a
\ ,../ ~econdtime.by tQ.eJldoption of Resolution 3639. Resolution 3639 lifted the
"' .. ", .. ' .:M~w:na.ver I-Ilzoned ~asJocated within the Employment Area-Valley
•
.. Compieh~ive flap. d~ignlliion. JIbe Renton Plant is the only I-H zoned property of
: any ~iinin¢imt$ize;thaf s6ntin~~to .. bebo~d by the Moratorium, which is scheduled
to e,q,iJ;e Qh ~bet2;::2003.} ;.,." ./ ,'.
".-:: ":\ ·:·.:, .... c'·· .i;:: ..:/ / .. ,,,,,,_i; ~/' .("':':/./.'?
K.':,. On Mrli-ch4, 2003,.Rentoo'sEnWonmentai Review Committee
("ERC'') adoI;ted"~ d~atio.ft o(llil¢1ficance for the Proposal. Renton issued a
Scoping Notice and ~copihg p6cu~en{ fo~theJ:;l~ on ~1 0, 2003. On March
25,2003, a public scOpirig m.¢eti~ ""as h(ildto receiv.e wri~en)Uld oral comments on
the proposed scope of study/ A ,I>r!\ft E~Vjio~tallmpl!,Ct·Statement (DElS) was
issued by the ERC on July 9;2.003. AllUblic.)iearing/w~li~ld on July 30, 2003. A.
thirty day comment period on the 'DEIS Was ~losed on ,Augcist ,$-;"20p3. The Final ElS
was issued'·on October 21 2003 . ',~ ":".","\' .. i·"" .i" ..•• \ .F·'· .• , :.-,:,,:' "~:::"";" ,. ":'~"~"'" .~::> },: :./" '·::';"::;I.T:'·"···"\ ';'~: // .:.iF
,L. . pdrlions of the Proposal werethe·subj'ect6faf{entonPlarlnD.i'g/
Comu\.issiplillearjng held November 12, 2003; the'~o~8I and'relat¢ modjfications
to ~tol,l"S e~istiii.g parking code, site development planf!eview6~ce, .. and
b4tdin~siteplan .prdinance were the subject of the City COunc~H¥ririg ~eld on
l':/oven.iberJ7, 2003"'fh«City Council adopted all by ordinance.~~erDber 24,
:~003:\· ..... ,.·,"·· ...... ' ... /",. .. ... :... '.,. f. .
"':")~1",'/"~{~~ d~~e4 that the portions of the Renton P;~t Site known
as Lot 3 and the 10-51)' sitl'i will becoine under-utilized at the completion of Move-ta-
the-Lake. Cori$eqtieIltly./tliose,.portions qftbe Plant may be surplused and made
available for sale.'~~'l1i:ar{futuie'/i/i:
IN LIGlIT OF TIiE FOREQO)NG/ an4bec8us1; successful redevelopment of
all or portions of the Rent6Il,J~lm.ltsite w~il b~'oflong-te~l?enefit to both Renton and
Owner, Renton and Owner do 'hereby agq~eiis fdll~Ws:':·'· .. •.... ,.
:1" ".~.
m.AdlrnEMENT / ""'-. . :" ·r ":! "''' ..
. -.' ;; " " ,:: ,,:."
":. ,:" .,:' ::. ;:.' .. ~ ... :. / " 1. Definitions
1.1 Arterial Roads means the primary pUbll~roads·SU~rtitt~;distrfut-l~d ....
2 Redevelopment, as diagrammed in plan and section and I1es~1fi Q~.~jti~ '2.,:,':"':':. t',.,/'''''·'''';'·
~ ~~
[!BOEING Dov Agreemeutll-24';)3 doc]
"::'. :." ",::' .,/ .,.
.' ". ~~. "'::.: ,,,~._,., .,' ,:-,-1112~3 ,:' \''r>
':' ..
.~:. "
"';. .' ..
PJiP 3 .t .'
.:;
..
. ,::
./ .' }
.. : .,
./
" ;;
" :/ a$ched, with typical sections of the individual Arterial Roads shown in Exhibits 2A
~';. t}trqil~. 2E (herinafter collectively referred to as Exhibit 2).
:':" ,f f ,;: .. {" ............ .
;~ ,
'.,. . '" .. , ;'.' .' ').2 ' .. Boeing means The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation, and
"',. ,... " related'Or subsi~ar,y entities .
•
•
•. , ..... "... ,C: ,/i .,{.3i/.,'ri~i~'dw~Ii,rit;;;"~s the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations
··~tal:!lishe4,'by ~ent:On t.o .$lipplem~nt ~.pevelopment Regulations with respect to the
design ~ ~ ~espeIyrlttect:~~hin thf{].f;-N zone.
" .. ,:: ':\ ":'.;,."./ .i" ./ ~ ... ,...;,.} ,l -" '{"':,/ ,./ ~}:
1.4:'., Dev~J.ripn:rent }tegwatio~ f!le~ those portions of the Renton
Municipal Code(RM9) zgtlingproyisjoriS$at govern certain aspects of site planning,
building design, lan¢icap¢' reqjilrel]ientS aIld other elements gf development within a
given zone.··."i/ .• · .i ". ·····i ..•. ,..' •.. '.:~','.: : /,')r
1.5 District 1 mea:iJs.1;hatareaofthe.Reil,ton'Pl$1tSite located east of Logan
Avenue, as designated on ExhIbit cS. a~~ed/ ..... "j/:/ if >'''." .
':!"" : -:' ::, '\ ...... ,.::. .J /' (", ":":':~~ ,iI':;: •.
L6:District 2 means that area oftheR~tonPlarit Site located wesfof/
Logan Avenue;a.s designated on Exhibit :i.,.,,, .... ,"·' .• " .... .",,'.:.:; ;: /' ;'
./". / .... ~.. '\" .. ( ./ ./:' .~""." ,::'" ,./ .t':·
). 1. T ':Ecoo.omic Benefit Analysis means thecalcWatl:Oit gf e~ed"one time
an4'recumng'reve;nues and jobs generated by a proposedRedevelopfu~t ptOject. ,,:/, :./: ,:'.':~ ,/; .. : ...... , ..... , .. y. :/' ,;,:.r .f"
, .... 1.8 .. F);iinchlselJ.tilities means electricity, natural gas,'telec¢nmrinications,
a,nd other'utilitiiesnot proVlded by Renton. <'/'
·':·:,·· ... .l.9.·,i·/ui~h~~es.·bli:an"access points from Renton roadways to and from
Interstate 405 "':' ." ,;'."
1.10 ~ter,;,~4"'m~·~e.g~nera.l~ where two or more roadways join
or cross, including fue roadWay~ and roadside facilities for traffic movement within them " ... ".' ":.. . . .r " ..
1.11 Land Use p~~~ies'~dRe@.l~ti~~:~Ls,,:~~tQn Comprehensive Plan
policies, Development Regulations and D~sign··GUide:lifies. :;. .... ,.
1.12 Local Roads means alI o~-~ite ~ads ~~ ar: ooi'"Arterlal.Roads and that
are necessitated by Redevelopment. .:. .' ..= .,' :' ::. ..... '. . . ," .
1.13 Off-Site Intersections means inters~~iJ.ot i~c1ri~ wifuj'n nistrlrit-I
or District 2. .: :'.' ""'" "." """"'" . y'·" .... ·~r
,"" :; -::, .... ,,: ,'.' .,
" ::"''''''. .,:' _/~~~':fi: .I"
-:" ·:,;: .. ' ... _ .. 1".·...:::· .;" ,:,:.\ IJ3 .. ' L :/~, .
.. . ':'''' l ,-.r: ~age 4 .;:-.. '
.~ :r
[!BOEING Dev Agreement 11-24'()) doo]
" ,'-,:' /
"-:.
f . ' .' .," I ;..
,.:, .
e' .,'
'"' ....... 1.14 On-Site Intersections means the intersections shown on Exhibit 4 .
:?
.'; :~.
i ,.'" /'./ '1.15. Owner means Boeing and any transferee or successor-in-interest of all
..... / /'otani,porti6n of the Renton Plant.
"'\. '." ,,_., // ':if ;'~ 16'':: propoSiti. means, 9.91lectively, Owner's Comprehensive Plan Application
and reJated~ning.!Illd:peyeJ(1)11iej1t Regulation amendments proposed by Renton .
..... J d/ ~ci me~i~e r{;~~MiffiiciPal Code.
", ... ~ ... -.;. :,:. ;'~'" ,.'/' .,.f? :./:.t',~/ .. ,,)/ ,,/' :::;:;,-
1.18: .. RtXieye10pfue¥'~~ans ~r,ls~qion of improvements to the Renton
Plant for uses'QJ;,bet than airPlan~man¢.a~g or uses supporting or associated with
airplane manufa~g. ,/ ." i"
':""'\ .,/ ;':' .:/ ,':' .,: _" .. ~'M""' .... ~:. ../":":\.
1.19 Renton Plimt QPerl,ltioJJl; meanS airplane mani\fi\eturing and supporting
or associated uses conducted'OIl'lheReriton PlatifSiu;j .} ....... ' ".,;.' .:. .,:':; ,;; ,,?
{ .:" -" .. :" "':'';':: ,.' ,-
1.20 Renton Plant Site meiu:ls Distri.i.:t 1 and QistIii.:t ~·t()IIe.Qtively, 8$ shown
on EXhiqlt''3 •.. :.", ....., ...... ,",.:>.',.,,, .... ,::',:::~""\:\\: /:/ )'
/1.21" Si~Plan Process means the master phunpngimd slte'pla~i n;4u¥ments
ofth~RMC·iWplic.able to Redevelopment within theVC,N zone'.), (' .// .' . .-i! :,:, ..... ,.' :: / .\ .
. /i h22jsuQdistrict lA means that portion ofDistrict.l..cOl;nmocl# ~wn as
~&~ ~t3 aQd thdO,,50 Buildi.ng as shown on the Subdistrl1:t;lA'Coneeptual :r lan . < .... , .... / .,:.. ...... ... {'
"·"'" .. , .. 1.2J"/~~di;~& l~ means that portion of District 1 commonl;' known as the
10-80 s"fw, Lot 1 O;:an.d· other-'l'~oeing~qwned parcels east of Logan Avenue and south
of 8th Street. ":" ."...... ,If' ........ , .. . . ", .:
"'"\':::. .. .. / ::' .J" '::".: .. -:::" J
1.24 Subdi~trictSme'ans Subdistrict IAiSJIbdistrict IB, and District 2, . .., " ',; collectively.··· .. ···:..· ........
1.25 Utilities mea:~'wa:~,iewer 8Jl~ s~qj}~~~jistem improvements that
serve the Renton Plant Site. . .",' ./' ./' :: ...... ;. ~;; ... -.... .
. '
2. .'
::::
,.""'"., Basis of Agreement
[!BOEING Dcv AgreemClllII-24-03 doc]
',:.
.f
.. '
.. :
!inUted to Renton commitments for corresponding potential funding and construction
of c.ertl!in public infrastructure improvements benefiting the Renton Plant Site and the ,/ , .iCOttun~tyJIt large and Owner commitments to participate in the funding of certain
•. "" ,.' i' publi,~",imprOvements, to fund all private aspects of Redevelopment, and to redevelop
:':'
\,." ...• ' .. ~:'h".;~~;~~:m;:i, .. re Lond U~ Policl" ond ~,"on.
. This Agreement is,enter~ inlt> in lieu ofa SEPA ''Decision Document" and. as
such.establishes.all SEP A-based;~nditi{\liriecessary to mitigate potential adverse
impacts oitb,~ ProBO~al/an~'R:~on'silppf()~ of the Subdistrict lA Conceptual
,
•
Retail Plan.··' ...... ··,··'· . .".i" /. ,/. :'" "'/' /' "'"
3. RedeVelopme.tr'~nJJi~./i ., ''''-'''''''"./'''}
Redevelopment Ofth'~4toti. PhintSi~'~ ~~,6fementally starting with
properties within Subdistrict lAo ((on6eptuaVpla.niilng for the ~~~ible surplus and
sale ofpro..per!y will occur in three areas 9fth~,RentoDiPlapt §He, Sli¥.strict JA"
Subdistrict lB, and District 2, as i1Iustrate.(i in Exhibit 3. ,Cori¢eprua1 plannittk, .f
pursuant to the"~uirements of this Agreerrient,,'~l~'besum'lemented bY ~~f
planning 8I)d,.siteplanning pursuant to the requireme.n1:$ of~C+9-200,/ ./
;/ .:.". "~: ~~ "':'.:~ :: ~:, .",~ ,(./ ./
/' 3j .to~ptual Plan ':,. .." .i·
)' " i~ :: .... ", ... ~. .t ,"
,,/At ili.-~ tirp~atwliich. Owner wishes to subdivide, develo~:~lk~r.bi:herwise
ai.ter Briy·prop¢1y· wiili.in thi;l Subdistricts for uses not related to airpian#
nilinllfacturU,J.i ~r supPOrting uses, it will submit to Renton a ConceptwiJ Plan
including:···.... :~,. :{ .. j' ,f'".."",,·· .. ,·,··:
34 .1"":.\ q~tive'&~cribing 'the conceptual Redevelopment proposal
and its relationshlp,tp,the ,ReqiOn' s Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the
Urban Center-North; '. :",./, .' "';,
3 .1.2 The e~tinmWdiirillng' an4:sequeric~,goflJl"OPerty surplus and sale
(if applicable);,.,' " .,.....,.,.
3.1.3 A description offue;~op6~ u~~s ~Cludin,g th~ general mix of
types, estimated square footage of each buildinganji" Parking feli: eaC~,stfuctu,re,
heights and residential densities; ' .. ,:.... .:i ....... , .
3.1.4 The general location of use conc~~ti~ ({l, res;~ltiJ ,.-""::",/ ..
neighborhoods, office or retail cores, etc,); '. ..' ::.. .. ,. ':. i' ... ':,"'~' '-.. /' i,"m"'.?'
.", .' ;: y """"'" .," )l~t. i" \~ "'>
," :?, .. /
," .~/. .~'
.:.: l" .. '
:':
[!BOEING Dev Agreement 11·24'()3 doc)
....
.' ..... ....
....
. .:'" /:.
:.' .....
. ... I' .,.-" .' ,', 3.1.5 Vehicular and pedestrian circulation that includes a hierarchy and
r,Y g¢n¢tal)ocation of type, including arterials, pedestrian-oriented streets, other local .,' '; f"roads ~d~trian pathways;
:;. ':, .. ,/ .// :,.:.:' .... '.,
\" ":" ": 3, 1.6 Generailocation and size of public open space; and
.. -:....... ..... ,."h"
,
I
···~.I, .. , .• ,,' ,.' .•.. , .. ' '~'.. . .... , •.
,: . :' ..3.1. 7 ~ econ,ohuC'genefit analysis demonstrating the conceptnal < 4Cvel~p~lli's lU1ti¢ipa~d:e60n9¢ic impact to local, regional and state governments.
":~': /: .:,,:' .:~ .. / ,/ .t.( .'.~.". ' ./, ........ , .. ,::;.:
' ... $.2:. ~opi:eptual Plan:~pproYIlI.i,
'.:;. ..,..... / f ./ .... '='.! /f <., ""./ /
OwrlbJ;,wil!.,gUblliit t):le Cqnceptl,iil.!l)larl to the City Council for approval. The
Council will base its ~9VaJ. Qii th~pi-9po~ed Conceptual Plan's fulfillment of the
adopted Comprehenslye ?lan Yisi<;>h 3fi.d ~blig.ies.~1,ll" the Ur9IUl:. Center-North .
..... ,/ / .,/ ~ .. :.. ./ .... / "'"-::. .t·./
3.3 Subsequent L~nd.,U se Apptova!s,:" /
Renton will evaluate ~t:ub~eqii~rt~ dkl~~~!~t,lIPp'icatiOns within
the SUbdistri.cts based on consistency with the.approv~ C6n~tual'Plan. Th~'Pt:ocess
for sub~equeittJIla8ter plan and site plan lippro~.1sGutl~edlhRMf; 4l;9-290. / ./ '::':'" .,:, .. "", ... ,., ./: ~.:.:' .. ,... .... ':.: .. ' ... ' ....... ~.... )' ... :..~. ;: .. i
"3.4 .-,''c,;, MOi'Jifications to Approved ConeePt.u1!l ~lans ....... , "/" . ::: .;:~ ~': .. ,.~... ~f :~: ~ .. >: J t ,:'
/', /3.4) Modifications to an approved Conc~Plan ~. b","inade after
ll11a.sujtivt;'determination of the significance of the propqged,.mpdifitation .
. i:'· :t' ...... / 3{{'~~~modifications to an approved conce~~a{~~ may be
a~ved a¥4rlst:IJrtiv~ly iis long as the proposed modifications remaih consistent
with the spirit !indmt~t oftl).e'iidopted Plan.
:.: ":" ., .. r ,~.: .t·' .
3 •. 4.3"''''if itA~:detertiiined thata proposed modification is inconsistent
with the spirit andmtent 9f~ adoPt¢<! ¢o~~ Plan, or if an entirely new
Conceptual Plan is pro~ed,'qo/ COlqicil.amO~ is required.
3.5 SUbdistri~;'l:~ ~1!~~ePtu~lRkth~~ '.i..
'.,,,.~ .. , .. ' ;. .:' .:' .:' .:: " ':.
Owner has produced a Subdi~trictlA. C~¢P~ah!.teurllPIlUl, attached as
Exhibit 5, that meets the requirementsof'S·ectioo.3, gUtliJ,iing.l!roPO~
Redevelopment of Subdistrict 1A. By addptl.6n.of¢i,s ~~t, the .City.Council
approves this plan as the Conceptual Plan for S~bdistri~ lA-i," ./"":
3.5.1 The Subdistrict lA Retail c~cePru.ai· ~I~ ihei~d.e.;hif:ve~~~t
of approximately 450,000 sq. it of large-and medium-f'orni!rt ~ siOicls.~ .,' .::.." ...•... "' ......... ,,
. .... .' '::"""'::" ",,,; ...... .. .... .,,'It' . .{
"""" "':' ,,' .i;I24J!)3 ,i Ii ,,;:
'.' .... ,: ...... Pa,H ' .. ';,~,~ .. :'~ s; ~~
[!BOEING 0.. AgeemODlll·24.o3 doc]
.(
:" :: .' .' /: .:.t.·/ '0\.;' .'
:;
.' .' /" ::
::
':" .
• "ii/"app~ximateIY 110,000 sq. ft. of small retail shops, as well' as potential locations for
,i stiu¢~ parking and upper story multi-family residential units or office uses.
'; .,' .\':' .:' ;; ,:'.~ ..... .
',,, /' ,/ i "C.3.5.2 An Economic Benefit Analysis for Subdistrict lA of the
'\ /,/ Re4¢Ve19pm.bnt,~ched as part of Exhibit 5, demonstrates that the Subdistrict lA
'-'" '''' ~... ,:Re:tiiil <iZonceptiiru Pt~ which)s.forecast to produce estimated revenues to Renton of
::' awrm&nliiCfly $l_2,millioR~'one;time, construction related revenues and an
'~a4\tion t,O aWro}tinu).~'$L$ririJlion.jJ:l recurring annual revenues to support
Subdjstrlcf1A'R~rail ~~velo~~pf be&l~i!,!g in 2009, demonstrates revenues
sufficient to fuiltfRe)1tol\",s oWgation ~(j'cQils~ct public infrastructure supporting
Subdistrict'lA R~1 Rtd~lopJ;llent ~b.bj~cdo Section 4, below .
.. :,,,, .. ~ .. ,,. .,:" .. / .),,:' ../ .:'. "':.
3.6 Additi~Da~,PIan.mnIfAppli~bl~,_", /\
Owner ackno~~~~ge$'~at'~d91;iori~ si~ pla~ritng bllse.i on the requirements of
the RMC will be required farpotentialRedevefop'i)leJ# withiP the Subdistricts. For
example, should Subdistrict lA be~et diVided by:s~6rtplal7_.l.Qtboundary
adjustmept9l' otherwise, master plat1hing and,sit~, Plmrirint fqleachPaFceI aqd"\
buildin~'!;ite p~uant to RMC 4-9-200 WOlll~.~,.~Wre.~. ..:.>::'::,:> ':: ,,/' //.
4. :'inf~-a$trutture Required to Support Rede~eI9Pul~nt,-·." " j :'
if T~DsJUon and trunk utilities anticipated '~~. bei~~~s~~,~ sti~
R¢dev~oPIllent #td ~,~.manner in which each will be fundett"ili:id dC~lo#d are
4iscu~edpel0':V'; ,EXhibit? generally illustrates each segment ofAr¢ri~Roads.
EJ,drlbit!r6A, 9~7, 7 A. 7B,and 8 illustrate supporting trunk utilities:' EidUbit 9
describes i~~:'coqlpon,~ts and corresponding anticipated cost. .... , .... "'.~.,.... :: .t .~. .' .r·' "'.
4.1 frailsp'rt.~n I~pro"ements
4~i:1.."A:k:hal,'~dS~eqUi;~d ~t Full Build Out ":: ~., ::' '\.
The parties agree that the' Arteri.al )i~ad,S dii~ed on Exhibit 2 and listed
on Exhibit 9, will be necesSmxJo'SuPPOlj fuUrec:tevelop~entofthe Renton Plant Site,
including District 2, assuming an intensity.oftQtal ~iteR.edevclQPll1etlt no greater than
Alternative 4 studied in the ElS"" ..," .• ' /' "" ""''''':.
:' .' ./' .' ..... -~.. :.';
4.1.2 Subdistrict lA Arterlal R.~acJS .i,· / '/ .--,
The parties agree that the Arterial Ro~'~i~orliollS th~~(dia~~ Oit
Exhibit 10 as District 1. Subdistrict 1 A roads and listed by ~egmC!'it oli Exhibii 9 'are---.-", .
anticipated to be necessaty for full Subdistrict IA RedeveIOpllltm~. ;'" " ", ,/ i ... :', f""" ",,"
'. ,,' .' ,'. .: ::' . .' ,/~\./~ :{
.\ 'i' ~: ."
[!BOEING Dov Agreement 11·24-03 doc]
.... . ' .
. ,'
;." ,~. 4.1.3 Subdistrict IB Arterial Roads
·' .} /''':;.
;' i'" ./ .. ' 3theparties agree that the Arterial Roads or portions thereof diagrammed on ..... ./·EJilii~~IIo, With typical sections of the individual Arterial Roads shown in Exhibits
'"'' ,./' )OAtlJi()ugl)"lOE..(p'ereinafter collectively referredto as Exhibit 10) as District I,
•. ,.",~'" .,SulXlistri~jI.J"and 118't¢ by s~gment on Exhibit 9 are anticipated to be necessary for
,i full SubdiSt;dCt 1 )H{e~veJqiinent}
•
'~:< .. :/ .:,,/ :./ ::/' .. :,;.'" / .!!}/ -~. ..C':;':: ,." ""'.,'
:' .:' :: •• 1.. Other Arterials )""""
..... , .-::': \ \;: ... }=" ~/' .:,::,,/ ,:: . ....;.(./,::/ /'\J .;r ~{
The~ of FequU'ed }inpt?veme~t~ to~ roads not addressed by this
Agreement wlU-be paid byProp¢rty9#rs,or devel9pers benefited by the
improvement based qD. a fuir share 3l1!Qcatipn of total cost. .
';\~"'"",;,/ .:/ ./" .;,,:." ./ /""~"""'~~::. /"':":::i:
4.1.5 Arlerild Rmld and,-Other Public Inrtastructure
Fundi~g .. ",/" i'.i· .. J .i/··\ ..... ,} .,/:" .. ",:~.:.:."
", 4.1.5.1 Renton agrees to;de~ign at1d ccktrllct"theArterial)~.oads
and certain'other elements of public infui$tructute,specificid 1:ieJ.o,.-v,Jrt ~tonJs ~le
cost and exp~; provided, that Renton WiUI;"~lyoIlrevelll~es.,ii:Q~·:kIes ~' orl
const.l,'Uctign, incteased sales tax from Redevelop~~nt.impfovem~ts ~d.the pfoperty
tax ¢id othei~¢nues generated by RedevelopmentU, fu'nd itS,!\hare:bftbePublic
~. an~Cipated under this Agreement. '\' ,,·,,'·.i
. .i f :/,/" 4~l~;2"--"'" Renton will retain one-third (I;~;"~~th~' ~ll~ tax and
Qther revenues'gtinexm¢ by Redevelopment, and will set aside the ~g two-
thirqs (2/3)f{)r .. infi;~t:r#ctu,te improvements anticipated in this Agreement as
neceSsm:1'to tijDeIY support Redevelopment within the Subdistricts.
4 • .1 }':{ ", .. ,/";'~¢Q inien~t() utilize limited tax general obligation
debt to fund Arterial.Roaas ¢d otherp1.iblic~!lStructure under this Agreement, to
be paid for by revenues geneb:!.tet,l by ~ed(:veloprii'ent pursuant to the terms of
Section 4.1.5.1. For exarilple, $l~;QOO,OOO iq·bonds,.Wou}d require approximately
$1,000,000 per year in debtservi&e for ~20,year:b¢ld ~'5%,interest. Similarly,
$7,500,000 in bonds would requireappioxiinately·$645.POO N-year in debt service
and $4,000,000 in bonds would reqi.ri~approXin:tirte.lY $$33,600 iIi:~bt service.
4.1.5.4 Should tax re~6riueS 'f~ls~ of~.ri~cesS8.ryto timely
install all infrastructure improvements required:for a ~# ~veIQPmeiJ,t .'.
project, Renton may delay infrastructure constructiori,1J!!,ill the ~"rev~nQ~ shWalUs
remedied. '"," .f .::: .}: ",:".i .' ...... "" ./ .:/ .::>''''
," " ........ "::-
...• ..•. "':"""":'. ".:/-" ,/ ""'''' .; :'f':"I'~'; /:
,", "."
,? .;' ./:·ll~3 .:' ·.t .' ~9.;··:> f
:: .. ~-,:.\:,./'
.' .' .~,;.'. ,0'
[!BOEING Dev Agreement 11-24-03 cIoc]
r r
:\ ;:
.: . '!':,',::
• :;:. ;;<
":",}
'., .f' .... .
.-
.:',,:' 4.1.5.5 In the event ofan infrastructure delay, Renton will
uAm:OOi!itely notifY Owner and (if Owner is a non-Boeing entity) Boeing of its need to
:: .' ,deliiy ~drepresentatives of the parties will meet to discuss a cure, which may include
.... / /i (at ~er's'()r Boeing's option) the provision of alternative financing pursuant to
':;~ ,....... Section 5 of~_Agreement.
'I'·.I'.~··-.,' .:: ./ )," ..... "". ""''''''~'',.
•
,. / /, / 4.1 .• ',. ArteljllrRig~ts of Way
:'.: .. :.::':' :,/ /" :/' /'.. Y :/ ,,/.!-' ,("",/i ..... '" .• , .....
, .::' 4.1.6:1 i;~ Owner agreestodedicate, at no cost to Renton, the land
necessary for fue"rlgijtS Qf way,t\es'Crib.ed1IJ~bit 2, at the time that land on which
the rights of.yvays ~ I~at~&:~old; ~:royf~ that (a) Renton may request earlier
dedication, whieh''()wner niay IlPPro.y~ in its sole discretion, which approval shall not
be unreasonably wit\lhel~ and(b)¢asements or license agree,!1lents will be provided
by Renton to Boeing;:as:Bo~tig deemS netessary;'wallow ,eOiltinued operation of
facilities within the right O[waythatsupport R~nPlantOperations. That is. the
parties intend that, if approved, 'such early dedlCatl()Il.wohldnot result in additional
cost to or dislocation of Renton Plap,t;Operatfons.'·';· ,:i f' ,"""""
:'::::,:. ',:, :,:: ':::,.,,"-:::.. ./:;/ ,/~' ":"1:,:-., ,/':;':, ..
,i \'4:,1.6.2 Should there he Own\:r b.ilildfugs:l~ iIi.the J:igb.$ of
way, ~'shall be'tlte responsibility of OwnertQ"at' s~6h pm~·a!;'theroadhec:;.ds ~ be
cOnstfucted;~d ~pon Renton's request, (a) demolish fUcl.i b",ndit;lgs arid,(b )cilp and
abandon any 'underground facilities that would interl'&e WithReriton)~ vSe 9fthe
d:dica~ pr~Pe1 for right of way purposes.' ... ii,'
". .-" " . .. i( ./,' 4:1,6:3', Park A venue is constructed asymmetriclrliy Within the
'Cu,rren{nghtof.Way".,.~apsion of Park Avenue anticipates use ofthe.~xisting road.
Soin~}ld4.iti6nlil r~igpme.ht ~aYl?e necessary to connect Park Avenue to Logan.
Owner'will de'dic@te the n¢cessary right of way to realign Park Avenue to provide
symmetrical right6fwaY';md ~antJcipated for expansion under Exhibit 2. Renton
will vacate ani'e!tces~.tight <1way~reatedby such realignment, at no expense to
Owner. Should owner have:it buildingOcciipyfug,property that would need to be
dedicated to Renton for right"O{waY, thel):~ershallgrant the right of way, except
for the portion occupied bY1,he b:uildfug.' In such: ease ~er will reserve the right of
way for Renton. and provide'tne dedicati9nat n6 CI:lst to'Rent9n when the building is
demolished. . ., ,-./: ./ :: .... \ ;',.. "
" .~. ,"
4.1.6.4 Renton shallrtGt\rak~.limy.rig\i~twaj d<;~~ed by
Boeing necessary to serve Redevelopment, untitr¢ev¢loprnC!it is,complete'or upon
the approval of Boeing and Owner. ':',::', .·::i,<.:}: ",.:
" .. / ::' ;' . '~'.. ,.,' '::'~"""""'"
'-, ',-" ;': ..... " "",.""",~?
'\"""~:" -'I' . r ::'" ./'~,:?-./·11~3 :"-,'"
.' ~.10 " \.,
~ . .,'
....
[!BOEING 0.. Agreement 11-24.Q3 doc)
':', ."= .
";;":I'.~ .. ,·,,·
,:' ,,'
}'
--.' .,::
....
:~,,:'
.'; :/ ;:" ..
. ,' :: ..... .,'
" " ./
4.1.7 Design Fund and Timing .,/'
,'::' ':; .'?":~'" .'
(\,.i" /~greeri;~t, to4~~k $l.t:lt~~nafo;~=i~~°i!~ ~=i~~~
\., ,/i .engiiletip,ng {" ~rial Road Design Fund" or "Fund''). The Fund will be utilized, as
•
•
.... /' ,ne¢ded/to ¢m>ure thiit.design I\Jld.engineering of the Arterial Roads occur in
,i c!Jila¥rati~Jiwi!h~er~'su~ciently in advance of Redevelopment project
-'~nsttu~Qfi toprodUC¢ ll-iiecJe4-MterjaiRoads in time to serve such Redevelopment.
The'pa¢e$ agfee .thatRen.ton sb,:aU,beginthe (:Onsultant selection process for design
of Arienal:Ro~'wij;liin;30 Qai~iofthraate of this Agreement.
"'\ I,l .:: ;:,' .~~ "'.;_~.. -':;':" /
-'4:i-d2i')Wi~ rellP~toS~bdistrict lA Arterial Roads, Renton will
begin design, througlf its/ons~ 6fth~in~~on ofP~~ and Logan as the first
task of the consultanfselected p~uant toS~on 4,p.1. )11$ early design shall be
completed as soon as reasollably'possiblb ror thc-,PuxPose of~f1ning the location and
extent of the needed right otwaY 9Ith¢irite~ti~_gfp,aik:A-venue and Logan
Avenue. Owner and Renton will &onsult' on,a right 6f way ,defi,nitiQn sufficient to
permit Q:iivn!lf to establish its propertY lilies fOl"P!l1'Poses gf s~fe.·'·\:/'" ' •
.. / .. !::,;~:_. .~ .. ~.;~,_ ,,":";' /," ,/' "":::",,.: .... '\.: ;:', ,or iF
_ 4.1.8 General Constrnetion,.Till1ing-··'''"""··,,,j } ,/ /-
.' /:';::i::. .::: (".' ./ ./' , ...••.. ~'.\: /" f:' ~.~ .. : .
" CohstiuctiQu of all or portions of Arterial Roads ri:q~'for ¢3c11-increment of
R~eveI6p~t ~l occur based upon (a) need for that p6@oii.9f ~ Arterial Road as
demoijstrated by: a ~EPA environmental checklist prepared for ,(hat increment of
tedeV~~Jlpinent;a-h-affic s~, or other documentation agreed to'by thePames, and
~) a co1lSt1'lWti~n s~.he4ule established by Renton and approved by owner to ensure
fui3i wmpletiOn of such Arterjal·Rpads, for each increment of Redevelopment. prior
to issuanCe ofthe~f' oc¢upancy peimit for that increment; provided, that if such
Arterial Road i:ons'ttUcti~n;is qot'timelY copIpleted, Renton shall identifY and
construct, at itS''C.Q,st,plUtually''aceept;:tble iriterim access . . ".~... :. .'; .:
4.2 Intersectl6ns '-.,-",< .•
",
.,' ....... . ... ,'
[!BOEING Dcv Ago-<cment 11-24,03 dao]
.:., .... .r
,
........ i
.,' :.' ::
(: / .,.," if ,i"')t.he.~ost of Off-Site Intersections will be paid jointly by the parties in shares
." ,'; 4.2.2 Off-Site Intersections
.-~
,
,
'c.... j:ptbportionate to the amount of predicted traffic using the development and the amount
, ... ····6fpred1(;ted.traf~£that is general pass-through traffic. These traffic predictions will
., . .-' .be ;ma4e bY:Usc'of amJ.ltually ~ptable traffic forecasting model. Owner's
,/ c9iltribUti6n.:'Will"be. prOpowonate fi> the percentage of the traffic trips using the
"~veJ&pJfi~t, a,rid J,{ent(,I).fScoiltribut}on.w:ill be proportionate to the percentage of the
traffic trlp~ th~'t ~ ge.ri~ P~~.Pass ¢r~l,1gh trips. -'-.. :: ';':. -:::,",./ .. / :/' .,~:~~.r /,. /""/ ,j' );,
, 4.2.3,/Boeing;Trip Alloeation!
'-'~':"" ..... _J"'" ,:' ;;' .r :( ,.:' ....... , ,"
Boeing agreesi~it will al~6cliui up'to 1,500 of the ''Pase1ine trips"
established by the 2602A~inent fqi Redevelopin.ent ofl)iStrict 1. It is understood
that this Agreement is baseq,upo.fi reallocation OfUp'f;o 1.56Q .trlps in order to mitigate
or minimize the need for additi~naltranSporta.tfoD:'improyements. The method, timing
and distribution of each trip shall be at BiJeiIlg's sofe;'di,Scn;.Uon.),t; however, Boeing's
reservation of all or a portion ofther,SOQ trips.f~lts,:]n t;he ~ed fOrl;ransportation
improvc::iDentsJhat would have been otherwise unrtecessafy, B'oclngwill bear tM cost
ofthos ... ~ impro... v~ents. . ..... "" .... /.;:. "', · .. ·· .. " ......... i § .il /'
~ ;/ .//:
.,' "':. :',. .M"~ .,. i· i :."
.,.:" 4.~' Jnterchanges"'-/ :1 ., ...... .." .,.",/ ./
,./ i~epiuti~~ a~~.to c~lIaborate on lobbying and o~et'eJ!o~ tP'~ive state
lihd fe'denU funding of 1.:40.5 mterchange improvements that benefit Red¢velopment . . : ".,.' ," ::' . ':;. ~
',.,., 4.4/'Ikalii~d;:"
': • .., ::'.. ,;: t' .-". ""', "'~er aw4.,.t~ pk·i~ ~.l L()ca1 Roads required for Redevelopment
4.5 i~~j)9~~ol~fi~ga~()'F:~es .•
:~ '" '", '.,
Renton agrees that~t6ri~porfati~b. miti~on fees assessed as mitigation
for Redevelopment will be'~J() fundoff-~ite 4hptov~lPents, required to support
Redevelopment, in proportionate share offrle C9St .of such imProvements.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, trarisportationnnp8ctJcils shalfn()t!)e devoted to On-
Site Improvements or for site access impi:Ovem~ts ~uifed,by.Redevelopment, such
as left turn lanes on periphery streets. . .. , ·:·i· .,/:i,,'· .i ,> " ......... , ... , •..
. ,: " /:: .'
4.6 Strander Agreement Transpo~tionMiti.~ati~n'F~e Ctediu' ...
The parties acknowledge that, at Boeing's sOle~~c~~ :~l 6;'~~~"Of:i>··.. ,; ... " ..... "
the reserve account established by the Strander Agreement may b~ utmied,topaY'fdt it"':',
[!BOEING Dcv Agreement 11·:14-03 d""l ...... " .. ,,, ... ,/'.: /"11124,;03 <. .. :.~.:"
.. ~12/";:' ,,:
.. t·;·,.,'! .' " .f:
.....
ii
:'.
.": ",
.: ;' alVhr a portion of Boeing's transportation obligations associated with Redevelopment, .i"" .; ." e#l"PtP.mt such credit may not be applied to reduce Boeing's share of the On-Site
, ,/' ln~rse,9tionimprovements addressed by Section 4.2.1.
'J... ./' t '"
'\ // ,: /"4;7 :;Wa!~r
.-~~ .. ::, .......... 1 ::1' ./' .:' .;" , .. " ...... .."'~
,/ ... :' .C' J' ,-'4.7. L Rentonsli3.li,'~ccording to the principles set forth in Section
'· .. 4i'I.5;in$J( ~Jin~ t~ls\Jpp,Od'redceyelopment in coordination with the
con~oti?n 0,( ~en~~,oads"'>f"';''''>' ,.,.
" ':':, 4~;;':2,..-:\V ~ ~~!~tall¢ Sh!IJ,{be consistent with the ''Option I" plan
provided byRentei1'sPep!)i1merit ofl}laririi~g, Building and Public Works. descnbed
on Exhibits 6A and 6B. au:ach~ .'" .
":""" ~,~/ .:': / . .':: :.:" ./',.-...... : ">:. ,/'::":\:
4.7.3 owner ~d ~entun 'llii!lwork togethertp 9i"eate a water plan to
ensure provision of adequat~'J;OJ.itini (non-em~cy) w{UeJ::and emergency water,
including fIre flow protection, to tIle Renton pland!lite, fur ~ntinued Renton Plant
Operatio%,and for Redevelopment,ii\cIudin~,~ut not lfi:ru~ Jci'an'~ement,t¥
water for'Renwn Plant Operations will be. Of acie411at¢' Pr¢';sure".9Ul1Ptity. qucltlitf and
have ~uired shtem redundancy. ", .. ".,,,/ " .. , " ,,, ......... > r /' i"
;: ',. " ,;' ,,0' " • /....... '.: { .\. .,' .... :: ,,"-:' _,r ... -.. ~ ':,:
,/" 4.~":~toF;mwater Conveyance '",.' o; ..... _.i'/' .J: i
" R~toh srulli. according to the principles set forth hi~on.:4. (5, mstall a
stCmnf,l~dnW,-iageand~ollection system to support Redevelopmeq~ inboordination ¥th t!ie'cOnst;rti~onQf Arterial Roads. The system to be installed l's.rrferred to as
DPtil)n IB ipE;iilii1~it 7;:which anticipates reuse of a portion of the Boeing stOIl1lwater
dramage-arid cj)lI~tiop: sy~tept: "The segment lengths, type of improvement, needed
right of way, lengfuoflatir.ills ~Q estimated costs of these segments is set forth in
Exhibit 7A If~ll or a JX¥on6fBpeing:listoIl1lwater drainage and collection system
is used, Boeing 8grees'tognmt Renton lID easemet),t for maintenance, repair and
replacement of that systeiil and.tit!e tothesto~ter ... drainage and collection system
being used by Renton. ",'-... ",' ,: ,i'
"'::"" .....• ' ,\' .. , .....
. , .~.,'. . .•..
4.9 Sanitary Sewer "'" .,' . ' :::
./ .:" :: ..... '.. ,.'
4.9.1 Renton shall, ac~oidingtb t;fie prin"Jle.s·SQ,t fodh in Section
4.1.5, install sewer main lines to support redev~lop.men~ ineoQi'dil;liit,iori-Wlth. the
construction of Arterial Roads."';·;; . ";" .'.' ,
[!BOEING De. Agroemen1 11·24-03 doc)
::. :.:" ,:' ,:' ./ <.: .. ~):: ... : ,:' ':;.
"',.:: .' ;';;. " " ,.,: .... ~ ....
,( .;;..... " ,"
,', ." ,ii ,:' .",' ,;''''''''''~~!' "\'. ';':,P" .:";' ." ," .
. ;, ..•. ,.;. "';. .,' . , ," .{"~':/ .( .
'::"
.,,~ ..
!) ." /~ Ifl~3 .. ,f'-<~
" .' Pa#13,"" ,,' ( '":'" " .J' .. :-;,:~/:
..... ,' .:' " f/ ",
::.. " .; :./ .. ;:
,::
•
,'/ 4.9.2 Sewer main lines shall be installed consistent with the proposed
.,' p,w:l'prpvided by Renton's Department of Public Works, described on Exhibit. 8,
attaChed·· . .'
5.2./ PQ~!ltiil·~ternative Financing Methods
'::\;.: ... " . :,:: , .. -. . .' ~.,-: /;, "
":" ;.
.... '.. i~.i..l .. 000eior Boeing or some other party may build ali or a portion
oftJle·Ar!eri8J. Roads ~d Qih~"il'ifrastructure improvements described in Section 4 of
this Agreement and. s~fl aIJ' Qf' any port jon of the public infrastructure to Renton or
other applicabl~govenu:n~ritalatithoriiy pursuant to a conditional sales contract, lease
purchase or instatlm~nr'pufch#Se arrangell1ent or~imilar method, the effect of which
shall be to cause the lease\or pw.c~ase paYqient/lbligation to qualuy as a promise to
pay within the meaning of$ectioriJOJofthe IiiterrialRevenue Code of 1986, as
amended. . .... ,.,", ..... "...... /' .i :i' .:':> ......... :.
"
5.2.2 Renton, or some.oth9":go~eng&uthoriiy;~y issue
revenue bonds if and to the extent that thePro.Pemr t9 be .. finl!I1,¥ is:to be included in
a utility, system or similar enterprise with reSJ>¥t tgwhich reveilUeS ~eX}>ected to
be available for the ultimate repayment of the capmu ~st 9f sych PrOperty, . " -, ", :: .?':;.
[!BOEING De. Agreement 11-24-03 doc]
,;",":-.:' ;:' ":: .. ;:).:., "\' ';',.,.: .~;-': ... ;roo.,.,:. .;' ••••• ' •• . : ....... .r .. :' .:",,-.',
.•. : ...... ,.::. "'-:/ .:'~ ;:' ..•.. ,; .
.: ....
.,.
. .,'-
"':,:""", .. :"" .!tI24t03
i' Page";4 .'
.'
'.~.
,t~',jl"···"·':~?:·
.
. ..:" ,. ~~/
.' " / .:"'", :i .. ::
:; :: •...
" .: ...... . I' iii; .. ' / /" 5.2.3 Renton may issue such other or further debt or other obligations,
. " /. i~l~dirlg any tax increment obligations, which Renton is now or hereafter legally
f:: ,i "authoriiedto issue.
"~, """ ii'/' /"::.,,\ ;': 5.2.4 To the extent that any alternative financing may be structured in ".'" .' .. ,_ ...... a manner whiclfwill permit natiof}ally recognized bond counsel to opine that the
,... interest' on'~y obli~on \~. e1(clu4/tble from gross income of the holder of any
'"Qbligation for ~eile$l m.c¢ne tax:'purpos.e~, then Renton and Owner or Boeing
covet,J.ant and II'gre~ to¢oQperatei~ gOod fiijm.to structure the alternative financing in
,
,
such ~~ .. , '\: .... / ... ,., ... / .. ,./" .{" ..... ): .... :.:'. /,f ii/
q • ) ..... ,'.:.
S.3'RepaY-rnt:/ ".j', ",'
5.3.1 in.t1l~ ev¢ht flt';u dwJr Pl''Bo$g exer.¢is~ its right of
alternative financing pursu8Ji}t to"sest1on,5 J;' th(:.t'arti~ shlllJ,¢boperate in good faith
to enter into an agreement, p~nant to ,w4!ch ~e p~es$1ialr identifY any and all
fees, user charges, revenues. taXes:'an<;lother~efii$':V$ich:lu:e ~ to result
directly OJr,i,ndirectly. either from thetlUhlic ~ct,Ure~0 <;6nstriict¢ or ll9'4u!red
or fromtbe transactions contemplated hereby. in ~ toaeternune:the:ag~gare
benefit:ito R~tQJ:i and any other funds thaiRootOnthayol1tafil'froni otljer,/,i'
gov~C9ta1;.auth,orities. ("',.,!/ { ,,'-"., ,/.if ,/'
.,f "/ }~.3J The parties agree that they shall, to ~~l!iD,~qit not
prohib~ed by law. dll.:e~y or indirectly allocate two-thrrds (1.731' ot;'st¢h taXes,
revenlies ~d 0!flt:1"beneflts identified in 5.3.1, over time, to pay"MnQUntsdue with
te,spectto a1~tive .. ~an4ing, or to reimburse Renton or related gOY_ental
authQl'ity ¢efefor.fo the ¢Xte¢.th.at such benefits are not permitted by law to be
directly"iiliocate<t to P!IY d¢brserviceor similar obligations, the parties hereto agree
that such benen,ts s-hail n,p~ethel~ betakeIi into account directly or indirectly in
determining th~tQtal a,moYntsj)f phl?liC J:'esources which shall be allocated to repay
such costs, so that'the'nefbeIlefits resulting froni' the transactions and public
infrastructure are allocateq or'd~eda.lIqcated'for.'8l!4l~ purposes, in a fair and
equitable manner. It is ~ ~e4th!li any coSts ,of i~ce of such public
financings, any capitalized interest thereOll (if all)' ~imillli fees,and expenses shall, to
the extent permitted by law. be inchided iI).. theiim,o~so,fulaiiced"lmd shall be
similarly repaid. /.' '. .i .:' ,' .... ,' .,
:."
,"-".':' :..' .. :.
• • .• t'
.' ./ ./ ... :.
" .. .' ,:' .:: .. )'
' ... , .. ::'.
[/BOEING De. Agreement 11-24-03 doc]
..
' .. ..
I ,' f
::' ,:
" ::.
\" .... , /'
.. ~~:".'~:=",' ..... '.'
•
.....
::
6 ."' .. ,' Vesting
it i''"··''.6,1.. Site-Wide Vesting to Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Use
Ii ""'";, Tables, and Site Plan Process for Term of Agreement
,/' :: .... ".,.
. :.' l,)POl1 signing 9fthis Agreement, the Renton Plant Site is vested through the
.: tertD of thiS Agreement to the.·Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Use tables, and Site
":, , ~ian f.rocel!~ in.pla¢e ~ of the ~e oft?!s Agreement.
'.~'. ,: .:: :~: .. / }" ,::-{ '~'.'I' ;.'/' .. c:,=;.:
Ji.2 ,'. ~~~ti~.ai.N esti~irt6 D~y¢l!)p,ent Regnlations and Design
:,. Guid~Jfn~s at)I1~e of C"9ncep~1 Plan Approval
"'6:2:1" Q;n~Jy;;/, .. ;./,/,,"
Vesting to De~~lO;m~~ ~~~io~stfud"~Sign Gui~~~es shall occur at the
time of Conceptual Plan appiyV¢ pllTsuant'to ~ection$.2, . .o,(lh'is Agreement. Such
vesting shall extend for three ye~from the cJiite ofGol\peptUal Plan approval for
Subdistricts lA and lB, and extend for fiYe years fromthe.dat~,of'C(),nceptualJ>lan
ApprovalforDistrict 2 ("Conceptual Platt V estIrigJ'eri~d~). ~~el9P~t /"}
Regulatjbns aIidpesign Guidelines may b~e'.';~~:beyOnj!"th;t9g'ncePtu~·P~
Vesting Peg!>d iflj. materially complete applicati~for,~ter p.I~ appio~, p\rrsuant
to ~C, thrall or,a portion of the Conceptual Plan area ~ sup~).ied ro ~entpn prior
to tjie en!i of~e QOnceptual Plan Vesting Period, in which caSe suc~vesting shall be
e~end~ as to dqfation and area only for the master plan arei:rl¢borditig tO'the terms
qfthe~er pllUl.,approva/:"'-., i" i'
, '" .,l£2 /v~tin~ to Development Regulations and Desig~
.... ,,_., . .-'" .',i G)ilde.ii~es·rorSubdistrict lA Conceptual Plan
:': ;. .,' ,"." ," ::. ",
The Sub4istrlct liC~n~ept1lal RetailPlan approved pursuant to Section 3.2 of
this Agreement is'h.~r.e.bY Vested foftMeeye;trs 11$ provided by Section 6.2.1 . . ~ .," .,' ': ." :" -", :' -;~,
6.2.3 Addi~on~f"TIme,.Ne¢ess.fy U FiD~ Non-Retail
DevelO~eJltRegulatjobs aiidDe$mn(;uidelines .. ~~.' . . , ," ," ".:' ';.
The parties acknowledge thainon-~~~:6ev'elo.Pm!mt .Regulations and Design
Guidelines will not be in final form aSofj1ie dii~oftti.is A~m.ent" Renton shall
consult with Boeing as it finalizes such standardS and gu:ideJ.fue~ ane!" m,alrehest efforts
to submit such non-retail Development Regulati~s and DeSigt)"Guldillines to'(:ity
Council for adoption, no later than April 1, 2004. ':' . ",' /(;'\ :: .;'c
.;: " .' ::: .t-;: ':" .~: ,~. '/ ....
[/BOEING Dey Agre<1Ilent 11·24-03 doc)
. :' ." ...... /f .. ::-,~;.",,~
':. .~. '~:~: .. /:
" ., .......... : " ., .... , •..
",,-
,i;I24!1l3
~\6
.... . ' .-:.
';.
.' "'''' ::"
; .. :~. 6.2.4 Changes to Applicable Land Use Policies and
,. .:".,. Regulations ,{ -;,.
~ .... i'" .. //.,:'6uri!ig any vested period, should Renton amend its Land Use Policies and
'\" .. ,i· J{eglila'tions,}~oe~$ may elect to have such amended Policies and Regulations apply
'., .. ,./"to R~vel(>J)lnent; pi'Qvided, ~.):he Development Services Director must agree to
,
.i suCh election, which agreernllfit sh~ll not be unreasonably withheld.
::";'::"'/'; :/ .::: ./' _., ... ","? ;/ .. /"\':" .("1:.,/ ,., .. W"':":
: No~t4stal:lding t4e foregoing, ReJ:ito.ll reserves the authority under RCW
36. 70B:17Q( 4j·.tQAmppsenew.QfdJ.trer~nt' r¢gil,latioDS, to the extent required by the
federal or s'~ gov¢Im1ent~/or~~y a s~ti~U:s.:tl,iTeat to public health and safety, such as
changes or additiofts tgthe.famibl ofQuiJding and fire codes, as determined by the
Renton City CounciI.ift~no~ce ap:d# op~ty to be hl)8,rd has been provided to
Owner. . ....... ,.,:" i' .,;:': .,." ,,/ ..... '\. ;')-
7. Additional DeVeiOpiriegt'~greeinents/M~y Bll ~~;~~ry
Th~ .. parties agree that Other'de*~16bm~~~.agr~;nt,li¥·additioll to an~l',.
followingtliis.,Agreement, may be necessary to gUj,de,Re<kiveiOpp:tel),t dvertirhe/That
is, should all oi"aportion of District 2 be stitplusei:l"tbe par!ies"anUclPat¢ th.lit tms
Agree~ent.wouJdbe supplemented by one or more'!idliiti!>hal .. de.v:.elopm~/
agre~en~, 34~sing issues such as open space, and' neW ~ pJibliC) arid private
roapne~ork)md public facilities.:~.' .. ' i
:: .. : .c· ........... y. ;/. /. :.f
,//.Forekun~le;·the·pw1ies anticipate that construction ofadilitiQiialwater,
~tart'aIid s!Pirti~.eJ;..utility infrastructure, necessary for the RedeVelbpment of
DiStrict 2, ~ond t1Iiit ~so¢iate~t,\Vith the Arterial Roads discussed in Section 4, and
whichhav'e'b~n $~tuailY'revie~d by Renton, as shown in Exhibits 6, 7 and 8,
will be coveredbyfutiire.~~eloPillentagr~ments, and that the cost of such will
generally be the~spon~ibjIity,6f Owner.;:
In additiO~";;'~~es ::ntil:iP~e.that Distrl6t 2,Redevelopment will include
public and private open sp~ ameP.iti¢s.Suclramenitie~·may include one or more
contiguous parcels that prov:ide1'e~reatioria1l!iD.e)litieS ana public access to Lake
Washington, create view corridors tOLakeWashlniton.and MQunt·:Rainier, and serve
as focal points for Redevelopment.·· ."":,' i" }: .... ~ .\
.. ' ; ; .;~ ~
Marketing Information .... /. ';:." t :' ./ ....... " .. . 8.
Boeing will generally share with Renton ~~~;·~ri~~:~,f&.len#OIl'·-:, ..
Plant Redevelopment efforts so that Renton will be informe~ about the ~g .::>' . " . ..... ~. :.":: :.:.. .~. ':::/' .:,,: .~. . / ...... ,.'?-'
./~':f? )
.:' .. : .l~:"
.. ' :\~ , [ilIOElN<) Dev A_ern 11·24'()3 dec]
::
..
' .. . ,:;
~' . .. ~
'~':"' .. ,! ... ,., ...
•
•
.,'
.t' .iii .:.
;.'
pr~ss, and additionally, so that Renton can adequately respond to inquiries by
.' piOspecPve purchasers.
;/ .:. ;. '.'
/9 .. / ·j>"~teri«al Renegotiation
"/,.. .:;' :: .... '.~... ::
" : ,/ Based \I.pon' changed or ~oreseen circumstances, Renton or Boeing may
request'renegotiati91l of one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, which
".niquest !!hi¥!' n(l~befunre~6'riablY,.deni~4,~ '. .:' ." .. . .'. .' ..,
::' .:. :: .( ./ ..:: {~ .~.:';.. .,/' /'"
10.·'·TerininatiOn qf MoratQiitim ,,',/"',
\:.. .:..... " .. / ./: ./';····'·/.~t <,\ .. " .<.; .. /.
Renton~es t1lat tbtl M.:\tatoriJ.ims~al1 terminate or expire on December 2,
2003 or on the date thirt the ProPosal takes effect, whichever occurs first.
.. ,. ,:: .' .~ '. ,::.... l,:; ...
'. .• ..,'-. ·1' ~:. ••
11. 2002 Agreemeriti
,," ",.(.,./'
• "";" ,,/' ;." . .:,' .•• ,.,1"":.;; :: ::'.; •.....
This Agreement shall Ii"ot bl" deem¢ tQ' amen4'orsupjm:ede the 2002
Agreeme~: which remains in full for;c e and ¥~~t. "'" i ,../ /"'~"""', ,r,
12. J,{~c~~~g ,"".' .. ·"'·· ..... T .. ' .. ·"'..\ ,,/./
:. .::. ::"":':':,,,,,, •• ,, •• ,,, :: •..••• "! .. ".,.. ..;. S .; :-
;'This'A$I'~ent, upon execution by the parti~,ait~·~pprovjll O~;thlf~pment
by r¢solution ;of th¢ City Council, shall be recorded With the R..ear~ l:{ecords
Division' oftJie King County Records and Elections Depaitment, .. ' " ....... ~ . ~{(~~~ess~~.~d"ASSignS"'\,:i
"'\., ~s,4~-e~t;stmil b~9and inure to the benefit of Owner~a'Renton and
their . successorS ir\ln~ti and may l:le assigned to successors in interest to all or a
portion of the Rentorip~~'Srn:"."
14. Counte;p""·'itrW,·· .. ,·,i·.:.:i ,.."/ "
;~. . ...
"., ,~ .' '.:'.: ..
This Agreement nii!Y. b~'~X¢cut~d ~ii cotin~!Ii1:s,each ofwbich shall be
deemed an origina1,"",·,,,,,,.,,,,·" (· ..• i .• ,.:' ",/ .:( ........... : .
. '.' .... / :. .~. .:. / .:,:' ..... ,.;. :" .... :: 15. Termination
"
This Agreement shall terminate on Dec~bef 31/2020:"'"
AGREED this / sf' day of [) ~./' .::~~3,; ... , "":"
........... / .::.: .:~: :.:': :.,t:' .. ';:::./ :': ..
.. ". J ..
../ ......• ' -, .' ... ,. ::. .;:-:/"
':, ... :.~: ..
" ./ .;:
........
::' . ,
::
[!BOEING Dov AgreemenIII.24-03 doo]
" .
,; ... ' ..... '~.:.~. . " :: .' ,t,~,:/
~: .. / i
.;:~:, .
. ': ::
~: .'
,;.", .' 41 :: •..••. .. " .", .' ....
•
•
i Cl'fv OF RENTON ATTEST:
....
,.
. ' :~:
"":.
By: Bonnie r. Walton
Its Cl. ty Clerk
,· .. i ,.'.: ., ~ /,,/ .. 1S-'" ~ ." ,..' '-.,,z. .i ", ~ Approv to fa . ... ' .. ; .. ·."T. *~, ~ .,,, .... ; '" ,S~~''': i/ ri;j~:::::,:-=·~:"'"A:-tt-O-:-C-.>-, -<~----
.;' . './ ":::" .( ";:'-::, .. :'::.f'
,;'
By:'Colefte Jemmlnk . ....., , .. ,.,." .... :By: /" if /,/""'" ... "....... /, .... ,
Its: _~.Auth".· w·L!!!orIz"".~. ed.."."-,,,Sl,¥g!:.!na1=orv~___ .".".)~:,,/ yi~~~r.~,t;Pt)://i i/
STAr.EOl)'WA~GTON) .;' .' .i ...... " .. r' .' .,") "' ..... /., .. ' ......... . ..,' .. ,. ", ',' ss. :.: "', . ...-.. ' ,'.,.,.
C9UNyY O,f ~i e-a--) ""''''''/,' .. ,,',i
f" ,Onthis ls f·dayo.f De C I" r---L <0.1'" , 2003, befo~··m~,.the~dersigned.
iI.)~·ot8i:r·Publjci1i anM<:?r tite State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
persqnally apix:8red., ; I e ~ ~ e. '1",-{\ ('\ e ,-, to me
known'to"be the p~~ whosf~ed·ii$. [N,,~r of the
CITY OF RENTON,the .¢~on i4at ~xecuted the within and foregoing
instrument. and·f:lckno'Y}b9'ged.~aidinstruIIle~t to be the free and volun1:aly act and
deed of said cprpOtation fur tile usesa:nd purposes··1,herein mentioned, and on oath
stated that r,e.. was d~yelect~d, qualifle4imdacti,ng as said officer of the
corporation, that he. ':W/.lS au1,h0rized''to e,ii.ec¢e ,ki4.'~s:trument and that the seal
affixed, if any, is the corponiftl"seal o'f saf~ ~~on.:/·
:: .. ".~. :;.,
,
;' ::
. ' .,' ' .
" ,
:: ,.: .
" ......... ::.: "
.' .... "
[/BOEING Dov Agreement 11-24-<l3 doc)
';.
•
•
.' .'
,f IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the
c!8Y:an~ year first above written .
.
',:
".:.:' It ~i.R"· (f, .... \u. z.c/'()I\ !), t-o~"""Q
,(Pript or stamp name ofNotaIy)
.f ~; .
;:
.' .,'
. : .. : ... "
,:. ", .. ,: ... ,.,.~ .. ,.
"""~,/:' M' . ct
'i. •.. ,/' "',, • ~}PP9~ttnent ;~rs: or-
'. ~, .'
::
,:;"
'.' .~ ... , ... ...
.,' /' ._W",
..
'.':o'" ... "~ ,.'
, •.• 1"'\,. /~"""
F';::; :;; .::; "/: ':";;~: " "
:: ,,.:: .,' ~"' .. , ":
;;".: .... , .. ::. .;' " /" ':'"
":~ ~. ~
~" .". \; ,:"
" , .. , ... ,Y: ,I'""", . 0,:::", ... , •• ,.,/ ,_;
. '
.. '
:"',.
,
~ .•.. ~.,
.'
';"~"""""'.-;'
" \ .
. ::,>'" ....
::" ::" ," ;; ..
..
.'.::
.r ,," •• ,.1' ':'.:
.:':,f
....
"'-,.:;"
,:' :;
".
-;.
/
. ..... , .
.,.'
[!BOEING Dev Ageement 11-~3 doc]
..... :;
".>
.,-;;:./
.,'
:::" .. . ' .:.,.
; ..
.~.
}' ..
,: .~:
.,:-.f ........... :::. :'.
" ..
';' ,-. ,< // sf ATE OF 'WASHINGTON)
'" " .,',.... .," ,,;' ." ,/ ......... ,"." ) S8 " .. ".".~' :·c6~n.brO!F'/ ,J,CJ, ).", .. ",:.,.,
•
;:" 'vJ.?.l ~:;" ,: i?"0·:" ," "./ :)"
r ",' <; c': qh~s/~A ~i~; ~l'lcrUI1. , 2003, before me, the undersigned,
a N~ ~bli.~ .. ¥ ~j1 ()( the ~'te~of,,as~ duly commissioned and sworn,
personallyappeared,." . .., '. I" \ . "". ..' to me
known to bC·tl:!tpetsoIlwb,6 siwed as/ ..•.. ' , ofTIIE
BOEING COMPANY, !hi corporatiou, that executed the . 'n and oregoing
instrument, and ackIitl):v)edge4 saip inmumeJ)Ho~, the frecI"an,d vohmtary act and
deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein ril~oned, and on oath
stated that $V was dulY~lectea qualifie~hill,~ ~~,;kid officer of the
corporation, that &h,. wasauthm-iied to~xecute,iiaid inStrument and that the seal
affixed, if any, is the corporate seaiof said cil!J)oratioll: ,. i"'· .. · .. ··,. t".
~~ss WHEREOF I havehe~~;:~~my"~~:~~C~~~,~i'e
day lI¥d yellr:first"above written. .,:' ,f i" ....... , --,"/..'.'
.,
. !O ,""I' ~,,~. ~ n'
"'" ... ,. ":~O::·~/.I·} rNn0uc 6. Sti\1::-r\i
I ~ ' •. , " .'~" ,t" (Print' r stamp arne fN tgrv) 'f~.' ',·:;:~s..a";'" .s'... 0 n 0 0_.1 't;<"Q:-" ••••• ,. ..:-:..-". " ,.
'''~\ W ,_-,.' ~~~~ .... ,.--{ ... ,.' ,,~o~f~;~~~!::~~~ It),.
· •. ,My1iPPoin~bl1t ~xpires: ')-"\ ... 01, , .
".':
"".~,-" ." ....... .
.' :;
/' ::
.. .. . .
.,'
::
..... '" ...... ~;' ..
[/BOEING Dev Apemen! 11·24-03 doc)
.' .,r
/"
':.}
':',
.:': ".: ?: .. '
.,' .' ::' .' ..:-
::
" :: EXHIBIT 1 .~'
" .~ .,,' "
., /.. ,/: •.............
",i /LEGAL DESCRIPTION
';'. .i .;' .: .... ". .
'~; .. -:-". ,/" ::' '.:' !: .:'. ,-"'.'.
",,, •. ,, .... ,,,/ .,: Tiacts"A, B, 9;D, E;·F" G and HJgcated m SectJons 5, 6, 7 and 8, all in Township 23
, :NO~; ~# 5 ~t, WM , d"eScri¥ as follows:
";mid'i~i~ak~~~.'~8z3:o;-90i9;q82305-9209 & 722300-0105 -portion)
'~"',.:< :':' ;':. ./~ .{ '} /' ./:'-~':' :/: ./"~:;.,
Parc~ls A':~dlr~f QitrPfR¢i~ of Ref;t~nSh~rt Plat No 093-89, accordIng to the
short plat reeq~()(fUnqer ~g C()unty l¥~g No 8911149006, records of King
County, Washmgton,.TOGETHER WITH. th~ portlon of the northwest quarter of the
southwest quarter Of~lI1d;Section 8,lYlllg soPthe,l'lYIlll!i easterlypfJ'arcel B of said short
plat and westerly and noitber!yofrarkAv~'N;ilnd N.6~ St., ~vely
/. /. .-.'. , .. ".;. .' ., .... ":.\,/.~
TRACT B (Tax Parcel No. 756460-:0055): // \" 't'/,
Lots 1 t:bt(l!lgh 13, inclusive, Block~ i'~f Rent&a,fI!,rm;~ Jopii~~'~~the plat tl!&epf
recorded 111 Volume 10 of Plats, page 97, retords of~ CQiinty;W-asb\ngtbn, ,,/f
TOG)fuIER WrrH Lots 1 through 12, inclusive,.of S!irtorisviUe;''aeeoro'ingto tlie plat
then;:bfre¢OrdediJJ Volume 8 of Plats, page 7, recordS:ofE1niCopnty, waS~oi
EXCBP'fth~ port,ion known as Lot 3 of CIty of RentoiiSho(t PI~.~o': 28t-7~; a<iOrding
tq'tbe s,liort plat ~rded under King COUDty Recording No 7~710900~ n:CorcIS of
lCing ~tY. W4shin¥1on; and EXCEPT roads "''''''7 '." ,/
.,." ;,' .:. .":, ......• """": '\",;,.:: .,
i',TRACrC n;ax,parcl~t~0~:722300-0115 & 722300-0105 -portion) .r, ....
~idcks3'~~ i~f ,~~~~gn flb'Acreage, accorrung to the plat thereof recorded in
Volume 12 of.Pla~, piige ,;J7;iecords of King County. Washington; TOGETHER WITH
those portionS.~f tIieaIIC?i y'aca!f!d'undei Citypf Renton VacatJon Ordinance Nos. 3319
and 4048 and thl!>,~'vai:ated under City'of Renton Ordinance Nos. 3319 and 3327 as
would attach by oPefiwodof 1~W; and i'ooEiHERw:rrn that portion of the northwest
quarter of the southwest q=Uartc~i'ot&aid Section 8'lyint S9U!Derly of the southerly right of
way margm of N. 8th St, e8kepy 9ftheeasterlyrlgb,to(wa~:~gin of Park Ave No and
north of the south 315 feet thereof.': :,. .:',' .:,' "" . .". .-',' . :;., ;.' " .... , ..
TRACT D (Tax Parcel Nos. 082305-9220d,l823ri5~922~; 08#305.7,~222 4 082305-9011)
:.' " .... !;
,,"""""'~r
./~,/' .:';
.. { ./ • .' .', "
": ... /
..~./ ... :. :'~"'~
.-:'"
/
l":"/
.~ . .,'
..... ::
TkAcr E (Tax Parcel Nos 082305-9037,082305-9152,082305-9079,082305-9204)
·, ...
/'Thos~',PortJons of srud Government Lots I and 2 of SectIon 7, lymg wltlun the abandoned
\ /iBurllligtonNorthern Railroad nght of way (formerly Northern Pacific, Lake Washington
\.,,/·:Bel.fLiJle) and northerly of the northerly nght of way margm ofN.61h St.; TOGETHER
., •• , .••. ,y"'''''':' Win.l/said:nQrtfiwestquarter of the southwest quarter of SectIon 8,Iying northerly of the
"'.,.' J)6rtb¢rly iig6t of ~aYinargm}){N:'t/' St and westerly of the westerly right of way
"" .~ of Park,Av~N.;EX:Ci3P'I;.Qity of Renton Short Plat No. 89-093, as recorded
•
.... : .. unger ¥in~ Cl>ilntrR~otfung NQ, '89,11f49906, and EXCEPT that portIon of srud
northwest:qu~:of tjte s9uth~~$$iart!?'!:,1Y1Pg'sputherly and easterly of SaId short plat;
and TOGETHER WlTH,thosepqmons of saIlI GOvernment Lots 1,2 and 3 and the
southeast q'tllm,~.9{fue,hor9i~s~'quartelo/~ecbon 8, lying westerly and northwesterly,
respectively, of the wl"ster~y rigllt of yiaymargin of Park Ave N. and the northwesterly
right of way margin Qf.thl'iNoi1h Reritol);1nt~chjlIlge,(SR 405), ~terly of a ltne that
intersects WIth said noribwestetJy l(lght of witx margmOf.the N~rth,1~.enton Interchange,
said ltne being described as ,*ginnmg'at ~iation (\,!-50 on':·the A~labe of the North Renton
Interchange, SR 405, as showiioo ~beet2 ?f 5 o.l PSH):tS~'4~) North Renton
Interchange, Washington State Deplt-rtIl)entof1ransportatl9D. ~gnt,of.Way Plan, and
endtng nort,hwesterly, perpendtcular to'srud.StahOll',1Ii a pbint.6n ~ soutlle!lSterly jiliirgin
of the ~OO foot,mam track of Burlington N0Icthern R;u"Jr0td,~tedY,alid:soiithe~erli of
the notthwesterly nght of way Ime of the abandoned BJirlingto1;lNOrtheni Rliilroid Qght
of w~y (fQl'merly'Northern Paclfic, Lake WashIngton B.e1dll)f), J;XCEPT~ said
abaridoned rii!Iroa\i nght of way that POruOD Iymg nortliwest¢rly ~f~.hne desqtibe.rl as
fqUows/' / ,. '\ "., ":'.i
.' ., ... , ....... -;. .'::: .:,. ,.
./ :.~eguhun~~t~!'potnt5.0 feet southeasterly, measured radially ~d.',Aghl/
angies tPIPe cel!!f;rlin* of the Burlington Northern mrun track as now., ,i
"'" constnltted. fr6in'S~y Statlon 1068+00, said POlDt being on the'
.,'
, "'wuth~asterly: nglt of .~ay'iiiargin of the 100 foot WIde nght of way,
Thence ~ortli:wc;iterli along said r~dial line a distance of 25 feet; Thence
southweSl;erly'in a ~ghtliiie,to Ii point 25 feet northwesterly, measured
from the sOq\heasterly nght otwaY hne atStatlon 1074+00, Thence
contlnuing souih~erlY. at.an anglo to the qgfit.,to a point on the
northwesterly margn\ of iiiiitoo foot BUrlin~on:N~em Railroad nght of
way, srud point also b6ll1:~,~!?-tliesoutlieasterlyJin¢ of,~Sp'ur Tract at
Headblock Station 8+85.5imd tlie enC! ofosaidde.scnbed hmf,and
.,::';. .: '. :;.,
EXCEPT that portIon of srud Gov_ent L6t 2de¢rib¢d asifollQ.WS:
Begtnning at an intersection of the southeasterly ri~t <# waf m#giJi of ~~.l3u{4ngton
Northern RaIlroad and the northwesterly margm o(vaeated:Mll.f St,.(PII!'kA've N )~
VacatioD Ord 2513, Thence southwesterly along said sO~!lSterly margIn oft\t.e "; > ..
railroad right of way, a distance of 60 feet; Thence southea,s~rly/at ngJit aqgJi::s'to siUd.' "'"
railroad nght of way, a distance of 10 feet, more or less, to ii' pru.:D.t o.fi the l)orth\'les~l.y ,:':,/"
right of way margin of srud vacated Mill St (park Ave N ), Tbence nO$e$terly SIong :' '"
SaId Mill St to the point of begmnmg' TOGETHER WITH portIon ofy' acated ',LaJ(e /' ..
Washmgton Boulevard adJoming. ""··w .. "", .,' ..
'.~.
.. ' .. . : .....
.;, ........ ".:.:.
:: .t\/. .',
.j:
:~:
t .~. '.' .. '
:;
.y .,' .' ..•.... ~ ..
" .'
.tRACT F (Tax Parcel Nos. 072305-9046 & 072305-9001 -portion)
:; .>'.:.
:: /"" ,f' Tha;,~rn9n of the SE ';'; of the SE ';'; of said Section 7,lymg southerly of N. 61h St ,
".<.J /;Westerly of,Logan Ave N., easterly of the Cedar RIver Waterway (CommerCIal Waterway
" .f:· Nc(2), and,'ilOrtherly of that certain tract of land conveyed to the Renton School District
""""""", " . bi De¢ reC~fded'un~ Kmg c.Q!!nty Recordmg No. 5701684
i"~A{T6,,6~,t>~lN~:'6~~~D.5{~OOL~ 082305-9187)
.' ./ ;.: :;. :/ .j: :::. i'~ "~)i .,....... >. ;;:.
That portion iii sJiid NE 14 and SR~' of Seetioii1. NW ~ of Section 8, SW ~ of Section
5, and the:.~E trot ~tid:n 6,,·IY!lig north •. ~f N, glh Street, easterly of the Cedar River
Waterway(cp,~ll!i W~terw~y No:i)!~terly and northwesterly of the westerly
nght of way line of ~ abandol1¢d B)JrlingtonNorthem Rmlroad (formerly Northern
Pacific, Lake WashliigtoI)'·Belt:I.Jlle) and northwesterly of the n6rthwesterly line of the
rrulroad spur track begJirillng,~t H7iidl]IOckStahon 8+85.,5, westpr!y of Lots "A" and "B"
of City of Renton Lot Line AdJu~fm~nt N:'" LU~".98~176?LL,A.;~i(i-ecorded under KlRg
County Recordmg No 990201%14,andsouthedy ofth~La.ke Washington Inner Harbor
Line; EXCEPT Logan Ave N .' .', .', . i .' " ""'",,
.::;'. .:: ... .-~. ; .. ".. ,~;'". ""':'" ::,?:. :
TRAqH (T~ Parcel No. 072305-9100)
._ ". . •.. ; f .,,' .' ~.', .• :;,,,...; ........ :;. '.:, .-:. ./~
... ;::.;, ...... , ... , .. ;:. ".' ' .... , .... ~i .1:' .f ".-
';.. .f :). .' That~9nof the Burlington Northern Inc. (fonnerlY'~~ ~acifi¢ Rallwiiy ct.)
1 oqfoottluI~ay right of way in said SE ~ of Section 7 and Syv ~of'SectlO~;;S. lying
nqith o~the ~rthe.rly right of way margin of N. 4th Street andSp1:l.!!l~ly()f tp'e s'?iltherly
I;Igbt of way'inargin ~f.~. 6th Street. "'f ,,' . ( . . ,,0' ..... :';,.,:.:,;'
.f; '\" , .. :. .;1' .. ,' .•••• f
:;.All situate in Uie,Clty .p(,Reilton. Kmg County, Washington. "}
~:::;:.:.. . . ..:.' ... r· / .. ,. X .. ?
' ... : .. ".:_.,.... .,;:; .. t·
.' :';' :/
'.-";:
. ~: .:'
.::
.'
::., ".;.
::
.~ .. ,
~ ;.'
"
...•.. ~ ..
..... :.
::' "
" '"
.. :
. .......... ~~~ .
. ' /.~,:/.;
.: ....
"~ ... .'
:.: ..
~ ..
,';
,~.
e·
)' . ::;
."
.f ,';
' .
._?-~_0-·-
.~ "" -~.-. .;; ::...,.
,',' ,-
;': :' ,,:-
'\..""'·,.,?,:/t?r -~ .' Cc._.
}--./ -/ ... --:.; •... , .. ----- - -
•
•
~JI'I'\I" ~fit~:: ~~,':~-;" ~ ... ~-::::~ ~F}~7 ... ----~
_.' .;.:.. ... '
::-~.: .("';/ .... ,
," ,/ -r.. ....' ...
" / :./' ::; -~",.~ j ."':.~;'
."., .:;,,,,,.i,,,// .. ;-" .i/'./:~ .. '.:."
. " ... ~,::,,,.~ .. ,.,.
-": ... "
. .~'
.,'
.: .
.,
;.'
•
. ,
,. \
\ '\ ' \,1 \ ,", \
[J
: '" 7 _.t: r
"'ROPO'SED ARTERIAL RI OF
TO SUPPORT DISTRiCt, ~
(FULL BUILD OUT) ,
...... -----c:::::::J -= @ --t --& _-,._
." .. ~ "
,I I
, .... "'."~~
" :~~,,/'
,'.'
c· i;
~"'I'
,;.
•
'to.
.-.-.' ....
:.: -..
.....
" .
. "',,.
~·;""'.·e._. -.--(-: .............. '" ~f.
.... .,. .. ;.., •.•..
···,···· ... ,.r
. :~
.•..
.,-,
. ~.,.
.-'"
•
.' ~-' ..
TYPICAL SECTION 1: PARK AVENUE'NQRTH
~R~~::~o~~~F~~G:t~V;N::Dr~/~~~:T~:~R~.~ " ...... ". .' . ~
..•..
.~--.-, ,';,-.-,
-": ...
{.
,.::,-
.-.-,'-
,.:.""
.. /J .... , ..................... ,
. •.• -... ~ ".-.-. ~., .••.. ~
\-. "~""
'-" ..
_,.: '-~-; ... ~.. ;; i···,·
EXHiBfT.,,:U\···.:···
", ......... ) ; ...... ~::-
-""-'-
." ...
'-. ' .... ~ ..
"'-".-..
"".
.. , •.. , .... -..
;'. ~.:,~-: .... ', .....
"C",,-,,,,.
...•.• ,
.... -. ...••
.•.. . -..,,-....
";~
~I -L,...:w:f,c ':1 '~~-L !-L .:''-'1 --
:,
..... l . ,_, .\JlUJq'. IIGKT .,.!t.,y 1IDiIt '-.. .-.... ,.. .:' U1IU'IIU
-'-'" -'.\
, ........ , .. , ' ....... ..--, .•.. :.,.
· ... ,.0 .•... ". 8' ". 16' .,. 32' r .. ; . ; I FULL BUILDOlJT, _',
" .. ~ ! 4,":.7' -'-' . • ""ScAlE r..,o .:-0:'<''':\
.. , •...
-.0""" ""'"
. I:IC2ii:'
••.•. ·'.SECOONs ARE DRAWN IN ACCOfiOMCC WITH 1H: " .
';~"''''''KIH3 ta.HTY ROAD STAIlJAIVS AJoC) 1H: CITY OF
RENlON STREET STNDARDS
-~., .
• .0, •••• Au ROADWAY SECT/Q'VS ARE ll.LUSTRA TIVE -.,
~ ....•.. ;
,
", -: .. '
""~" .
""-"" ........ ~,., ........ ...
"~'''-...
'---..
....... ~ •..•
,'.'0.
"-' ..
.~ ..... / ..•.. :/~ .. -".,., ...
""'J~ •• ,,:::.~'
1,fj.IQ ConsIJItlnQ ~
r:J1 Stewart street SUIte 800
Bsaltlo: Ws8hInatOn 1!8r:J1
GlO6I 382-OIlOO Fex GlO6I 3lJ2-05O()
10 /\QVS:BeR 200S
-....... ";.~
",,,,.
'0" ..
.':'
;{
..•. ;.
" ;" .
... , ...... -,'.,; ..
"-.
~~.~..... ..:-7.·.· ..
;;-.. ..... ~:.
.. ' ....
•
TYPICAL SECTION 2: PARK AVENue SOUTH
FROM NORTH 8TH STREET TO NORTH 8Ttt''STREET ""
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEOIAN/TU~ING :E'NE'" "''''
....•. -.'-j.;.
.......
......
..••..
. ' " .. . ..•.. ,
"' •. ~-.~ '. -;".'
; •.... .>' :."'.:";., "'c.,
'· .. · .. 0 'il"" '. 16' 32' FULU·BUIWOut-..
..•. Sc'ALE 1~:-161 "'"'t. ~ \ ., ~.:.~ •...
.. ,~ {'\
!/ ,
~ ....
:~
'.,.
.'-'
~"" .. ".
....
"".~ .-:-.:.'
"'.
.i"~_
-'~""F ~~ ....
....~ ..... ~
. ..,. .... ~.' '; •....... ~
...
... ,.; ..
-....
;':' t:IOIE! ..... :.,....
SEdtlCtlS ARE DRAWN IN A~ WITH #e, ..
KING COlMY ROID ST A1lJAFDS NCJ l1f CITY eX'
Rf!'/'TON STIlEET STAHJARDS.
":AU. ROIDWAY SECTIONS ARE llUSTRATI'IE
..•.
';,
" . .....
0 ••
..... ,
-." .. ,,'.'
-........ ~.; ....... ; ..
;·"r
',~.
-~~. ~'-. . .., .•. .,.~ "') .•
,
. .......... .
··r ... , ':.~." .... , ..
~.-..... " .....
'.r.' .:;,'. -.; .•
::.~
f .'." ::
" ..•.•...
C'h
~""
EXHIBIT2B,",
".-.. ";"
..•.
'.'-' \ .. ~. , •...•. , "
.._'. '.' ;, .. -.-......
ConsuIUng E'ng/ne<rs
/Of S/fIw8It $lteeI. 6IJ//e 8()()
Stlelt/e, W8sh~ 98101
12081 382-<l6OO F8)( 12081 382-0500
V 1IQ\IEM3ER 200'.1
".'.,
-........
"' ...... :.-. -. 'c.
".,.-.:.;'
:-.-:·····1; •.
. ;{
'"
., .. ,-....
-.,.
", .. _.-'.' .... .'.~ .. -..
~~"'~'~., '.'-~'"
";"""
" .. _.:, .
";'-
'"".
TYPICAL SECTION 4: LOGAN AVENUE. NORTH . ..~
'. 8 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIAN/TURNING I.AHE
6' BICYCLE LANES ON EACH SIDE OF RO~WA'( "'".
\'" -'. }. .,-t"
~-.. . .... ;; '" ".,
. .,.' ' ... ~. . ...•.•. .. :.'-
,;.-:'
-..... ,
'~.~ .. --..••.. -... ,. ", •. ,-::.'
......
-'"
< ...... ,.
-.-.;. "".
-~;;
".,.
. ...... .
'.'-'. ~<-.. FULL BUflDQOr,., .' ... ,; .
~, . ·~···'r ... :'-.. / •....•... , ..
. ... '_ •. " '.·.c··
'.'
'" 0·······'8·.·.) 16'.:'" 32' .;..;'" ..... :\
.~ , .........
/.:
.:. ~ .. "---.,,::; .. '
..........
"'. ···S~~-·.1·-16· :.,::
.,:-. ....
.~;."-., ., ~
{ .,) SEC"(IoNs ARI: ll'lAWN IN A~ WITH Tl-E
=~oo:f~.wJ 11-£ CITY OF
.. ~.:::
-I.:,:
AU. ROADWAY SECTIONS ARE n.J.USTRAT/~
','.
.' :;""'-,
.... ;. ....
,.;..
"'-.-;~
':
... , .•.. -
". '.,;'
..... : ..
. ... ; .... ~ .. ~, .
...... ,
..• -
'--' ••.•• ,.
········r,.,. '" '.~ ..
'';'''~. ...
--"'.-.,/
-"""""'" -_5' "-' ..•... ~
f""··'·····'· .. e ...
i
"
••• 0':"
0_._ •
~. .\:r ••.
'.
".
"'-.. -... ~.
.. , '.~~ .. "
,'EXHIB1T20:.·" •....
.. ~.. "'\
.._ ... , ..... , .. ~ .~. \ .... ' .. -
"., ....... , .. .
-;;" ..•. . ....
"'-" .
"
" .... -..
...••..
....... , ..
.'.-.
..... _ •...
1Jj.1" OcnsuJtlng ~s
171 8tewatt Sveet Bulle BOO
seellle. We/llllnglon 98171
(206) 38IH}6()() Fax (206) S82-05OO
17 N:)VEM!IER 2003
":'
'-'-'.,
;-~'" .
.. /.:
..,'
.:~:'
C"'.
~, .. .., ....... ~.{~ .•.•.. -.. .. -.-..-.
";'.
:;
~
.~-...
.':"" .
•
TYPICAL SECTIQN 6: NORTH 8TH.-'$'FREET
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIAN/TURNI .. e"i.AN~.··'··
.( (' ...•.. . . "., . '~!."
'-': ...
.... -:::. ·d~ .. __
;"-' .'C· .. ;. ...
. -.-::' "' .. .~.-
.....•. . '.;." '--' ...• -.~ '~" ....
...• ~
"-'" -..•. '.-.•. -.... -:.'
.... ,---
:~
.. ~ ..
·d •• • c· ... ..\
"', .... -...•.. " '. '. '.;~'
.' .:.-,
FULL tByJLQ6~r,,";.
0 .. -· ... · .. ·# \)6' 32' ····c
7-~'''' •• ~\ -'\ -". ~ ·f
"'-. '-._;~~ 1-"1115' ...... , . •. ,i···rd . "; ····d.
"" .·,c'·
.. -'
.'. ;;;:;);W=~~!~~n:'g:TY~
R9!TCII STREET STAAOAfVS
.~~.,. 'C' .• _ ......
,~ . ... , .....
~.~, ..•..
-"". '~'''.'' '''--=".
.:.,.-. ••••.•• > ..... ALL ROADWAY SEOTIaoIS N'£ LL.U!!1RATlYE
~, ':.
.-~."
.: .
......
.•.. ,,--"~d~...;-
"'-"".
, ........ } .
-•..•.. : . ,.". .... , .. ,.,
.... ~ .. ,~"":.
....-: . ..;: .... ; ....
_l
~~ .,'.C ', •• " C'._.
<. \
~.,
".
·C' •• •...•
;eXtlIBlT.Zpc··I ..
. . ;;.
::/
'-.... ~,
",
........ ,..
.......
.. _ •.....•.
., ...... .
··C, • ",
"-'.
.... , •. -, .
"-"-'-
""..
" .--.-: .....
-".
..... -.
" .....
L
'C._ .. ",:,.
,
"--.
-.
-.\
t ': ...... ;:.c •
C<>nsuIt1ffl Eng/n8et8
KJ1 8_ S!r8et. SVIta 800
SGettle. WastIIllton 98KJ1
(!l(I6) 3B2-06OO Fax (206) 882-0500
I) M?1!BeER 200S
"-".
. ... : .
'-'.
~." 'c._,.
......
•
''''''
~ .. ,.
-;':
' ..
,':
"' ..
.• ,.'.".~, '.'~ "'" ",
•
TYPICAL SECTION 8: NORTH 1Q.TH·-·STREET ."' ..... .
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIANITURtJING L1!NE t .;. -.
''''''-'' ...
". ~' .. '. '.-, -"'"
~.,
'", ''-.~
.. ........
-'C"'~'
. ' .. , ". -•.•.• ,.,'.
" IItlllNt/ ..-"'"
:-;.,.
/.~
.. .-'
',-. UlII.IJlP ", n' IUGHt ()f' WAY ,.""., ";.'--_--,:-~""'::----';:-~ ......... ,.
,,'
. . •.. ;." ;, •.. . ....
. , ........ ,. .;<.," ., ..•.......•..
'.:.. ..
-""'-".,-/
: .~ ., •.•.. -......
"''l"_. : •
:.-.-....... ~:/ ..-.. ,~ . .. ~., .
..•. . , ...... . . ....
FULli BUI~DQUl, .. ....... ,..;:.
.
··"r,.~... .;
. , .. ,'
';;
o S' "~6' 32' • ,,:'.~ "". ".:~
) ""', .. ,.
'~"""'~ "; ''SCAlE ,-.to' ..•..... ':: .. " .. "" .... ~"'~""
""c. .
" . .. •. -:. .. , •. ,.; .. ...... .-.-.......
.. ..;i:·-·\tK2Ii::
•· .... ···:··SECT/ONs ARE DRA~ 11/ ACCOFIDAN:)E wm; 7H: ..... ...•. ...,
,'" K/NG·CO!.mY ROAD STAIOAROS AID T/£ CITY OF <"~'.:" ..... RfNTCW 8TJiEET STAIOAROS
•• > ....•••.•• > •• f
"'.
'.:.--.
:". . -.. ALL ROADWAY SECTlCNS ARE ILLUSTRATI'd:. •. ~'
." "'.
;~ ... <.~.
"' .• ~ ... -•. ~::"'"
... -,-' ..... -.,. .. "":.,:.
':.:. ;.
.~.~
.".-." .. , .. .;;_ ...•
. ... --.•. ~
............. " • ....-;.~.-.-'. .
./ ' . .
\.
. ~:: ... -:~ .-.•.. -"
". '. " .......... :::.
"", .• ~.-
EXHIBIT2£t····
... " ......... ,. ' .......•
"';" ",,~ '-"0
.... . ..••.
~. " ..
··c, •.•• , .•
",-
-.~. -.....
'. -. ' .. ,'. '. ~.
"\ , .....
-....... .,.., , -'-.
-,,:.-,'
-'.'-.-.
"-" ' .. ""Y "''<.-'''' .-
"~" "': -~. -'-.
':'".
-....... :::;:"'}
'-'~.,
.{
a·lu ConsuiIlr¥1 ~
V, ~ SIreot SUlIe 800
SeaItW. WiIShIflgtcn 98V'
a!05l 382-0000 Fax a!05l S82-c500
JOIO~2003
... /
. ....
.'; ." . .Y ....
----------------.. -.~ ---- ---- - - --------,
-f" ~-:~ - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - --~-' -~.~~-~~----------------------------~,~.--=~
': .
• .,'
Urban Center North Distri
Districts Subject to Conceptual Plan Approval
• NoI6 DIStrIct boundades wdude dedicated fVOJN e ---~IIqDb:Aw:Mb""~~ . ~~ D_ ....
','
,.<:-t-:. :f
,
...
"
.' ::
....
..
\ ... .,'
:"/
,/
/,:./
.,'
•
•
D
----:", --
@ 'r
"'" mw -.......
ON-SITE INTERSECTIONS
•
.i" .'
;;':
•
',; ,.',
,
,'.
;.'
" .. . " ,".' ',: .
.' •. '
.....
,.' ... \ ~"
" " '"
.:' ,'" , •• "","'1,\,,:,
" " ..~. ".. ~",,~ ;,:~.).:: .,' ", /., t ... IF :"":3~, ,". ,
EXHIBIT" 5 "
: . .' ,.' .: "', :aOEING 5
. CONC.EPl"UA(·URBAN RETAIL PLAN
'., ""'" ,..... Rent'on".·Washington
:.' .: '::' .;: .::
",
'.,';
". ,~ ~:
y ,:.
"""';"::'\""
.' .' '.,~ .. "
.:.,,''', .... '
.:.1,'.,
::. ",'
.;, ..... '. :;
.f
I' • ,
. '.
,-:
, ..... , ..
'. ",
J
,.:-/ .
,:; .. '
.,'
,,,,:' .•.•. :. ... "\':: .'
'.",_ •• 0' ~tJqini:fted"'to.the City of Renton
.... / /'N ovemberJ7,2003
,01 .:' ./' :. .-: ;: '
.'. ,:" .( ~"':.;.':
""-hh_""
''-''''
:., .'. I" '.:
"'; ..
,.\ .,'
":::-.,,,~ .. , ... ,,
.. ' .•... , ;1"
", . .. ,' ..... -~., '.:
'. , ...... .... :."': ....
.' .' :. " :: .: . {
." ,,1
.. '
.....•.
'.'.
"'"
""h' '
:. ':
" .' ,.,.'
::""-1.
" j:'
..•.
::
./
i"'/':
,
•
.. f
~.
,~' ,
:. ,.'
":. Ii'
./
.".:'( ".
., .... CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN
Lot 3 and 10-50 Sites
. ", _ .. '"'" '" Renton, Washington
;: f .:': ,.,:' "'I ".r .;..' ••.. ,.. ~' ... !: .•
B~ckg,J~nd" ;' ,j"' •...•• ,.., ,', f ;,,;' ( /. } ./ .. / .:.~, .. , ,.... "\.
'"'!;hl! BQelng;'Corppeny h~.s been ,wr;ui,dng Wlt.~ t\lIl,Clty of Renton for more than a year
In'evahlatlng"potenttal a;edev~lipinent strateS)'ies 'lIssodated With Its 737 facility In
Renton;:.,washln~n. ;ThiS ~onc:ilPtual Pian I!~tes the Boeing Company's vision
for the ril~'(elpPment of t;l\e firSt plece.,6f.th~ Ralton Plant to be made llvailable for
non-industrial usesJThe.,Plan IAdudes,th~t pdrtlon of the property commonly
referred to as the LOt: 3 ~nd 10~50 sites/whrch have been detenmlned to be non-
essenttal to the on901.1)9 alrp\iine m'an,JactLliln\laC:tiV'it1~ as B~aiigfOmpietes It'S
~Move-to-the-Lake' cOnsoh~atlo~·pla,I1.·· " (,' /'
'.,' '.'1, i,',
The Plan covers approxlmately.,S3 ~6 55acr~ 0f~roSi.,la!id,.Gf~~lch approximately
8 acres are reserved for the develQl?m~t 9f fo~r new aiten,al sti'l!ets that are
essen,~al to the ultimate redevelopnillnt Of the'.entlre 280-~ j2mpus:"T.jle,.".
remi!lnrnl145 to 47 acres of land will be marketed'tQ, ~ntltles Iptel"!5l:ed In aeyelopangY)
an Integrated retail center on the site, consIStent wltlHhJs Concepfu!\l,-PIan.x. .," i ,.:~-":::".~ ...... :: ... ", .. , .. ,.,.. _.~'.'. ./' """:'i"'.::~.",,)' !~ ~;;" .i
llicludB!l,within thIS submittal are a narrative descnpqon ofbjng's proposali'a ,'" i
.(!onceptlii:!1 Planning Diagram WIth supporbng pedestrian ~~ seobOhs, and an;" ./'
.,'econ,6mlc :benei'it analysis demonstrating a range of pottii\bal,'one"ql)le'·and •. l-eq:imnt
t revenues .. generated by the proposed development. bang ~ks the caty!; approval
.,.. .of ~IS COnce~al Pllln so that Boeing can complete the necesslll)',!ot·IIn,·;· ....
/:. Cl,dJustrrI~nts.,andbellln,actlvely marketmg the property to local, rega&.pafaaui na,tlonal
" develCjJers ;I'nd·'users. ',.. ,"
':"'::1.. ',,,,, •. ::>' ,~{ ."">;". '.: ::' •. :::/,.
":" The aenal ~t\ the,1'oflQwlOg' page highlights the location .of the pr.oposed retail Site In
'reli!tIon'to lIoelog's remalllinll.lliiid·b.oldll1gs and the surrounding North Renton . ~ ~ .'. -. nelghbomQild. ,: :.' :" .;" . ','
.. '::. .... ,.~ //' .. /..... .
\... .~...'
f .:..'
~.
';, .... ; .....
"
.\
" '.> .. ,.'
'" "',,'
.1' .'
" ..... :,
.'
:; , .' .:~". " .'
.," .. :'
"'.'-'"
.'
" , ,
, .' , ", ,
.~. ': ...... ,-.
,,-~. ~/ / ,,,,' ':'.
......
.. ;.'
';' ..
'~.
.' .1' .' ,
" '"
. ""'.
.(
~;'
...... ;
,
,:/""""'~,!.:'
.' .i·"t.:r'~ .• , .
;' ,.'
~,
.,'
.,:'
.': , .
".-
" f;"')
(
."
,r
• ;;."
,. ,
t ,
:.~ .. \ •....
"
"i'.
" ';'\1
".::. ';: ...
. ,: ....
·.r
.,'
(
.; . . ,
'." .
.;; ....
~ : '. "
c:;Qnce.ptual Urban Retail Plan
;,'SOllln9 believes that high-quality retail development IS essential to the successful
.... trahSltlCm of ~.area from Its mdustrlal roots to the CIty's VISIon for the Urban
/ ~ntel'·:'N~ A·'W~II-deslgne,<;l .. [!ffiI11 center will proVide employment, diversity the
.: ~nQjT1lt base, offei: a newi50uri:~ of mUnicipal revenue, and will attract other
.alternatlve ;:wld poteOtIaJly..hlghe~·.,and better uses to the surrounding area • . / ;/ :;'.: ~/ / /: ,/. <, .. ,.3 ..... •••. "., .. :.
:' The Conq;!ptu'll Plall ~r the LOj: 3 alld lO·SO sites, located on the follOWing page,
"IIIUsttates'~he'C:oheSl~'redevelqpment Qf:the' 'pil.rcels Into an urban retail ceOter. The
Plan Contains a rp1'x of la~ fupnat 'di~;n~lo?;' retailers, mid-sized retail anchors,
as weWa.s small 'Shop space cOl'\centrat!,d .fllong Park Avenue, enViSIoned as the
slgnlficaiitpecJestn~·n-onente~StreElt. liithi!'erea. The Pian responds to the presence
of the eXisting Fry's bUlldlng~n th~' p~rty to the east of Garden Avenue, and
antiCipates that Iiftlrn<lte redevelopment o{.the .northern portlon.:of that site WIll relate
directly to the devefoiimenfoccutnng' on Boettlg's prOPllrtY / ;r-
,i'· .:' ;,' ,/ ,/ ,'" :: .\"""~~
The site IS bound by a corill>lnatlo~ of ei(lstlng ~d !lew publ!t·.~dways, Which
segregate the property Into four .quadrants ra"'9ln9 .~~ 6 ~nd 19 acres In size.
Boeing IS seeking buyers for the 45~,to 47·acre property to ul¥lerta.\r.G\~. cohesIVe
red~lopment. Generally, the large fofl!iat r'~, develllPmerit <.iJiiers witb. ,"'>"
foqI:pn.m; of 50,000 square feet and larger and bulldmg·featUre lie!gh~,UP to 45 feet .I
tllll) IS plann.ed to occur along s .. , Logan ail(! Garqen ~Ven\ii!s, f~c;>ng mward;:and ,l ./
supported b~ well-organized parking areas Internal tothe,Srl;e/'Thestnklstrnatlo!f i'
.' J. • • : I' : " .' .'retarl,-~ wit.1 naturally locate themselves along the:'1'IIdest f'0rb~!J$·o.r the.Pro~~i'
wlth;90~ fre~way ViSIbility, much like the recently complet<!!d Fry's development on
.i the;eastem Side of Garden Avenue. ", . ' ...... " "/ .,'
.~ :~ . '~ ::. :.' ;. ,~: ... : .. , ... " .... ; .; ~. .;.
.. l:4edlUO'i fom\at r~llers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 squllre feet.1n area,
./ ,with burld,,)!) I'!!fiture he.rghts up to 40 feet tall) are assumed Infill betweel1' the:large
". 'fom'illt ten'lI1is, With pnil:lary pedestnan entrances facing Inward or dlrect.:.d toward
" ,-, Park Av,ehu~. A,gallil parlong 15 assumed to be concentrated within each sEiginent of
""" the site, t<o' allOW for: potentiaJ.:·~cond-generation· redevelopment at higher
"denSibes,,:"if achlev,oIble./,./ "".
!: .',' ,
The northwest·'·~ti~drant.'bf thll"PI'operty IS Identified as one potentlililocation for a
mid-to hl~i!.~nse de.."'I.cSpm~t, whIch could' take the form of a multi-level podium
parking struCWtl!,;·wlth'·mul!:lfamrly··resldent,al or 9ffice uses above. This ultimate
development could Inlbate;.t.he.truly urban ),ISlolt'fciI:,the area and, together With
pedestnan scale treatmentS"at 'the cotner:of P'lrk al)d logan, would Identity thiS as
the "gateway" to the Ul'ti;ln-Cen):er Nilrtf)-; :" '.: '"
·:':·""10.""" . .: . .i"~,.~ .......... .
Small, specialty retarl shops and amenities woulcJ be'.eoncentrated pnmanly along
Park Avenue, The scale Df develOPment IS .. mor¢' ,";rmaJ;e~, wltlfah·ecJectrc mix
of uses, ardutectural styles and gatherlng'places .-·In $OITle.lnstances, sipgle story
retail uses may be topped with one to three hivelS ofjipal1/1lenj:S'or prof¢ssional
office uses, all overlooking Park Avenue andt~.actl.Vlty aIOng.the !itre~ e9ge;':"'" .... ,:' .;-" ... / ,~ .... -;:.
Together, the large-and medium-format users ~i approxuhateiy 4!iit.OOO ~lJare ". '.
feet of space; the smaller shop space totals approximately .. 110,),)00 .$q/rare .fe~i:;: or .,' ",
20% of the center. ' . , ,/ ...••. "', .... ';("""'"
,. ,.:-.. =, ..•. ~:'. , .
. "".'~:." .. '·"1,.
,,' ....
/.
.f
.i"'
i;.)
,; S:
... :, .. /J
•....
" ,
.'
.'.
"
" .. ',
•
./ ....
<."' .•
("
i , "
."
" .:'
'.
"
,.: .,~ ".
::"'''>;.
"
:.':
CONCEPTUAL
.....
" URBAN
/: /RETAIL
.' , "
./' PLAN:': ,.,.
,/
!:
.. '
"
.~. ,
. .: .,~'
., ..... ;. ;1-' ",.
.. ' " :,,/'" '-".':
. :'
,0
',0 .. ' :.,.
.. ': . , , . ,'."
" CONCEPTUAL PlANNING DIAGRAM
.' , -:: 'I .• ,~'-:
; ":. .' ' .. /' " -,-.' t::., " /'
~~~~N~f FUUfR·SEARS
ARCHITECTS
" ,.,
./"""""\~.:'
i~~ ," " ,-
.r :)' :'
.;-~~ ..
.f ,-
'/"/ .-
, . :: ".f:
~:
,
,
" ,
.;
,'-r
t·
~: ," -", ",
"',
'.
,i: ,." ",
'"
/.' Hi~an;hy of streets . " .... "
./ .,~' :'K~ to the successful development of the property IS the reconfiguratJon and . -,."
,I'" ,"
';'
;;
.;' improveinel'!~ "f'~!lrk Avenue to serve as a critical pedestrlan-onented street In the
::' pn;jject;' T,d acconimodate fuU.~evelopment of the Renton Plant properties, the
" utbmate.bulld out of':Park Ayenueliylll need to aUow for four travel lanes and a center
tum lade, desigiJed fOr v,ehicularttavel up to 35 miles per hour. To support the
:Vlslpn ,for the d"veloPn)ent of "n 'Urb"A 'reta!1 center in thIS location, a generous
:' .slclew~lk ~th ~ree~:b1:~ and <,m:,stieet pa.rkl~g for Park Avenue IS being proposed
to·en~nce .• !;Ile enylronment.nj"t.fIe·pub!lC,/ealrrl·jmd encourage people to make Park
Avenue a pedestoan street/' An' Illustrative ~r"l!t section for Park Avenue can be
found ()n,~e fqIliiwm{; page. '> /'" ',i .",....... .. " .. '
The other major nl!l~h-?huth ¢nn~g(f:;s than Avenue, whIch extends from 6"'
Avenue to the sotith.a.l'id JOII'j;'; Parl< A1(imu~:m 1i'Eii'011h. The cqilst;ructron of Logan,
provIdIng dIrect access to I,40S"wIII.be an'll)lportant a1t!!mab~e thfough connectIon
to ensure Park Avenue fulJ\=l:!ons asa pell'~rlan~p"l~nteQ sho,pPI1;l9 street. M. the
outset of redevelopment In .tt1!!. ar~, Logan IS EmVlSlpnel!: lIS.iI tilrae-Iane street, WIth
one travel lane In each dlrectron <!hd a.,ce~ter·tUm laile,:: UI~mately, Logan WIll
expand and functIon even more sO' ~s'a hIghet-speed alterjal.,:' .. ' ""'''.,.
-'::':"\. . :: -""1 .. ;";.(_ ;.... ,:' }., .-.,:~\ /":~ .• ,
Th!"" eaSi:<\'1(est artenal roadways, 10" and .~ .. Avenu~, ~re 1f;iSs ditlli'i'l.tg thE!:, ./ ,/
successful dl)velopment of the urban retaIl center, . .othet than SeJ;lllPillIS acce~ ('
pOlnts.\:O the"~nter off of Park Avenue. connBaions,irom.:10,.·and 8"''fb Logan :,i(
.Avenu·e/lf con,Structed, would be favorable, but the ~tef W9uld.lilnalon a,' wen ,r
.-' wlth,~caiSs ori!y off of Park, the exIsting leg of 8"' and Gi.rd~ A\ienJ,leS.( i'
,,' .'-c' '. .; ••.•. ,. ..;.
.' s _" _\'
Urban cent.J-North Vision and Policies ... , ....... '.-;.
/. .;. :'" I, .. ·*··k,.,-., \. ./'. ,:' ,.
i:hIs.pi'o~.-Com:epfual Urban RetaIl Plan meets many of the catyi~'ViSl9n ar:KI "':, poliCy statiirrlents fQr thEi",Urban Center-North, whIch call for 'retallintegratecfinto
'"'' pedestnii'n-pnentrfdShopping dlstncts" and recognizes that: ',:
.......... _.,._,._, .. " ~:. )-f .,~ :_\: .," ._"\_, _:,.
'At the be9lnnihg ri thls'tr:ansrbon,oses such as retaIl. .may be viable Without the
office and :reslii!:!)tlal c:Oini>onents that ull:!mately WIll contribute to the urban
character 6,f the dlstrl'i.,:" ThIl"Qty's VISion 'plans for the transItion of the area over a
30-year hoiUqn anll' a~ldp;!i:es tilat tedevelOpment Will need to address the
potentIal for filiare' Infid to ~lIow areas to further 9r:QW to urban denSItIes. This site IS
located within DIstrict 1, wtlerettJe CIty Idesitlfle,S It:S'fi~ objectIve as follows·
.. .....'..' ....
'Create a major comm~~!/retcrii' dtStnct' devti~ped' ~h ~~esJhat add slgOlflCantly
to Renton's retail tax base, prOvlde,addltional.empiovinent:opporl;unltles wlthrn the
City, attract bUSInesses that serve a broadni'ark~ ~~ i!\ru:t.act as"il·ga,thering place
wlthm the commumty.· " .'., ." . "'.,
'r·.' f ,!'
Boeing's Conceptual Urban Retad Plan seek$ t~ bOth aHow ~r ~'~~ar-term '-"'"
redevelopment of Boerng's underutllized assets Whde,·advoCab.n·g fQi' a rtil~.Ci{uses···.
that Improves the City's tax and employment base,,:'As 1S"'lIu~1:rat/!d YiJl:!1in the ".
attached economIc benefit analYSIS, more than 1,300 Jolls w':'uld.be c:i'e;8ted II'i'tt,e ': ;. '.
aty of Renton by a redevelopment of thiS scale The aty.,.ioukfco/lIic;;t moretmin .~ ::
$1.2 mllhon In one-tIme revenues during development and ·the:Oty.W~uldJ~\(e ./ .::
over $1.5 mllhon In annually recumng tax revenues at full bulld·aIit. :,: 'c" ""':" .•.. " .. ::,'
.' ' ~, '
':'. .... ,.. ,.f
""11'
.' .
., .... "
.,'
,j~,,,,,,l"-"'''':'~:'
.. '
.':
"
,:~ . ./ . '\.:
;' ,
":' ..
,';.
, ,
•
.: ."',.,.,,~,."
. '
," . ' .""". '.', , ~
~
I
1::1 ,
~
\ ~
~ :~
"
".
'.
.' ..•.
"
':"
:\;.
/"
,
" "
"', .~ "
/
"
.. , ~-..
"-
t
" .
~ .. ~.
,.~%
l ./
"\ l
."".
;: \: .
",
:;
" ;:: ,,' .......... ,. "' .. ~'
,;
'~
........• ,,, ... , .... ;:
,
,
, ,
.:: , ,
.')
'.;
;
~" ".:. ,/ )
,:; )"
/ ,;
/' ,I' .f· .. ·
,.'
.c·
"
" " "
'.".". .. "
,( '. . ~: . ""
'~'. ',,,, ':.
..
': .
.:,..
"
"
;' .
':, .' .;.
.' ':
\' J •••••••
,'. " . ...
:; .....•..
';'., ~' ,
~::<;/~.
~:
r:;,..;
i
:/' .('.,::
"
.'
•
•
.;:
•
" .:'
$(;mmary
~ ..•.. ," ',-..
... S",elng beheves that Its Conceptual Urban Retail Plan Illustrates the opl:Jmal
.: deyelop,ment p.!~~ for this 45 to 47 acres of land In North Renton. The Plan offers the
oppot\llmty'to cdn1;nbute to the transition of the area from a pnmanly IndustnaJ
nelghbofHOod to a i1Igher m~tisltyand range of viable uses, provldmg both jobs and
a signifiCant source Qf new·'i"evenve to support the City's obJectives for the area.
.... .: .;." .S' ,.).~ .. ,'·'t/
.... y'
.::,
"
::"
:.'
J :. ".'
" ::'. '.~
":.;: .... /' .:/ ,.'}
)' ~
'~';"., .. " , .. '
" .'
./J<:\
;!
.~. -
/ .......... ,.~., ....
...• ,
"~
" . .r .~ '. ,.:.
.{ ;::-
(t,. :-
,,' -<
" -"~'.'", /'
~~ ", ./
,:",
" ....
.-"""
. :, ...... ,' ..
"
"', "~
....
.•. ~." .. ,:= ....•.
';;
-t";"':,\:. /"
.', "
I~""""'" 0"
J
{
" .-
~, .
....
: ....
"\ .
~:"""""
. , ...•. . ,' .;
.<
.:'
.(
.... ~.:
','
..... ~ ... ~,. ..
, ..... ,~
':.-
..
;, ..
."
.',"
" ,
':' .
",:
.' ."
'-".:,
,,"
,,',:-... : ....
.'
.
\
~' ;'
'-', .. :.~: :/ ...
.... :.:; .........• ,J"
/ .' .. , .c·,'·'
. ,l···" .. '·'~:!·
.. ' .... ,.. i'l;-r "
" .of
"
~:
.... {
•. • t~·
")
." ,
.:: .. :,.;"'
" ,,'
" " j:,
•
,
"
" ,/ .: ":.
: ..
..••
;',
:;"'·· .. ·"·~t'
.'~ ~ , "rf "
.. /
" ", ,} ,f'"
..:-,..
,,' e'
•
•
....
" ,
,,'
(
" "
..
",. ';",;
.... :
" ,,'
"
.~" .. ,. " ..
"':: .
..... ,'
.:'
....
./
,"
.: . . , ..•. ,.
., ..•..• ,.~., ....
"
.' " ' .... , ~"'~ . ,.
., .. , . ~,
,.,. :1
.': .';
{
., •.. " ,-, ..•.
':.
.r' ,.~ .. \., .•• ~.
",
.,""'.:. ,
"i " ,,'
.\
.-"'"\
I .'
.:'
, ..•. ' .. ' ~:
,,'
.:: .. : ... , ..•.
.':'
.". '1, •• ,.
... ,,,, ... ,, ,
.:... ..
• 'r7
"
:' "
.~ "
",
!: ",
",
:.~,
"." "'" \,
*' .. , .• :." .... ":;.' .
i ..
",
""'a,,, ..
". . ... .. ,,, .......
"
,,'
.r
'.: " ~:
,,'
.;'
.~""'" . .. ,'
",.-;i·'·
"
.i 3' .r ..........
" .. :"
"
.<.~: "
,~.
"
",
... ;
•..•.
" ,
"
..
''"'.
'."'"
....
",
" '/ •• 1
"', ... "",
":.
.,: ,,.'
.:.::""..... .'
:'.:.
< .':'
.' ./ .....
.,' .... "
" .•..
,
" .':
t''''''''''~.:!'
i''t:· r~ ,
" ,,'
/
'.,:; .
? " .I···,·}
;"
,,f
\'. ' .
....... j "
• :",1"'"
,
( '~"" .
.,
'.',
,. ,
. ~.
.~.,: .. , ", .....
SUMMARY
'~' . .....•. ;. '. .; .C.f.I'Y OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS
;:' ....,. .. __ .... ~. R:;::et=··::;a.::iI.:R.:::~:,::.::ev..:.;e=l.:Iop~J;D=~D::.t~o::.:D:.P:..::;ar:.:t;.;o;;.f..;;B;.;:oe=in;;g.,;s;.;:R:;:e::D:;to;:::D=P..;;ia:::;D:;t..:;S;;.it:::e:..... __
.. /. .' .~"\"!01"/ i' .' .,.,"'.r.. , .... ~/'
/ / ... :~ '.. ,,:' .' :{ .. / .J .:~:~ ) .. : ":,; ,.. .>'~ ..... '1.., ..
E(:on6)lllc'benefi¢ tQ'the ,qi:j' of R,entO;{ o~ire-developing 46 acres of the Boeing
Renton, Washl!).iton.planf' si~Jollow! DerivatIon of these benefit estnnates IS based
on a set·bf,reailstI~'ass.u\nPb~ tlJ,alqt}ir~si)(lDd to development of 451,000 square
feet of retail big/l1ledlU1n boxo'spa~ and IlJi,oOO square feet o( retcu/ shop space. :< ... / .. :., .J / .;'" .... ,. ''''+''~'' 1"; •... :.~.
J> At full abs~~bOl('of Jheabo~' 56"1,000 ;;Ware f~tiof retail space on a
redeveloped POrIJoll})fthe.Bo¢t$"Rel}tOD:;plani si~i)~'is estnnated that 2,197
pennanent Jobs would' be .¢reated .throughoutt¥ ~gion:
...• ' ":";~' :':' :.;' /.~ ,.( .",. ""h •. ,,;,. ~'~.
>.'qfthis total, a projected 1,132 dij'ectjobS'')yOuld beiCre#ted at the:largeted 44-
" . acre ~oeing Renton site plus 266 additI~~ ·iiulirect jObs"wit!un':the City,{,r
, Rentdn, assuming a 2S percent capture ·me.,.: : .,' """" ... ' . ' ,/ ,..
/~J,.;:::.. :.~ t ... ;: .. J:' ./ :' ... -.~ .. ~: /: .J.' :: ... 1"
0' " ~: It is estimated that these 1,398 drrect and mdirecf10bllillthe ¢ityi~f ~nton
i ~ would ~enerate an additional $45.4 million in recuititJ.g 19lIlual' 'iIleome earned
.... ' .. inside(the .C~~ once full occupancy of this new retail. !;pace. bccurs at the
,i ·'· .. ·Boei!lg.,Rentol'iplant SIte " .. : .. : "
s '., " ,... .,., . ·i~.. j'
,
,' ..
" J> rh~ iorr~'~il(li1'!~ zncrease in property values by redeveloping'thls 46-acre
',., -"'Pot1lon6f thi ReJlto;ll'BOeing site mto retail uses is forecast to total nearly $66
nuI!)on Ue9il co~pi~o~ .. in 2099
":',\ ./t :/ , .... '.). _',: :.::' "j. '.
J> The increas.~·in :annri'ally re,*rring tax revenues to the City of Renton at full
build-o~i'is estifuateli at over $1~5 n.llllioi ~ in 2009,
~\. ':1 .... >· ••• :.: .• ~. ,.'/ ,,:[ .~ •. ~': :;. '; .'
)0 This is m adcbtiCittto (lyer$1.2mtllion iii ane-time.City revenues collected
during land redevelopment ilnd the C()Dsm,lction of 56 1;000 square feet of retail
space on a part of the Boemg Renton 'pilliit ~ during the.20()4,.2008 period ", ,.. ; . .r··' .'
." ''',,' .1
. r .. ~ .
': ...... ,
.' ... ,t .t··.:.''-·: ...•
. ",.
.... <'.'.' .• ', .. : ,~' . :'
'. . "
.,'
'.
.~: .: ) J '/ ,~,., . "": '. ,,~"
.••. .(':-'w
" .... :/~.
'.: . ", .•.. ~:.... . . ' :,' .... '. ~:
:.\. .?'. ::.
11113/0) 1/EAL1!ST.nr;ecoNOMlCS ..
TbedllaanclcllcuJabOnS pteSClrtod herem wlule IlOt panmtccd. an: obWnmfromsowcesdemDed relaable ';' .... " ... ' ./ .:r :.'"
.. .'
~" ..... " .. ~.:~.
\-It:) ~ .
.. ' /" (,:.', ..... ',. ,f,' .J:
" /0,) .'
"
,
PERMANENT JOBS CREATED IN 2009
o 0+-::"---
WrthOut Project
~~~ ______ ~~~~~~~»L~+-~~~ __ ~,
l!! $40.0' t-----"":,--:! ~. o ,
0$30.0
'0'
~'$20.0,." '~. -f---';;'-o '
.;~ $111:0 -j-,-:--+---i
'" , .. " .. ,,-_.-"
o
Without Project
$1,800 ,---l,~~----J~~ID~~~!Q~T~A~X1R~EV~E!!N~U~ES~ ____ _
l!! $1,Il00 f----"'''''''',..L--,<-''''---''-...;-7---:'--::-::=--=,...--==---,,=--=:-
.!! $1,4DO
8 $1,200 +------...:.",.---r-'-----~
'0 $1,000 t----------''''''''=-..-'-
-3 S800 t------------+--c ! $600 +-------,.,
o S8OO+-------~ ~ $200 +-----1
$0 +-----.....J
2003 '" ... . -"
j ..... ··r/····'· .. ·:?·
.~'
CURRENT ZONING SCENARIO
.;' {~.
REAL£irA.TE,k~;:' ,/
,.) , ,
" ... ~\j
., ,.
,,'
" .;,.
•
".,
.•..
'"
.'
':.
/.
",
. ... ' ... ~
.' ,.'
'.
" ,.'
,.
.' .. ' ..... \ \" '.,
"
2,500
f
."
1-+----
R-*"! 1Jn.n\1llttt Po-flMJd lV1SQ3
'"
Cha'"
...... ' '''1", ':,
.... ,,:~.).:.
';'"
" .: ~ I)':'
,,, .. -.,,/
NEW JOB ANNUAL INCOME IN 2009
$80
..... "
)'
"':" .'
".,~.:
','
n. .... ~,..... .. _ .. IIIII........" ... iMeflCII:GIIId ... _lI\IieIIdtotllt,...bIt'
"'''~.,
",
""", ",:
3115
.....
:: .<'
~:
~.:
.~ ... ,---'
.-". -:: '.':
'1;.,1"
," (
" 1
_r ';:-
"
" ... <: .
" : . .':.'. :>
",.,._ I"
", 'h _.,'-
':--". "
,:, ... ,
_.""',.
"',--;
" "
., ........ " ,~.
i~"/ :..'-
" ::'
;,~,
,;,~
....
,i
,'::
" /
"',
; .
•
:;
.' "
"',
.~ ,.1,1 '._ ... ,'
,.-'"
,,::
.. .'
.
" .I"
. '
.,-1'
,."\,
" . '.,
$10
-
,"'I"
.;'
:;1'"'1./
$211
., ....... ,
$30
NEW JOB CREATION
.~.
'~ . . ,
,~,
. ' .'
.. '
C',::
.'
··· . .2t12
.:
., .. '
"' .
,--;
: I'
-:'.'"
"
.. ',. -::, .,':
I, ,.
'.:.
"', .:'
.::.!,},"
'I ••• ~:'"
-,:
",.1" "
:""
'"
\,' ..... . .,.'
:: .....••.
"
.,' '.'
/ /' f;"",:.'
'~"lIf~ .::~:
....... ;.
'.
i;,:,
" y ',:, ..I
:~
./
~.,
• ,.i
.. ,.
=;. )' .. ; •....
.~.
. ,
"
: .. '
i·
•
., ....
".'
.,' ".
./
"
./
" ..
"
";' .
...
.J .' ' ... ·10,." ~ • ,.
.... I---""'---'--;'-'---f i "" 1----..:;.,.....>:.-"-1
.... I------,......;.,j.,
NEW RECURRING STATE REVENUES
. ,'
" ",
. ~.
,....UdIIIn........,..,w.JI "m,o) n. ... _ ......... ~'-"' ...... _~ .................. _~"'bi!relilbl&
,{ .. ~"' ..
" '.'
.. '
"::.
..... ,
";:1 ,;' , .. '
...
:.
/
.:, ..
.~
".: .. { , .
.~' :.
" ,
.;"
,
:~
., .
.',. -:: ,~
',~.,,:
:""
.........
';.
"
':::"" , •• t' .:. "...,..~ .: ..•.. " .. _~arA~
.' .' ..
'~.
~.
' .
.::
..... . i' .•.• 1'
"
.'. ~ .r',';
~~
•
. f
" " "
:,"
,;'
" f
'.~:
;' ,,'
" ,
" ,.,
....
::
land aroa-"ne!' acres
land """,-."or sq II
Percent
Percent
B~hng mulbpi •• , for
Bdlong muHlpltorfor
proparty deveJopmanl durallon:,
Relad-SogIMedBox .r
Gross squ .... feel of ralad spaoo .",
Load factor-l8lad space .'
6uddlll9 constrtJ<:tlOn cost /sq II -<eIaJIspecje·,. ,..
Sq II per employee -btg box _ ",'
_hales persq .-bog box ",tall
" .~'
':', ;(
'~::" ." ., .. '
Ftenton Urban V~AN xl, 11/13103
Assumptions
"",.
.,"",,' ;:
' .. -
j-,
_ .. '
J ' I,
"
"', .. ,": \ "' .
. ,.'
"":,-., .. , .. ,,.,1
.,'
"
$
$
,'-"'.:.
",'
.,'
65,996,257 Irltoo 'IV estimates
10 U'1oI""=
.-',
;1" • ".~
"'''-~.,
", .,'
.. ;
" ,; ,
.' ~
::.
-:"
"-"';"
-':'-..
.. ':.
-:: '~,
;. '1:./
......
... :.~/' "
',,, ..... ..""".
,,'
" :' .... PoliO' ....
11-. dIta and c::aIctAebons pntHI'Md __ wtIIe nat ~ have been ootaIned from tIOtI'C8S beII8Yed 10 .. 1'BIIabIe REA/. ~TA11! /!CONOIfICS,'
: .... :. ,-)' /
,,:.
,'. .
.:' ,
i .... ; .. ,/···" .. ··"~!'
./
i~,"/
.~.
:~ .
. i' .',
.,:
r
,~ ,L
I' ,.'
.,.::., .....
•
....
......
,.
".,
;D"eQiJ~
. I",Wee! .l\1bs·
T~I~/'
'rACo~ . ;'
Dlrect'lncome,'
Indorect'lriCom~
Totallnoome :::"
I'-
{
( , .. ,
';' .. ~ r .~.
PROPERlYVAlUE·~~S
TAX BASE INCREASES
Assessed Valuabon
Retad Sales
Real Estate Sales
Gross BUSIness ReceIpts
-' .'
.'
SELECTED REVENUE INCREASES
~~~=~iS;\~O and real estate)
$
.. '.:
=" ..
':. ",<"",~",
.".,.",.,
, .. " ;'.
. :' '., .
(
I."····· ... '.
.. :,: .... ,. ... ,
Summary
61
-' , .. " /
73
Not eppllcable
<. Not ap~h:~
:. ···.!'!1.578.oo0
.. .-'''--'''''::.:,-:~~:~
. :'
:: / :: t
.. :
... ,." .... ' .• ~'
:"'. . ..•
.~,>C· "' ..
,:': ..... :i.I •
.i :' ., .... '~., .. -
.' .;:-.,-
.. ,
'., ....
'.' .. '
'.
. ...
:
;' ('
: "
$
$
$
$
$
.' .. '
1.132
33.962,500
65.996.257
65.996.257
143.948.750
6.599.626
143,948.750
., .• , ····,··c: ...•
",'
" .: , .
..•.. ' .. , ':'. " r ':',
,:::, .. " .. ~,., .. : .:. ..~' .. ,./ Ron"'" U_ Vdoage.P-FIN >do 11113103
The data and caIcuIabcns praenlBd hereID YH& nell 0larwdMd have beta obtanl!d from SOIJJCeS ~ 10 be reliable REALESTA'I)!~'
':'. .'
'" .' '::~:
..... ,
,.
,""""'~'!' ,! .
.,./~'/ .. i ,..:
'::<;"" .. '
:.'."
';:"l!; .•
.r
·;,
:..
'.~,
"". "',
'Lancl!U~
. ..:.:." . '.,
.'
Retall-8og1M~ Box
" .' R.ta,..;:Shop,'Spaa! .... ,
'tOTAl. ' .,'
"
\ :.
.','
," . .. ,.' '~
.,' :1 .. ,; :r' ... ; ..... /
""'.
.-'
{
{
I' .,.,
" ...
. ~';"., .. ,. ""
BusIness ReceIpts
Net
Sgft
428,450
104,500
Retail Sal.$
persqft
$ 275
$ 250
532,950 .....
' .. , ,
.i'
,i :'
Annual
RetaUS.los
$ 117,823,750
$ 26,125,000
$143,948,750
:< .f
'. ,.~
" .f"' .... " .,'
".," ,,'
,
,J ' I,:.
.,'
Employment
,,'
."
714
418
1,132
Annual
Gross receipts
$ 117,823,750
$ 26,125,000
$143,948,750
{,."al"..,., ... ,,, .. ,:
," .. ,' i
,h ,,' '.'
, .. ,.""
'.:.
"
""""~",,
:;
"
.'
i ,. .'
,'1'
,.. I'
.' /
':. ,~
':, .... '
_ Urban ViIage-P-FINJd, 11113103
,"'-""'. ."
• h
...
/ ':.
':'"
.. ~:,: , .", .• ,t"·
:." .... "
.<.~;
, .. '~
".:,
i
'.' .' ., .-'~'.:;
... , .... :" .... '~;.'
(
.t:>···,·······.·
... , .....
" ::
:;
.;:
oj·, .. ',' .
,.""".,
.h·
i "
, . . ',
Tbt dati n caIctI1abcns pr9NI'II8d heteIn wtlBa nat guaranteed, Nve been obtained frOm. sources bellWed 10 be rehabJe
.::
.' .' .,'
,h'
;'
.. -',.
-:: '~:
'1:.,1'
. r .•......
'. "';'1j": .. , ....
" ....
: ....
'" ...
'," ,,~
:,' ••••• > t ~:
.. /f', .. / ........ ::;,.
;. ~' ..
....... ;
,:-.-,.'
,
/ ':"
.:' ....
,.:-"
.Y
.'."
" •
'.:
':(
"
, ,
. ..: , .. ' ....
'-.'
';. .:.
.•..
),.
.,'
"~I ,., •••• ;.".
'" ';.
" t
"
.. .-".,
.~"\., .,' '.;
i
""',.
"
,I'
... "
Re_UrbanV~IN>I,ll/1311l3
"
TaKbases
One-bme through
Land Develo men!
One-bme BUlldmg
Davel men! 2005 !hi'll 2008
i
;~.. ./
"'\<'
",
,: 1·"·-··' ~:
$29,322,857 $
12,882,759 $
$
•• 1 •
. ",~
",.,,"-:; I
'"
", ,~ .... "t"·'·
,,' ...........
", .....
",
,',
" . ~.
" " :' ....
"
, 'r~
"
.,~
97,742,857
61,578,000
88,420,000
,,' r ~' ,-"\" '.
"
,"
... , ... a llle , ....... ..
.....•. " ....... :~.
:.'
.~ ..•.
.".'
,: . .' ..... :.
,i
.' .'
"
,
"
" . "',:::
.....
,,'
/
.' ,: , ,
.' "
The data end cab"*", pnIS8IIIed henin'" noI~ ha\Ie: been obta.ned from SOl/fO(I$ w.ved" be ~
i:
o
$
$
$
$
.:.
\
,,'
'.: ,,'
~;
., .. , .,'
.,'
"
""
I at 2009
65,996,257
6,599,626
143,948,750
143,948,750
,,':
/
,.'
... : ....
-:: ':,
'I: \.'
;""
. ' ,-... :' '. .t .,:' , .'
:; .;::/ ..
',,,. "', . .. '" ....
" '"
..
" f • , ... '
. ("
"
•
/ .,'
, .
•
",'
.':
..... , ...
-:.
\.
::';""
./
./" ",
.'
~:
" ,,' r
:.;.' .~
\'0, _"."'
...•. ~. }
.:!, .. , .• " .• ",
....-UIbIn VUIag&-P-F1NJd.11113103
.':
,"
"
,
:~ " . -,,'
"<'
.'
i'
-"'-'''''' ..
. '
.,' ':',
:-' ..• /,_"
Assessed ValuabOn
'-)
....
.,'
"
" ,~., ... "
. '
."
.. '~
.' ,~,
'\-. ...... ' ..
",,-,_ .• -
/:" ".: .
" ::
,,'
, .. ,
" "
<'
The dataancl ~ pre:semed herelnwhi&llKll ~ bavebeenObtamed from SICM.IrOM beIIIWad 10M' ....
.,'
"
,
" .' ,-:'
, ...
.'
"
.,.,.
-::
'1,,1 r '~'.
-',,,. '-'.
.'
:. "
'" ./:,~ ""
:; .....•• ::
.,'
.f •• ,r .:0; Commercial
,~. I' .' f .'. I:., .• ,./
i!... -',., /
. ,} '~" '/ r
"1-, " 'I ,I -::",.""
.'
:;. ......
•
;.
> BId!!. Start Year 2005
"~1QIMed Box
.' RetBll-S1ioo Sna08.
.' TOTALS " '.
"
.J .", .,' ;', >' :: .,' :.
.... " " "
':. ,if . .'~. t
···~I ",,, ... ,,
"
. :.
':,
:,'
." .,'
.. ", , ,,' "':
'. ':.
,0' r
.t'
,'. ,"'-' ,.-.,
'".,., .• ,,-
New
JobslEmployees
,/
,r"""~
,~~
, .,
. '
.'
;~ ,-.' ... ~ •. ~\
.,
,
. ....•.
714
418
1.132
.: •••. , .••• \'~ ,'-,I' i i~ Ii .
_ Urban VIIag .. P-F1N xl, 11/13103
... ,
.:" ,t
';" .", .. "
.,'
'. ",'
~'.
SqFt Per
Employee
f
.f ... ;
"
600
250
,.,J ' I,;:
.i
, .,',
'''' "\', ':... , " ..
...-
' .
-:'" "
-':,1
" .'
., ,::
Net
Safr
428.450
104500
532.950
.. '
" .'
,-"I ..
.,/ "'0'1
J \, .~~, "
~:' .. "'\ ...... ,,
.,' ..........• .' ",
....... : .... -.... -;:
.{
.'~:,.,:,:.'
Gross
Saff
451.000
110.000
561.000
,:'
:,'
:""
,;',J ....
. .... :i··-.','
...•... , .. . '
,'.
,/
,~,
-(. .':.
.' ,-:' . ' . ,
.' ~
.','
,;:
. '
~'.
"'.
,.-' .. '
,-':.
':, ',', '1;./
.= ';,.
::
:;
" ... t· ': . >
' . . ' .
",'
" '. "
.,' ..... ,.
,,:
.,. "'0 .,.' :' 1.'. 1./
lbe da1a and cab4aDons pn!IIented heretn wt* pot ~. have been obtained from sources bebeY8d to be rehabte REAL ESTATeECO,?",~
•...
,
;: i:
l''/
" ( ,.
"::.
:, ,"
' .
. <.;/
... ' ,r ,.-
•
" ....• ,
"
, .. ' "'\~\. :.
.. 1"'1;,/'
,~ ,.
" ". ,l,/" .. " ~ "-:: ,
"
}
"
" i
..
/
/
'!"
Jobs
,: ,,' ' ..
./ .. ' .. ' '" "', .~:
( .. ,., " ;; .,'
" ,.' ...... ,.-.
,.".-,.-."
" .,.' .:"
.';
Renton Urban Vilago-f'-FIN.>d, 11/13/03
~: ,,' ' .. "'.
J ,"
.,' .,'
.-" "
.f"'
.~':
~.
':1'''''-'''':
.:: .. ,
. ~,;.,-.-"." .'
...
"
Onetime Jobs
$
$
$
'$ J :, ./
'$,"
$
. :'
"
':;.,
i
.::'
,'""
" .•. .'
" ....
.. ~.".
1,431,418
65,000
2
572,567
572,567
1
9
':'.
'..: :'. " ....
$
$
$
$
S
}
. ...... , ........ ~ ..
'';:1
': ...
.~> ... "-. '.
.;: ....
" " , ,
. ~ .
".::'
,,' .....
.'.' ;i··· ".~ "
~: .
.' ",
,{ .: ::.
:" ;,;
, "
.. ;.
6,842,000
65,000
25
42
2,736,600
684,200
4
11
24,631,200
$49,000
20
251
12,315,600
3,078,900
4
,,'
"., ,,,
:""
'"
" .:-.... ", ':,' "
~:: ' . ", ... "':. ;, .... ,.' ..
?
.': •• ~.,.::, •• ~ • ""t ••••
.. ..'. ./ PagB1
lbedaSa Ed ~ ~ betmn"WN1e not guaranteed. have been obtainedi'om SOIIR* beIIaved to be-rellabSe REAl.ESTA.TE~
" .. ," ".:~:
. ;.
'.~
~: ," .;::. ... /
~.
\ .... " ,f
-I ... ,;,." .....
•
,
, .
•
.~.,
,/ .. '
'.
.': ::
;;
."
"'" .. ,,~.,-.
",;
., •• 1 ,.-
.,' ,
./"
':"
", ,; .:, ..... ,
"':": .,,-
:"'1.".
' .
, ,,"
,/' / .'
.: ..••
.. '
.' .'
Onetime Revenue
61,578,000
68,420.000
6_
0471%
' . . ,
;'1,
. ....
" .. '
'.-.......•
.......••• , ... y
,
-·1:, .'
':."
.' .".
."
.. ::: .•••
.'/
.'
.r -':r
:: .' .~.';.. .. -.. '. " "" 'h'"
.'
Renton U_ Vdloge.P--FlNJd, 11113/03
... ::
.,
;:
The data 8nd caIc:adabODs prefiIIfIMd 1'IefeIn .... not gu;nnleed. ha¥e been obtained from $OUIIlU beIIMd &D be rekabIe
,.'.'
,I"
...... ,~.
::
.. '
.'."
.. ' ..... .. ::
,,-..... "
,':' t
.' !
.... :.
-:: ':1
. ~. .':.,..
,{ ' .. " ::
',,,. '-'.
"::.
.,
" .
" ,,, ,,~
"<''''',-
...• .:. ;;
.'.~ ... ". _"/ .::' ~ 1 .. }
_-liSfA~NpIIICS .•. ·
.' ./
....
/·· .. "'· .. I~:·
i~l;·i ~
,-.,.\'
,(
::' "
I;.)
~. ,.:
<;;~
r:.:, .. ,.
"~'
,~\., ~\ ,:-,"
....
,
,,' .'
"
"
•
•
(
" "
,,'
~.
~: ,.;
... :: ....... ~
,/
./
" .. ;
. ....
" •
.'
. :.
"
-~ ~ .... '.'
"
........ ,
" "
,
" ~.'
,','
" 'WAS-
revenues
~,
" !l'iIesTox "
" " , B&o.T... ',' i
,ii ReaJ,~T~/'."'
TotAL i:: /
"
P!opo!1yTax"" "
Salos Tax i,' y'i
8&o.T.. '
_Esta\eT~ ,
'" TOTAL
Cllyor_
,..', ----'\. ~, Recumno revenuMI
: ..
,
.~ . .'
,"
. ;. .." """,'
.... , •. ,-... _,'
Prq..rtyTax
SatM.Tax
. '. S& O'T8X I!-eitat. Transfer
, _TaxIY,
," :;
/"
.. ,:
"
/ s " .r'
':' .. ,,,/
"" .. "
·::"1., ..... ··'
" ..-,"
.:" .r
Recumng Revenue
2009 2002M .........
Tax Base T .. _
$tl5,996.257 S3 SOOO
_"I "'1\1,. ~143.94B.750 650'"
$143,948,750 0471'"
" .. $6,599,625 1 28'110
" .' ..... ,
:.~ "
.. ',
"
,
.~
" 2009"" '~:"'r Tax east. /'" ;/ 2002
T",,_
i
.. ~
$14500
r',.t"'~ .. r:
,,'
;,'
o sci':,
; , I",
.. , •.•. ;,.; •.
2OC9 '", 2002 ,,'
Tax Base ', .. ,' Tax Rata;'
$85,996,25)' $3,3s04'
$143,948,750" ""..-",O8&l4
5143,948,750 O,fl.I"",'
$6,599,626 0 5'iJ'Jr, ,..-
1,398 S55 0<,',)
'"
"'; .~
"', :"" ....
. :' ..... ,..,.
. ... , ....
" .f
Renton U<ban ~ "" 11113J03
J:" ',,'.,
"
" "
"
" /.1.:
'"
,"
2009
Revo..-
5237",.,
S9,356,669
sm,999
$84475
$10,356,729
2009
,/"': , !,(:
$95,695
$0
$0
$0
",,'. $95,695
""';""t \'$22~.087'\
,,; .. "''':'''''1J';Z8.s6A .
" $9:
'.''''''$32,9Il8 "
'<. __ .. ~./ $76.812 ,/
$1,66'1;562',
.,'
"':, ;: ' ..
.',' ".,
., .•.. ~.
,,'
,t
~: , ..
,
"
.•..... ,.
-," .... .". ":"';:.
" :' . \'
",
" ,: .
, .
.' ~
,,'
.... ,
-:: 'I "~'/ ,,~ ';',
,'.' ., ...•
', ... "
i
.( "
~". ,~.
" , "
'1 • .'
,,'
, "
"""""
·'·;:l,,,,, .... '·' /. ;.':'~:1'
The data and ~ pneenled netesn while not: guaranteed, t'tave been obtamed from sources betewd 10 be reliable REAL EST"ctE EC,.ONoMlr:;S
.;. "
•
",.
.I·"""·''''!· " ' (,,:l .;'
./ .:.'
,{
"
',.
~""'-.--";-..• 'l-.......... ~ .•
..... ~.~ ,-. :.:: ....
.}~ '-'" ...• .I,-;~""-' ... :.,.-.... ,,_ .. c' -'~..,. ... ~
-..... "'.>--_ •••• --. .
.-. '.'
Boeing CPA· Estimated Cost for Water Infrastructure Improvemente
.: ,:; .. --'.-, "'-'--.
10116103 .. :.~ .. ~ .. ~" ....... -".--""'.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
,
Phase 1
Location
Park Ave N.
N. 8th St. extension
Logan Ave N.
1· Pressure reducing
stattOn at West HIli Pump
N. 10th Sl
Subtotal 1 to 4
'-". ~
' . ...... ,
From /J .---"''' .• _ to--..
Garden Ave N ./ :,-'--·N. 8th-S(-----"-...
Park Ave N ': '--. .logan-Ave ,N:}
N.8th"S!.-.-'._ ./ .iN 6th is!. \ -,-
~'"I~"v--·:·~ .. ::::-~-""-';',. ~'~'.~' ""..1
",-.... ,.
Park Ave N. ._,
'·-·-.-.C·,.':
-"-. Garden Ave N
">r
Phase 2
Logan Ava N.
N. 10th St
N.1OthSt
-';" ,-:-''-., ---",
,-:lv,"!-.• , -\. . .. -.•.• '_. ..~ }
)~ardiinAve N:'···----/N. Sth St -< Houser __ Way_. .
-.-.~:Par~Ave-N·_.
2 -Pressure redUcing
stations e(l'!tghlands
3·200 ft water ~tub8)o .. _/'·.
properttes,westof Log€i.n
'r
.....•..
"-.
'-"
Subtotal 6 ~b':tO ~_ --"" --__ _
,-, ,:.-'-..,. '-'-'-;;
-'-"'"
Garden Ave N.
Logan Ave N.
Length
--In ft.
2000
1300
1300
COSf~;t~~~~--" .>:'-.-
Cost with street street(restciratlon' /' --'.
r8storatlon\~ ---.---. .-.... _.:' _/
$ 500,000 .$--'-'''_. '459,500 . .-C
$ 325000 :.' $ --298 atir"-'-
$ 325:000\.$ (·"'·"2QS:675-.; ." '. . '.,
$ 200}lOO_$ ' .. _ 200.I)PO
650 $ 182;500 -' $ ""--149,338
$ 1.S12;500 -'$'"'--1,406;188
~'.
2700 $_.---
900 $-.
950 $
- -
.C •• ;.
-'
_$--'
.:. .. , '-' . "' .. , . " --. -.~~.,
' ..... ~.
675;000 $
-220,000 $.:--.
-237,506 $'
209'{JOP·00 $
620,325
206,775
218,263
200.000.00
\SOO ~< -"'_-\ 150,ifoo $ 137,S50
---.-.. --.. ::--$.-_ ... 1.!l81.500 $ 1.383.213 ......... -",-.-.'
ITotai 1.--to 10----.,,__ '--./ ',-\~.-$ -', 3,000;000$ H--2,789,400 I
'. ;'-. '-'~-.. ....... -":'. . ".'~. -". .., ... ;...-.-.. -----
Futuro.Resei'VQ.tr In R:fmnydale 320-zone ---'._ '-. $ •• ,-c" 5,000,000 $
'---._. •. .• // ., •• ,'.0;' .• ..,... ' •. _. ~ .• -.,
5,000,000
__ q;~';!~~!u'~;~~'~i~'i';:tchlng for 6 ft wide x aCthl~.a~~i,aitpa\~h ~~~ water,lIne trench wrthln streets
---,-.-where new water IIniis will be Installed -Asphalt cost eSbmated at $90ttoh _;
'.. . ..
"'-".,
..• ~~ .. ~ .. :.
Exhibit 6A
""'" .~
......... " ~-
~ .; ., .... -..... ' ... '.' '.~ .:~-~---
. ' ..
....
•
\
•
( .. .,'
I, \1
"'" "
. .. ,
i
\, .,' ,r
.',
·r ,
.'
• j
.< ;: ,
:', "':/ '.:
\
\\1
.~ "
;: ~ -_ .. -,'-....:----
" ,
i~.'/
" "
, ... " .... ~~~
\'" \1
•
.. : ,
,r
.. :, ........
.(
-...('
D CJ
" "
:,' ..... ' .
. ' i
~: ,
,:;:'
"" .... '.
Boeing CDmp. Plan Arntndmtnl
"f
*t=t:0 16
17
'":'"
"',
";'.
'.',.' ..
6 BOe • Boulevard of Champions (l.OtiBO A.ve)~ "' .
• Assume ROW 90'1..t.lmpervk!U.I.)O% landtctpl~g
• Assumed costl.lnciix;re permlttlng;-eRgJneenng, dllIgn. male!lall,
conatructlon,'and b1Sp&cqon of pipe. cbs. backflQ • ..eta
·A5sume full eroa'~~.calonl On'aII ..• treea .. '
":''':.'''
'. -..
:,'
'.~. '"'''' .', ,.':
'--"'.
,.'.,' .. \
" ..
. --'., . , ~
. ' .. '. '''.
....•
....• ,\
....• -. ..
;-
"",,".-.' .....
. ' .... ,.: . . ' ...... : ..•.
·c:·· :~,--,-, ..
,-
>,. •••• ---. ~'-"
',' .
~' .. ' •.•.•. ~ ,
-:",.", .. ' ',.' .,.~
,.' .,., .. , .... "1"""-~·-··-._.
,-;.. -' ...... ~~, .. , ..• .::-......
''''~'' .... , .•.
·:-c~~ .... -..,~~
.:: "'~"'~"
,
.. ~ ~.
•
"'''''''
"·'c ..•.•
.• ~:": .... .-.
, ..•.
Ji··· ' ... ."; ....
'.'::
''-, .
.•.. ' , .•....... , ...
-. ~""
. -. '~.,. ..•. '~
..... ~ .. , ..
,' ....
~"'"
....
f ,:f""'-;''''." .--
-.",.'
.... '_ . .. --:-:."
~ •• -<-... ~~ -,
-..... ~ .... -.~.
,.:;
'~; .
. -400
--
• • ...... !i!5D
1'00
,.".
~. '.~ .... -"
~-"'"
"j.
. ,:':' ,., ..... ~ ..•
....... " .. "' .• / .
-.7
<-
<.
c,
"
~-:"',
---" .. ~
.:.'.C'
. :", .•. '" "'.
~.~
~''''~.,~
.....
'",'
"'-'~,""
'.~, "'.
"".
,.". .. '·"c.
-,
c;.-, .~:.,
Exhibit 7C
"';,.
"'".:.'
til
~'. , •....
-.~.:~ .
. ~
..• , ....... ·0.
\
,.
.'.
""'.
'-"" . .•. . .••..
-:...~ .•....
BDemU 00mp Pin Amendment
Phase n Slonnwaler System Improvements -OpUon 8 -'-.
... -:.. .. ...... -:..
"'" ~''''''' ..•
. .•...
............
0' ;::
.~. "-'~ ... -~ '.
"-~ .....
..... ~ ' . ." .. ..,./?-# .......
'.,. -•.
~--...
'-,'
~.~. ~ •• ,-;.' : ','J.
.... -. ..•.. ~ .
',-,
"~. -~
··~.F ..... .,.::.:.
: .. --;'--"'~
-.~. ":",",--'
' ..
~
""" ""'.-, '.' .,\ .~~-. ........ -
~ ~" ..
~".';". "'--"", -.....• c· "" . . -',.,., ..•. --
:'.,
.... ~.-""', )" .•.•. .. -.... , ...• \.::: :;.:;:---.,-;
-"',
'.-, -............ . _ •....
.. ,
",:f'-.~:.-.-............ .
"'-".",..:::"
-:
. ..... ' .... ::-"
.;:.--.:
• .. _ .• _: .•••• f·
..•..... '-:', -. -.. ' ... " ....•. -';" .• ' •.
.• -~-
. -,,', --, .. ,",
.-; ......... .
-'''''.-.
-:.;:
'-'"
• 0',
'., .
"'~'.
.-,-
,'; . ,',' -", .' . .:. -'-""""-
Exhibit 75 .-
.•.•. .•. , ..... ":".' . .... ,"
-..
3.···· "'<~ .. ~".-.", ·f·-~· -.-.~
-.] ....... .. ;.-...",.:..-, ...... J-.. -~ •••. -..
-"":0.-'
....~~
":.., ... ,-~ ••• ( ··'··-·· .• o~
--•
....
,.::.
'~'.
"".
'\"'~~ •••• .,::"" ·.c ......
. '-"'):,
..•. ~ ..
BOIling eomp Plan Amflldmant
...... ~ ...... '~""" •. , ". .heM' _""Sye .... Im_.Op/Ion a
.. soc • Boulevard 01 ChampJont (logan Ave) .......
• Auume ROW IiKI% ImpeMaua, 10% r~1II -..... ~ •. ,.
• Amlmod ..... 1ncIud. pom*tJna,.,~ """",,,'~ , " constnIebon. and mlpecUon a.f-ppo. cbe. bacI<ftII. etC.. "" . .. . ....
• Auume hatf.wIdIh ~on BOC-' ..•.. ~~.. ~.
~arQuaJIlJFacdIdoM, ; ~ ".
..f-:'::'-:: =!.~~ Sttoh~~~ N)& P_~H (N 8th Sttol.opn) .sIZe 440' x 20' x1.2' " .' . C" •.• .'
.Fa~lIty#2A! N 1.0th 91 iarld'Gw"dsI"IAve N (!NofGardel:l A~ N)
·Treal/T1enl ~ «10th $t (Gf:rden:~v8 Hte-Patk"AVe N)
....•
, .
..•...... ~' .
....
:; .... ..•.
"', , ..... ./ \ ..
......
C',. ~"'.
...... ... . ....
'~'" :~ .'.-.'
..... ' .'.-"-...•.. '
..•. , < .....•.•. . .... -.
-....
······PhaeeJandi""'"" "'"
"'. ~ ..•.•. ~.: .. ~-.
. ...
• i"'~ • .... ~. "~ ...
..1'
~··.-'·1
,
-"'·.·t· ......•.•.. ~
".~
..... ~: .';,'
",
"
:,,,:' '" .~. . .•.... -... ~ '.~':
.•... ", . '-._.
.~.
...• ,
-".-..
• ••• "<.-•• '-".
c ...... -COIt!SMI
1.
11 .,".,.
2-4
.......
'~ ... ,
..
.'
"-'.-~
'i:."'"
. .... -. ..
-~ . . '.~
.J
., ·.·'.-oF
~. -''''' ..
"~"" ''-" ...••.
".
"'"10'.7.. "" .
" ....... ".,
.' .~
'.'
.. ..
46 ....
. , .......... ,
.-.,=~ ... " .. "", .. :,---:"
.. $'" '~/"~'.~::; .. :' J. ..•. l.
·c·,
*: "'"
."-' .•...... -
......
. :-'
" . . ...... .'\-..--. ...... ::.'
•... .' -.,.
" . ,;. .'.
-.". ..
...., . :'-..
.~ ..
.... ~, ... :~ .
.... : •.. ..>"'-'
1" .~~~:: '-.. -._.~~ ............ ,.. .• :.
-.. ,'.-
.-~.:; .••. ,",,'
-." ...•.. ~.-.c·
Exhibit 7A
'-. .....
i' ....•
~ ,I
~ ...
" .. '
,
,
,
r " r-+-----------------...,
.,;
.t'
," ~. 5-~DO' ~BS." ,
i FROM t.OGAN ", '. ;: rOTH!! wesT '
AT $211,Qbo EACH
TOTAi.. $lpU,OPO
:'. .'. .
// ..... "::, ,~.',' ,:~' ~
; I 3.100 LF OF,: 12" .' , "" ,
II @ $250 Pill' FOOT", " "
.' i!,,.,·... TOTAL = $25(1,009 i .... ,.i ,"', ".\
/ ... ,J /" "',. , I . ,. ',~,
': f':, ~ EXISTING KING CO, ::; "1", ,.' ./' /.' ".;.\,.1" ..... ":., j/ /
';," EASTSIDEINTERCEPTOR:"" .' 1,"'1"., " /" .!i'
..... ~/ t:t"'~~~ !~~4. 1200 LF OF 12" ',i ;~\~ .... ,' , .... 211' J 20' I'" @ $250 PER FOOT .' J ~~L = $300,000
'I~ ".
11 .... ",' . / ~ .'
'1:( /,i"'/,,,
'>-H:",,::.~l',.',,/:i ... ~,'f' ''',
i' .'
"
" .. '
.;. i " .... \",.""'
o
.H· :; " .' , ... .,'
'" ';:, .'
·f' .r
" .. /
t ". 0'" 0 •
0 '" " '" .. ' " . • 0 ":r .k'; ,i-''-'-,..-,'u.,:-''''-'-'---'''''--IU..-'"'----'''''-'----'-'
~t;:~j~;F~f1 ' ,:'TOTAL COST
.' n •• ' '. 1. WEST; 5l1lf;G :;". • 100,000 ." .... , ..... ,
2, .• LOGANtpARKCONNECTOR c 125,000
3.;'N.l.oTI-I.",LOGAN,W-PARK = 250,000
~. N •. 8TH .'LQGAN TO PAJU: .. 300,000
S:GARO!;N R~ENT .:.... 39C,OOO
.. . ',". ..' $1,165,000
, ,""" OR $1.2 MIWON
""'"
PROPOSED BOEING CPA DEVEL.0PMENT AGREEMENT
SEWER EXTENSIONS" ,:,i .;",:;,: ; ",.,
\'.;: '. I', ",
EXHIBITS .. ; .. ' .. . : .. ,'
.(""
,,-
. ' \,.,
./ .,..
" ,
'.: . .-./
" .~.
;;.~ ..
./
.'. ~ .
t·····
"
('
• ,~
I:.~. .f
I • I
I , i
•
....•
t . .'
" " .
. ,' ,'-',.,-
,'-"',
.'
.: ...... , ..
_r
• " (
•
•
"".
,~,
t
. '" ,"
'",'
.<
.'
','.
. ' .. " , .... !r'
.T..!" '~ ...
j '.
,!.Nt VllJW -.. .~-...,
7 ' __ f .. 7 T
PROPOSED ARTERIAL RI<3Hl:S OF.
TO SUPPORT DISTRICT..'·1 .
\ . '
" , . , .
~ , \ ~~I •
\\ ' . \ \
'\ ~ , .. '
\-\" "', L '
" • f' ' \ .. \ '.
, t i'
I, \: " ',1
':':", .. :"
....
"". ,r : .< •
_u.
c::::::::::J ===:-110111 -=-.. -
@ --t --® __ ~
, I
"' .
,
.~
:.'
(r"''''''~~
\~./
,(
\ ... .'
{
.~.
~l<_.
l
." '" -~., .. ".
--'~ . .,. .... ,-.-"'.-.. "'. ""
.........
TYPICAL SECTION 1: PARK AvEN"iSE··N.ORTH
FROM PROPOSED LOQAN AVENUE TO NQRTH I1m··STREET······ ..
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIANlTr:I,RNING. LANE·>··..··
. -
""'''''. ~"'-::.-
...... "~-A'"~ , ... --:'-..
.-:'
J" ,
1.
'"'-..
••• ~#_-
~ ~'" -'~'"
.~ .... --" . . -: "''-''.
"EXHIBIT10A"'" . .. ., I·,·., ..
".-. -"-"'.,
-"', -' __ . ". __ ~ f : ""'.
"'-' .
..... .-.• ,-_. -'_c '_'"" __ • "." • ..
" ".
l.r ,
-' ....... .
-~, ..
".'=' ~''''.-,
7.: . ....... '.
. -. I 12' \ I d ~ • I n.-, I.. .--. ....", .. "'-) 1 r ~,r--+-.owt/ '-.. !!!O'-~. ~..!IQ:: ,.MMIHO I . '". , . PAPoaHo • --1UIIMt«I IMft
-.'". -..
..~ ..
......• -';0. : he '~"-....• -. , .,. .... ~ ......... --~ ....... .
'.". ~
0' --. , .. e' PARTIAII. BUILObuT· ... ·'· ".
(SAME AS~.FULt·-BylfuoPT)
-"'1.6" '._ .. _: 32'
r.": .•.•.•. , -..• : -•.•..• ,-~?ALE' l-"'l,e'"
~. "'. -.-.: .• -.': ", -.-.'--
"-:. .. "~ -.'.-. ~-::.-' '. I:·· .. ~:·· ... ··1jQI~/! .;
..••.. :.. ..c· '-,,·'SECTlONs ARE DRAWN IN ACC<Jf1DAt\I:;e WITH TI-E . <. KIf>I3 ob!JoiTY ROAD STAMJIRl8 AJ>C) TI-E CITY a:
" .. ':"""" FENFON S1f1EET STANJAFDS.
.....
.....
-".-~
.. ~~ .. • .... e ••
. ....... -.~-.
".' . .. ~ ROADWAY SECTIONS ARE ILLUSTRA TlI-E
• 1 \~ • .-
~
-:"
...... ,',' ~' .. .,..:.'
CImuIIInQ Engineers
KJI Slswwt SIr .... t SUIte 800
Seattle. WeSlllnQtoo 9BKJI
Il20W 382-0600 F8X Il20W 382-()5(}(}
V MJw:M3ER 200S
....... ':-:\ .. ,...--""'-----------------------------------_ .... .. , ..•. ----.-
::.--"'-: " .. --.~. . •....
~ '_~ .• _ . .::_ .• __ ..... ~. . r.~ "~';_
~"!:.
: .... ~ -,., .. ~ .. -:.
-~'-'1
,
' ...... i:
".~;:
• .-
TYPICAL SECTION 2: PARK AVENUE SOUTH
FROM NORTH 8TH STREET TO NORTH 6TH'STREET
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIAN/T'¥ININlltANIi.
\
..•.• ".
....
-'.'-.
-.. ~ ..
-' .. .. -
--.":: .,-:.-."
-,;"~ • .:.'--.-~ '"' .
"'-.-'.-
-~"'~.
. "':'
\ ~>-' •.
-'-".
' •.
c' EXH1Bi;~;UB".
'--. .-.,.
",,-........
....
-.: "". .. ~
~ .. -."" ", ".-.~ "'-.
.~ ..
," "'.~-. '-'-.. 1t IJISmt'NIX
.~IIIIINI',.. .... Y i.
"";
...•
"" . .....
,., .. ~ ......... '.',. ~ ...
1.:-'
:,."
/
~:
"'-. -.
.. : .... ;, ... , .
';".-.
-" .... ..... .; " ....
'-'0. 80 ",.\ 16' 32' I ; ,! 2 I
......
SCAlE 1-~6' .,-.. -: "' •. -." --....
,--'.-
<S I" NON' OF .. ';'Y _111 i: ,-.'
"'1.,
~--~
PARTlAC;~I~D~~~:'-·:';"(,:o.;'
(SAME AS '~utti ~rLDQUT)
....
:." '.,. ;: .... ·> ..... -.:~l£.s ARE DRAIm IN ACXXJFlDN'KJE W17H ~ .. ,
.--.,./ .. -.•..
'.~.
'. , .••... :.. .c' ' •.....• ' KIM3 ¢cum' flO,'D STAIDAFVS AIC TI-f: CITY a:
". ''-; F/8ffCX'I8mEET STNCAR08.
.... ......
,.-...... . ..... -.-"""" ..... ".
AU. ROADWAY SEOT/C1'IS ARE IU.USTRAnw:. .~.
'~"'.-
"' .
. ...... :.;-. ~:>.
..", ...... , ... .,:-_.. '-. ·~··".i·~· .... ~ ~"" .. ,
-............ ...•• ):.
...... , .•. ~ •.. ; .• ,
~
·'·····,·i
.f
........
,
;,;.""
'<'-'-"
_~_ CXXrsuIt~Eng/n8frS
KJI S/eWIrt Sl18et SUIte 800
&lottie. WashIngton 98KJI
I2tJ6) sse-oeoo Fax I2tJ6) 3S2-{)5(}()
KJI\OVEM3ER 2003
• • --.-.-~-'
,,,:,.
'.~.' . •
.•..
<',
:. ".
.-.. ,
TYPICAL SECTION 3: LOGAN AVENUE NORTH
.'.' '~'-
2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A TURNING LAtiE '.
of
,'.0 •.
-'"'-. .....
\
."
.... -." .,
.... ? ', ... ~'~ ,-
.-.'
.... 'co '~'. -)~
.-' .. ' '"''''
~.
.:.-., .. ,-. '~-"--
'"',. -~-.
'. ~.J'j' ~;*< ....... '~
',~ {{~.~:~~=
1\ = ""_=..,.,-__ "./ [ 1='_'=-_ '-_
....-'._ ••• .:c
"".-. :.-.c'-· " '\
..
'-',
-'"
"''' •.
-.".
'.' .... :':"',-,
-"'" ".
'.;.Y
~ ""'r ,'. " ".-.'
./
C:.
-."" .. -..
F
i f'::''''~''''''-'"'. "' ••
""r,
eXHIB1~~lO(L
-.~.~___ """ ',,'1.
' ..
-. ...-_-.----~ ,;
.:." : .~. .'
. "--.-" -'. -. -0. '._ '.'
'. ". ".,"-'-.. "_.
-""", --'. ~
"",
•.. --...... . '--.-'-~" .' ~
-/ \.':
~.
·,····'()-:·'l t y ! .. . ..
PARTIAL··eUtLDou:T'·J·· .. ,
TO SUPPo~r SU~Dt~lRict'1f:> t·, <) t.) :,
'~--' ..
.... ~-.-.,' '""" ·····':.i./Cfte~:~: ~ A~ WITH M
'-.,
'. :::.~.-'t:Jlr~~~ ND '&E CITY a:
."'"
"'-".
...... ,.-.... -
ALl ROADWAY SEC7'ICWS HIE IlI.USTRA T1'IE
':..>-.-:"
.'.
o.
."' ......•..
-'-
'''''' . .,.
-~ '~".
',,~
.'.~ .;::.-."
;-
"" ......
-"-, ,., •. .,.,..-
;;-
___ ColsuIIIIlg GlgTneers
t)t 8t8wt1ft Street SlAw 800
Sealfle. Wa."hlgt"" 98tJI
120& 382-0800 Fax 12001 382-Q500
VI\OYaeER 2000
. ... '----:"----------------------------------,..j
.. _~.;.._ •• -'0 ~ ...
"""~-''---.;_ .... -. , .... ~.-... ::-.~ ......... -.
, . ~ -,
--~;-
-..... .. '
-"'-~""':
....... ·'~·~.f:'· .. -.. ,,-i
'.".-
"-..
-,"_.'."
-".-
',.,""
~ .. ,. " ....
0" ~"" .... _ .•
III .---.~-':<
.J"
.-,: ............ . • ".-,
. ....
"
J .. ~_.
.~ ..
-. ..-:.. .....
... .-.. TYPICAL SECTION 5: NORTH STHS.TREET
2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIANITURNING:LANE ".
EXi-iiaIT.1"oD-
"." '"''-M
o
_. .. '., .... -.'
", -~~
--.
.'.
'. '.~.
•.•..
'-'-'-.
"., ..• " •..•...•. ;
. ..•..
.:.-.
...•.
....•
'" "-..
", <. ..... '., . .... . . '.-.
"'-.
". -. "J ••••
:;:.:-. ' ~.:., ,.' "'-'~..-.
..... ~ .. -
•...
,-.• -.
;"." "';-' ..
~-. ,;.. "v~~'~ jt i'·'-'·"··"-,.,. i~"7l:!.t'.···" .. ) "_ _ ... ". ~, ~ """""-'.' "
. "''''\ .'" ............. l \:0=1'"
.' I, ~'I_ . • / .. 11
. '" ". {\ fF'ijy.. . . '.' ',' t· .•... , . ==] i I .'_. ~ 1 I _', _ -= :::::::::: _ '~I -.1 le:~-, -'. . --,
" ... ,""/ """"'. "'" '.
"',.
11' I ":-, tI 1
·lII.i.fno--.l.-TI'IAm~ _ -," ...... ""'" -",,5',
-mas-·'IIII'*4I!ATU -"-"~'
. rSlKWAU<r,..·
V'Illme9
,.--.... ~ .. ~
,
'-~.-
".
'L.,,_,·
~~""' .....
.. -~-. -( ....... -.... ,
.' ,
"',-, "'-''-' ....
,;.d. •. ~_ ...... •... -,
+: .... ~,
'-.
u.~ -M.ritt II:OAtnf'AY CO!f1'1'II!I.IC 45.~ ..... -~AOW~~ ••. ~
••.• fOiMlf"llCJl!tUlS'llllJr,l ~~ '. 1111 -.,_... .~ •
'-' .. ---'.,-,,>:;.,.
.. '
~ ~,
.-.
711 ..... '" WAY -'J_.~_ ._"' ._.;:
;" .
. ..• '.
PARTIAL;.8UIL{)PUT.'-:.::~_>' /""'"
TO SUPPORTtSUBDISTRICT 1B~'<·e':':: .,.' . '-.. ...... .,:. ! .:_\ .~
. ~--.~., .
-:".'.~
., .••. ,
---....
SCALE 1"11116"'·· .... ~-
-.:'" ... ~ -', ... , ...•.... .>'" COOsu/I/ng EnoItltletS
J)/ 81ewart Street SUIte 800 . :~
-.", ",'.'
'. ",:.~
.....•.
. ,
.•..
"-,,~ ~ . ~"-"."'.-
"'~' ......... ~ •. -' '-c"~P •••
:-,'
-., .
"':0:-..... "'1
-~.'
'CO,_ •• .... :"; ~
'-.....• " secTIOM3 ARE DRAWN IN ACCORCJAM::;E WITH 7H;
. Ktt.G ca.MY ROAD STAH:JAFlJS IKJ 11-£ CITY OF --' ..... i'lENToN STREET STA/'CWiD$.
ALL ROADWAY S€CT/Cn3 ARE If.LUSTRATIVE
::.~ .-
': • .., •••• ". ••. ;.:-........ 0-', •. \~~
~--. .-.--;.,-.-
--.......... .
-. "'--.-. ........
Soallle, WasIJIrw/On 98J)/
12061 3B2-06OO Fax C206J SSZ-0500
.... ""'.J,.-. ___ ... V 1IOVEM3SR aw
;
'"
"~-
\ ..... .,. ... ~-... . ••.•..
• fit
5-:
"
,~--::: .,'.
,5-'
~" ..
··~·r.
---
.,': "'~'. " ....... .,..,.:.-
EXHIBIT 'lOE."·~,_,
,'. '.,.' . TYPICAL SECTION 7: NORTH 10Tff'STREET
"".,
.:.'
'.
2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIAN/TURNII)1G LA~6 .•
. ,.
....... , r •• ,. "':".".
~,". "'."
..IiI··'-· 1> )'--" -. . ...... :~ A: _.~--__ .,
... \ ;!i. ".. /
''''.
,
.••..
.~~
-'.
}
""' .
.~ .
'0',,,
,"'-'-.~
. .•.
~".,-r·
._' ....... ".'
'"",. -~-'~"'~r,_, .-~
, ""'-
~ ~>, . >"',
".. ~ &] ll¥r',.> > · ·]1.<: .... ,> Il =-""~ ", >---·-'--~l -'-_-= =1 i k L-.J tr-.::...-:-
....•.....
..•....
'.~:
"".'
-..... .
'-,
'-"~.
" .. ~. :
-"".
"\
of
.... ,
:...
~ ~ , ,
\:" .....
.. ~" ;.::
-. " M!OIAIt/
"""""'-""
w ~J '1" _., ~-l
'TRAme • II'.Q"TlC j-/"~"
lNIE .1.AH1! ... ' . "':
;..
.. :.' , "'.
'~'-fVMI[ 1IO...o'fI"1' ~ ·-u's -fUWl ...... Y~CrI(lII '.;; I
'1""' ~ ltIIlUPI'CI\:TCllJItIC12 WIIGM'I~IIMT f. TO-r~".~~ """ .-.............. ::.-.-.
. ~
-.~ .... : ,', ~ . ..:..: .. ' . . ,'.
<.
"'r •..
PARTIAj,.-BUiLoout '--'"''
TO SUPPORt SUBDISJBi-bT':tf~}
• '_' • '. '. L '. ,.' ~ . ..... : .. . .:.'
t 7 •• ; _........ . .... ·-·.-9~ __ ·'·-•. --~' 1.6: .. ': 3(.' ..... '.,.
-'. : .. '
.,'"
-.
. .... , :.'"''
'," .. "
SCAlE 1".16'
·'··-· ..... :---:·'.-/·,~~:WW -'; ",
..... ,., --
,'.-.. ,.: .. ~-,,,,, Cot1su/tlnO ~etS r» Stewart Street. Suite 800
.;:; SEOTI(X>(S ARE DRAWN IN ACCOROMCE WITH TI£
'. -' ..•.. :-·--._~ING·-W.mY ROAD STAIDAROS AID TI-E CITY OF
.... FefTON STREET ST.wJAFVS ...•. . .... \> ,Ail. ROADWAY SEOTIaoIS ARE IU.U8TRA TlVE
'0 • . -...•.•. , .. -
' .•....
............ .•...
'"'-', ".,
........
""."",:"'
Seattle. Wash/ngkln gar»
(2061 382-0600 Fax C200I 382-0500
10 NO\JEMSER 2003
""""'7 ,. '.
'".~;.
.. ~"!:.
···.r····:.-·"'7:·~·
-....... ..., .. ,
~
". --"'c'~
"' ..
. .•.
~:.-'."
"'r_
". '~'.
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE:
CITY OF RENTON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
October 4,2004
Don Persson, President
City Council Members
{, &~MaYOr Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~
Economic Development, Neighborhoods,
and Strategic Planning Department
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON REDEVELOPMENT
APPROVALS
The City Council is asked to approve a new Conceptual Plan for the 46-acre surplus Boeing
property in South Lake Washington and, subsequently, review and approve a Planned Action
for the proposed lifestyle retail center proposed by the developer, Center Oak Properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
• Approve the proposed Conceptual Plan and Planned Action.
• Schedule a public hearing for review of the Planned Action to be held October 25,
2004.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
In December 2003, the City Council adopted a development agreement with The Boeing
Company which requires approval of a conceptual plan prior to sale of any surplus property
that may be made available at its manufacturing facility in the South Lake Washington area.
The conceptual plan will be used as the basis for all future land use approvals for each
property.
As a part of the adopted development agreement, the Council approved a conceptual plan for
redevelopment of 46-acres of property described as Subdistrict IA. However, Boeing has
recently selected a developer for this property, Center Oak Properties of Gresham, OR. The
October 4, 2004
Page 2
proposed Center Oak development project differs from the originally adopted conceptual plan
and Council review and approval is required.
Additionally, Center Oak is requesting adoption of a Planned Action for its project. Under
SEPA, local jurisdictions are allowed to adopt a planned action if an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) has or will be completed. As a resul~, designating a planned action shifts
environmental review of a project from the time a permit application is made to an earlier
phase in the planning process. In designating a planned action, projects are not required to
undergo additional SEPA/public notice requirements at the master and site plan review
stage(s), nor are there opportunities for project specific SEPA appeals. Since an EIS was
completed for the entire Boeing Renton Plant, sufficient environmental review has already
occurred, and a Planned Action can be adopted subsequent to the adoption of the Conceptual
Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Center Oak's proposed Conceptual Plan is a significant improvement over that which was
originally adopted in the 2003 Development Agreement. Approving this Conceptual Plan will
provide the City with certainty related to key factors related to the proposed development
(e.g. square footage, road network, mix of uses, etc). Further, approval ofa Planned Action
at this stage will eliminate unnecessary process and time as significant environmenta1 review
has already been conducted on this site.
ce: Jay Covington
Gregg Zinunennan
Neil WaIlS
laaon JordaD
•
October II, 2004
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE
PROCLAMATION
IKEA Week -October 17 to
23,2004
Arts and Humanities Month -
October, 2004
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Transportation: Traffic
Calming
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting.
MINUTES
Council Chambers
Renton City Hall
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council
to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
DON PERSSON, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; DENIS LAW; DAN
CLAWSON; TONI NELSON; RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BY LAW,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT
COUNCILWOMAN TERRI BRIERE. CARRIED.
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief
Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE
WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, PlanninglBuilding/Public
Works Administrator; SANDRA MEYER, Transportation Systems Director;
BOB CA V ANA UGH, Civil Engineer ill; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic
Development Administrator; REBECCA LIND, Planner Manager; DEREK
TODD, Assistant to the CAO; CHIEF LEE WHEELER, DEPUTY CHIEF
LARRY RUDY, FIRE MARSHAIJBATTALION CHIEF STAN ENGLER,
Fire Department; COMMANDER KATHLEEN MCCLINCY, Police
Department.
A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the week of
October 17 to 23, 2004, to be "IKEA Week" in the City of Renton and
encouraging all citizens to join in showing their support for IKEA, a
community partner in every sense of the teno. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED.
A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the month of
October, 2004, to be "Arts and Humanities Month" in the City of Renton and
encouraging all citizens to join in this special observance, as the arts and
humanities enhance and enrich the lives of all Americans. MOVED BY LA W,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION
AS READ. CARRIED. Municipal Arts Commission Chairman Michael
OHalloran accepted the proclamation, thanking the City and various
community organizations for their support of the arts in Renton.
Bob Cavanaugh, Civil Engineer III, presented a report on traffic calming.
Stating that neighborhood traffic control is a complex and controversial subject,
he pointed out that strategies for neighborhood traffic programs should include
education, enforcement, and engineering. He explained that a two-tiered
approach is used for traffic control. Tier lemploys signing, striping,
neighborhood involvement, driver education, and enforcement; and the tools
used include: speed radar trailer, signing, pavement markings, rumble strips,
neighborhood speed watch programs, and target enforcement.
Mr. Cavanaugh further explained that Tier 2 employs roadway modifications,
or traffic calming, which is a combination of mainly physical measures that
reduce the negati ve effects of motor vehicle use. Tier 2 measures are exercised
after Tier I measures are completed, and they are approached as follows: the
nature and extent of the traffic-related problem is identified, a cost-effective
measure is selected and implemented, and adverse affects to adjacent areas are
October 11,2004
•
Renton City Council Minutes Page 344
addressed and limited, He reported that the tools used for Tier 2 traffic control
include: chokers, forced tum channelization, chicanes, speed humps and
pillows, traffic circles, and medians.
Continuing, Mr. Cavanaugh reviewed issues that need to be considered when
addressing traffic control. They are emergency response and other agency
concerns; program options such as reactive or proactive, or spot or area-wide
treatments; warrants and guidelines; project priority rating systems; public
involvement; and cost. Additionally. he reviewed other area agency traffic
control programs. Mr. Cavanaugh pointed out that the City of Renton uses Tier
1 methods to address neighborhood traffic concerns. and Tier 2 methods have
not been utilized due to the Fire Department's emergency response concerns.
Mr. Cavanaugh then reviewed Renton's approach and recommendations for
neighborhood traffic control. The recommended list developed for Tier 1
treatments include signage, channelization. police visibility, speed trailer/reader
boards. and rumble strips. Tier 2 recommended treatments include curb
extensions. curb radius reduction. raised crosswalks, raised intersections, speed
tables. speed pillows, chicanes. and entryways/gateways. Traffic circles and
speed humps are to be used only as a last resort. He also listed the measures
not recommended such as street closures. speed bumps, stop signs, and zero
tolerance. Mr. Cavanaugh reported that a traffic calming process was
developed to address citizen requests for traffic control measures.
Transportation Systems Director Sandra Meyer added that meetings of the
Street Widths Committee, at which traffic calming was discussed, were
suspended in late 2002 due to a number of factors. She noted that it is clear
from the rising interest level expressed by residents that the time has come to
resume the City'S evaluation and implementation of certain aspects of traffic
calming.
Responding to Councilwomen Nelson's inquiry. Council President Persson
stated that there is a rumble strip located at the entrance to the City on Lake
Washington Blvd., which he pointed out was a good application. However, he
noted that the noise produced by rumble strips may be problematic if located
close to a house.
Councilwoman Palmer commented that it is important neighbors agree to the
installation of devices such as speed bumps. Ms. Meyer stated that the impact
of a speed bump installation on surrounding streets must also be evaluated. She
reported that some area agencies use a temporary speed bump in order to
determine whether that traffic calming measure is a satisfactory solution for a
neighborhood, and some install permanent radar signs. Ms. Palmer noted the
costs of traffic calming measures, pointing out that neighborhoods may have to
help with the funding.
At the request of Councilman Clawson, Deputy Fire Chief Larry Rude reviewed
the effects that speed bumps and humps have on emergency vehicles and on the
patients that are being transported. He stated that studies have shown that these
traffic-calming measures delay response times, and cause emergency response
vehicle's maintenance costs to increase.
Councilwoman Nelson noted that she has observed cars driving around speed
bumps in a shopping area; and stated that once installed, not very many people
would be happy with them.
,
,
October II, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning: 2004 Comp Plan
Update Implementation,
Development Regulations
Amendments
Renton City Council Minutes Page 345
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington assured that the Administration is
concerned about ways to reduce traffic speeds, and will continue to investigate
other alternatives that slow down traffic.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Development
Regulations (Title N) implementing the 2004 Comprehensive Plan.
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Administrator, stated that the State
Growth Management Act mandates an update to the City's Comprehensive
Plan. He explained that a number of associated zoning code amendments are
required to implement the policies that are being changed in the Comprehensi ve
Plan. Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, reviewed the proposed changes, as
follows:
-Revise the zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
-Revise the purpose and intent of zones.
-Revise lot and density standards to implement new quality design and infill
policies.
-Add new R-4 zone.
-Add new landscape standards.
-Revise the commercial zones by eliminating Center Suburban and Center
Neighborhood, and renaming Center Office Residential and Convenience
Commercial to Commercial Office Residential and Commercial Neighborhood.
-Revise the multi-family suffixes by eliminating Residential Multi-Family
Suburban Center and Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center, and
renaming Residential Multi-Family Infill to Residential Multi-Family.
-Add use restrictions in the Airport Influence Area.
Ms. Lind detailed the revisions to the new R-4 zone, including:
-Allow vesting of projects with complete applications for plat prior to
1115/2004.
-Allow vesting for annexations certified by King County at 60% Direct
Petition stage.
-Require development of vested lots within five years to retain vested
standards.
-Allow flexible lot size, lot width, and depth to ensure that future plats achieve
four dwelling units per net acre.
-Allow lot clusters within 600 feet of an R-8 zone; 30% of the site area must
be in contiguous open space, and the reviewing official may reduce the open
space requirement to 20% if certain conditions exist.
-Require landscaping for arterial and non-arterial street rights-of-way, and
require street tree planting. (The Planning Commission recommended
extending these landscaping provisions to the R-8 zone.)
-Incorporate architectural criteria specified for development in aggregated lots.
-Require all development to have facade modulation.
Ms. Lind indicated that cross-references will be inserted within certain zoning
sections that incorporate specific references to the Comprehensive Plan. This
will facilitate zoning interpretations more consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies.
October II. 2004
•
•
Renton City Council Minutes Page 346
Continuing with the new landscape standards. Ms. Lind stated that the
standards apply to all new development when a pennit, approval, or review is
required; apply to all changes of use; apply to structural changes comprising
20% or more of the original gross square footage of structure; and exempt
single-family residential pennits when not a part of a subdivision. She
reviewed the general landscaping requirements, which include: landscaping
along all street frontages; minimum five-foot planting area for rear yards
abutting a street; underground irrigation systems for industrial, commercial and
multi-family development; and installation of landscaping prior to issuance of
an occupancy pennit. Ms. Lind noted that the landscape standards allow
flexibility for responding to the individual site conditions.
Ms. Lind then reviewed amendments related to connectivity and the street grid
system, as follows:
-Grid street pattern shall remain the predominant pattern.
-Linkages shall be provided to create a continuous street network.
-Grid may be adjusted by reducing the number of linkages or alignment
between roads when it is infeasible due to topographical/environmental
constraints, and when there are substantial existing improvements.
-Reasonable connections must be provided prior to the adoption of a complete
grid street pattern. such as street stubs to allow for future connectivity.
-Alley access is the preferred street pattern.
-Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configuration .
-Cul-de-sacs are permitted wben demonstrable physical constraints prohibit
future connections, and when future connection to a larger street system is not
possible.
Continuing, Ms. Lind noted the amendments related to private streets and lot
sizes. and the amendments to definitions such as "eating and drinking
establishments," "lots," and "setbacks." She also noted the addition of
definitions such as "fast food," "garden style apartments," "contiguous open
space," and "small lot clustered development."
In regards to the Commercial Neighborhood zone, Ms. Lind stated that a wider
variety of retail uses were added such as specialty markets and craft shops; that
fast food and the ability to add new gas stations were removed; and that
medical and dentist offices are allowed subject to the condition of 3.000 square
feet.
Lastly, Ms. Lind detailed the changes to the AutoMall area and the
Employment Area Valley, and reviewed the following corridor districts: NE
4th St. Corridor. Sunset Blvd. Corridor, Puget Corridor, and the Rainier Ave.
Corridor. She concluded that the Planning and Development Committee will
meet on October J 8th for final deliberations on this matter, and the related
ordinances will be presented for first reading at the October 18th Council
meeting.
Public comment was invited .
Brandy Reed, 335 Stevens Ave. SW, Renton, 98055, requested the following
modifications to the proposed SW Sunset Blvd. Rezone: 1) Exclude vehicle
fueling stations and accessory uses such as car washes and service/repair shops
from the allowed uses in the Commercial Neighborhood zone; 2) Apply the
character preservation design guidelme from the proposed Urban Center Design
Overlay Regulations to the Commercial Neighborhood zone, specifically the
October II, 2004
RECESS
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORT
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Citizen Comment: Petersen -
Confidentiality of Request for
Executi ve Session
Renton City Council Minutes Page 347
Earlington neighborhood, by limiting franchise architecture; and 3) Define
franchise architecture in the Development Regulations definitions.
Additionally, Ms. Reed requested that the Earlington neighborhood be listed for
sub-area planning at a future date.
Steven Beck, 4735 NE 4th St., Renton, 98059, asked Council to support the
vesting and grand fathering of R-5 zoning in the recently annexed Bales
Annexation area and for the Mosier Annexation area. Additionally, he stated
his support for the flexible setbacks and lot sizes in the new R-4 zone.
Rod Handly, 620 SW Sunset Blvd., Renton, 98055, requested Council's support
of the SW Sunset Blvd. Rezone. He stated that the modification made to the
rezone, however, limits developing the commercial strip in a better way.
David Smith, 624 SW Sunset Blvd., Renton, 98055, expressed his support for
the zoning change from R-8 to Commercial Neighborhood.
Helen Williams, 615 SW 3rd St., Renton, 98055, concurred with Ms. Reed's
comments, and thanked everyone for their hard work on this process. Ms.
Williams expressed her support for the SW Sunset Blvd. Rezone, and also for
the development of a plan for the Earlington neighborhood.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
In response to Council President Persson's inquiry, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler
stated that the Earlington neighborhood sub-area plan request, along with all the
other requests for sub-area plans, will be considered. Councilman Clawson
pointed out that a full sub-area plan may not be necessary for the Earlington
neighborhood, and perhaps some other course of action can be employed.
MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL RECESS
FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRlED. Time: 9:04 p.m.
The meeting was recon vened at 9:09 p.rn.; roll was called; all Councilmembers
present except Briere, previously excused.
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted
included:
* Free pumpkin painting, scarecrows, a farmers market, and entertainment
will set the stage for the third annual Harvest Festival at the Piazza, on
October 16th.
* On August 3rd, the Northwest Area Foundation approved a ten-year plan to
reduce poverty for the South King County area of Renton, Burien, SeaTac,
SkywaylWest Hill, and Tukwila. The foundation is expected to provide
$10.2 million in funding as well as technical assistance to help implement
the plan.
Inez Petersen, 3306 Lake Washington Blvd. N., #3, Renton, 98056, referred to
her letter dated 10/6/2004 and its addendum dated 10/9/2004 requesting an
executive session of the Council. She claimed that the content and substance of
her request for an executive session should have remained confidential, and
Council should have held an executive session to discuss her request.
•
•
,
October 11. 2004
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes of
October 4. 2004
EDNSP: HotellMotel Tax
Revenue Allocation to
Marketing Campaign. IKEA
10th Anniversary Promotion
EDNSP: IKEA Commercial
District Designation
Development Services:
Nicholson Short Plat. ROW
Dedication. NE 28th St
Plat: Brookefield II. NE 11 th
Ct & Hoquiam Ave NE. FP-
04-091
Police: Jail Bookings and Fees
Separate Consideration
Item S.d.
Planning: South Lake
Washington Redevelopment
Conceptual Plan and Planned
Action
Renton City Council Minutes Page 348
City Attorney Larry Warren pointed out that any materials delivered to the City
are public record unless they fall within one of the exceptions to the Public
Records Act.
Continuing. Ms. Petersen requested that Section 1-5-2 of City Code be changed
to clearly place the content and subjects of requests for executive session under
the same level of confidentiality as the executive session itself.
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing. At the request of the Administration. item 8.d. was removed for
separate consideration.
Approval of Council meeting minutes of October 4. 2004. Council concur.
Economic Development. Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
recommended approval of the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
recommendation to allocate up to an additional $12.000 of hotel/motel tax
revenues to the Renton Community Marketing Campaign for street banners and
other activities promoting IKEA's 10th Anniversary celebration. Council
concur.
Economic Development. Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
recommended approval to designate the area bordered by SW 43rd SI. on the
south. SW 41st St. on the north. East Valley Hwy. on the east. and Oakesdale
Ave. SW on the west as the IKEA Commercial District. Council concur (See
page 350 for resolution.)
Development Services Division recommended acceptance of the dedication of
816.70 square feet of additional right-of-way to widen NE 28th St. as required
by the Nicholson Short Plat (SHP-02-111). Council concur.
Development Services Division recommended approval. with conditions. of the
Brookefield II Final Plat; 16 single-family lots on 4.65 acres located at NE II th
Ct. and Hoquiam Ave. NE (FP-04-091). Council concur. (See page 350 for
resolution.)
Police Department recommended approval of the following: accept jail
bookings from other municipalities on a space-available basis; set the jail
booking fee at $64.83 per day per inmate; and prepare and present for adoption
the necessary legislation to implement the contracts as part of the 2005 budget
process. Refer to Public Safety Committee.
MOVED BY PERSSON. SECONDED BY CORMAN. COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 8. d. FOR
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED.
Economic Development. Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Deparnnent
submitted a Conceptual Plan for the 46-acre surplus Boeing property in South
Lake Washington proposed by developer Center Oak Properties. and a Planned
Action requested by Center Oak Properties for its project. Refer the
Conceptual Plan to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on lGl23.'2004
1118/2004 to consider the Planned Action.
MOVED BY PERSSON. SECONDED BY LAW. COUNCIL APPROVE
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM S.d. AS AMENDED TO CHANGE THE
PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO 1118/2004. CARRlED.
,
October 11, 2004
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Committee of the Whole
Policy: Council President &
Pro Tern (#800-01)
CAG: 04-119, Monster Rd
Bridge Repair, Mowat
Construction Company, Fund
Transfer
Planning & Development
Committee
Planning: Urban Center
Design Overlay Regulations,
2004 Revisions
Streets: Grocery Cart
Abandonment
Hearing Examiner: Concerns
•
re: Development Policies &
Implementation
Renton City Council Minutes Page 349
Council President Persson presented a Committee of the Whole report
regarding Council Policy and Procedure #800-01. The Committee has reviewed
Policy and Procedure #800-0 I, Council President and Pro Tern, and
recommended revising Section 6.1 to change the date for opening the floor to
nominations for electing a Council president and president pro tern for the
following year from the first regularly-scheduled City Council meeting in
December to the first regularly-scheduled City Council meeting in November.
The purpose of this change is to allow more time for determining Council
committee members and meeting times for the following year. The Committee
also recommended that the Council President be authorized to sign the revised
policy to implement this change. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY
CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Council President Persson presented a Committee of the Whole report
recommending concurrence in the recommendation of staff to approve the
transfer of $100,000 from the NE 3rdJ4th St. Corridor Study project budget and
$60,000 from the Rainier Ave. Corridor Study project budget to the Monster
Rd. Bridge Repair project budget, for a total transfer of $160,000. The total
estimated cost for the Monster Rd. Bridge Repair project is $672,000, to
include construction, inspection services, staff time, and contingency to
complete the project.
The Committee further recommended that the contract for the Monster Rd.
Bridge Repair project (CAG-04-119) be awarded to the low bidder, Mowat
Construction Company, in the amount of $449,800, and that the Mayor and
City Clerk be authorized to sign the contract MOVED BY PERSSON,
SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report
regarding revisions to the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations. The
Committee recommended concurrence with the staff recommendation to set the
public hearing regarding this matter on 10/2512004. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report
regarding abandoned shopping carts. The Committee met over the past several
months to discuss abandoned shopping carts, and to review draft ordinance
language. The Committee recommended that the required public hearing for
the proposed ordinance regarding this matter be set on 1111512004. MOVED
BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. *
City Attorney Warren clarified that the public hearing is not legally required.
Councilman Clawson stated his support for the public hearing.
*MOTION CARRIED.
Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report
regarding the Hearing Examiner concerns pertaining to development policies
and implementation. The Committee met to discuss this issue and
recommended that no action be taken at this time and the matter be closed.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNClL CONCUR IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
•
October 11, 2004
Utilities Committee
CAG: 00-104, Business
Recycling Program, Cascadia
Consulting Group
Finance Committee
Finance: Vouchers
Finance: Petty Cash Funds,
Total Limit Increase
RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Resolution #3719
EDNSP: IKEA Commercial
District Designation
Resolution #3720
Plat: Brookefield II, NE 11 th
a & Hoquiam Ave NE, FP-
04-091
Resolution #3721
Finance: Petty Cash Funds,
Total Limit Increase
NEW BUSINESS
Public Works: SW 7th SI
Construction
Policy: Street Name Changes
Renton City Council Minutes Page 350
Utilities Corrunittee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending
concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Addendum #4 to CAG-OO-
104, contract with Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., in the amount of $74,000
to continue the Business Recycling Program for 2004-2005 by revising the
scope of work, cost estimate, and schedule for the Business Assistance
Program. The Corrunittee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk
be authorized to execute the addendum. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMmEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
Finance Corrunittee Chair Corman presented a report recommending approval
of Claim Vouchers 230804 -231171 and two wire transfers totaling
$2,273,072.45; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 53736 -53974, one wire
transfer and 572 direct deposits totaling $1,812,438.50. MOVED BY
CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMmEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Finance Corrunittee Chair Corman presented a report recommended approval of
the resolution updating Resolution 2614, which authorizes early payment of
claims and petty cash funds. The update increases the possible total amount of
petty cash Citywide to $25,000, and removes the requirement that the Finance
Director be bonded since the City carries insurance on all public officials. The
Corrunittee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be
presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY
LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMmEE REPORT. CARRIED.
(See later this page for resolution.)
The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption:
A resolution was read designating the IKEA Commercial District; SW 43rd SI.
on the south, SW 41st St. on the north, East Valley Hwy. on the east. and
Oakesdale Ave. SWan the west. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY
PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
A resolution was read approving the Brookefield II Final Plat; approximately
4.65 acres located in the vicinity ofNE 11th Ct. and Hoquiam Ave. NE (FP-04-
091). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCil..
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
A resolution was read authorizing the Finance and Information Services
Department Administrator to make early payment of claims and authorizing
petty cash funds. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON. COUNCil..
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
Councilwoman Palmer inquired as to when the construction on SW 7th St. will
be completed. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler replied that the Administration will
investigate.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCn.. REFER
THE POLICY ON STREET NAME CHANGES TO THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMmEE. CARRIED.
October 11. 2004
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Citizen Comment: Egan -
Rumble Strips, Monster Rd
Bridge Repair Project
ADJOURNMENT
Recorder: Michele Neumann
October 11. 2004
Renton City Council Minutes Page 351
Brendan Egan. 327 Stevens Ave. SW, Renton. 98055, noted the presence of
rumble strips on SW Langston Rd., and remarked that the strips were installed
in response to a traffic problem and they seem to be working. Regarding the
Monster Rd. Bridge Repair project contract award, Mr. Egan commented on the
difference between the low and high bid. and inquired as to whether the
guarantee of work would be greater if more money were spent.
City Attorney Warren relayed that the statute of repose states that an owner of a
project must find a defect within the first six years, unless the defect is not
obvious. If the defect is hidden, a lawsuit can be filed up to six years after the
defect is found. He noted that application of the statute is the same regardless
of the amount of the bid. and a higher bid cannot give a greater guarantee.
MOVED BY NELSON. SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCil.. ADJOURN.
CARRlED. Time: 9:37 p.m
:&rn41<V' J Wa!;Cwu
Bonnie 1. Walton. CMC. City Clerk
•
RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE M:EETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE M:EETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL M:EETING
October 11, 2004
I COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN
CO.MMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
(persson)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Nelson)
FINANCE
(Connan)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Briere)
PUBUC SAFETY
(Law)
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION)
(palmer)
UTIUTIES
(Clawson)
DATFJTIM:E
MON., 10/18
6:00p.m.
6:30 p.m.
MON., 10118
5:00 p.m.
MON., 10/18
5:30 p.m.
AGENDA
Emerging Issues
*Council Conference Room*
South Lake Washington Conceptual
Development Plan
*Council Chambers*
Comprehensive Plan -Zoning Text
Amendments
Renton Jail Bookings and Fees
NOTE: Conunittee of the 'Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in (he Council Conference Room
unless otherwise noted.
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF RENTON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
October 14, 2004
Don Persson, President
City Council Members
CllY OF RENTON
OCT 1 3 2004
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM:
CC:
SUBJECT:
Alex Pietsch, Administrator 1\...11 P
Economic Development, Neight;i;;~,
and Strategic Planning Department
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Jay Covington, CAO
LAKESHORE LANDING CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Please find the attached letter and associated materials that will serve as Center Oak
Properties' revised Conceptual Plan submittal for your consideration. As the letter explains,
Center Oak is proposing that Council re-adopt the Conceptual Plan already established in the
December 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company. However, Center Oak
asks that that plan serve as the minimum amount of allowable development and that a higher
density project (800,000 SF) developed under the same provisions be approved as the
maximum scale development without further review. Additionally, Center Oak pledges to
design its project consistent with the revised Urban Center Design Guidelines that are
currently before you and anticipated to be adopted shortly.
By adopting this augmented plan, the City Council will provide Center Oak with a set of
parameters within which it can develop its project while maintaining a high minimum level of
development and ensuring high quality design.
AlIllCbment
ce: BoDDie Walttm, City Clerk
Grcgg Zimmerman
Nell Watts
Jennifer Henning
Jason Jordan
/
.. Gee}3 .. 0". 0_3 :3.".p ~"A_ssoc~. 50 ~22 -7675J>.2_
16/1~/2ee4 15:19 563G~.1464 CENTER 0lIl< PRQPERTIS PAGE 82/62
CENTEI~ OAK,.,6,..", ••. LLC
October 13, 2004
AlCl( PietSch. Admini,"r:lI01"
.Dcpanmcnt of Economie [/cvclopll!Cl)t.
Neighborhoods &. Slr,legie Planning
City of Renton
IOS5 South Gndy Way
Renton. W .. hinl!'on 98055
U: LAKESHO,U LAJ'lDING CONCUTUAL FLAN
As you laIa",. Cente\' Oak Prope:ties has bem s.looted by The Boeing Company .s the buyer/d.vclopa-
fOf its 46 .. cre surplus property in the 50\111> Lake Woshington area. On behs1f of Cmter Oak Ptopertic:s. I
1m requesting re-adopti"" .,.d amendment of Ihe Conceptual PI.., .dopted by !he Ilenlon Oty Council in
illl development llf'1ecmen! wi!ll 'IRe Hoeing Company dated ~mbct I, 2003 .
. The development "&<CCrncftt requires ,hot oignifieant changes 10 the Conceptual Pion be revi""'ed.and
adopted by the RoI!on City Council. We belie>< our pI'OJcet, whicb liDS been given the worlcing name of
l .. koshoro l..anding, "';11 b. C01I$istent wilh the thr •• hold. <pc<:t!led in the CUrrent plan. Howe_, the
pO"'"t;'1 .,.ist5 ""d it ;, aur got.! \0 develop. projc<:t wifh higlleT den!'il)'-as much a. 800.000 square
rect of rellil and entertainment~. Thil larger project would be de-ve1apcd consistent "';111 the ldopted
plAn in CY"'Y 'llay cxcq>! the overall squati: footoge. We have proyi""" ~ dera)')ed eCODOmic bft\eflt
••• 1y~. to demo..st\'ltC tb. revenue implications of thi$ level of dC"eloprnent. We ask IlIat the-CoUftcil
o.onl.der me adopllxl eon<:cprua.l plan as the "minimum" and !be mOtt den,. pr.oject;\$ !he "m.al<;/tlUm"
that would be allowed without furth..-1'e'Iicw.
MditiONlly, high-qu>Utr desip! will be In imporlt1nt part of our project. We will design Ibe
development (re8Jrdle .. of scale) C'OIIsisknt with the revised Urban Center Dcoign Guidelin .. """""tTy
beln, considcrtd and ClIpecI<d to be adopted by the Cily Council before the md o(the year.
Center Oak i$ excited to be w<>rking wilh 'he City 0 f Renton on Ihi, trem2ndous devol""""",t
oppOrt\lnity. We look (orword 10 establishing. s!rOlII\ relalionship with you and tbe city $\lIT. Togclhc:r.
we ore confldenTlho.! "'e .,m tnl)sform lite Soull, L.1ce Washington __ in to a vibr.ont Ulbon dlSllic:l
... chored by an c><ccptionlllire"tyle rctoil development.
Sincerely,
649 NW ,zn, Suee •• G'.~m. OR 97030
S03.~.1233 •. F •• 50:>666.1404
~.co"1ercQk.C»m
Lakeshore Landing
Plan F -800,000 sf
As of October 12, 2004
CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Retail Redevelopment on Part of Boeing's Renton Plant Site
Economic benefrts to the City of Renton of redeveloping 46 acres of the Boeing Renton
Washington plant site follow. Derivation of these benefit estimates is based upon a set
of realistic assumptions that correspond to development of 800,000 square feet of retail
space consisting of 123,000 square feet of retail big box anchor, 82,500 square feet of
movie theater, 32,000 square feet of specialty grocery store, and 562,500 square feet of
retail specialty shop space.
• At full absorption of the above 800,000 square feet of retail space on a redeveloped
portion of the Boeing Renton plant, it is estimated that 5,135 permanent jobs would
be created throughout the region.
• Of this total, a projected 2,646 direct jobs would be created at the targeted 46-acre
Boeing Renton site plus 622 additional indirect jobs within the City of Renton,
assuming a 25% capture rate.
• It is estimated that these 3,268 direct and indirect jobs would generate an additional
$106.1 million in recurring annual income earned in the City once full occupancy of
this new retail space occurs at the Boeing Renton plant site.
• The corresponding increase in property values by redeveloping this 46-acre portion
of the Renton Boeing site into retail uses is forecast to total nearly $101 million upon
completion and stabilization in 2009.
• The increase in direct annually recurring tax revenues to the City of Renton at full
build out is estimated at over $3.1 million by 2009.
• This is in addition to over $0.9 million in one-time City revenues collected during land
redevelopment and construction of 800,000 square feet of retail space on a part of
the Boeing Renton plant site during the 2004-2008 period.
Lakeshore Landing SOOK.doc
Lakeshore Landing Plan F increased to 800,000 sf
Renton, Washington
As of October 12, 2004
Washington State 2009 2004 2009
Recurrina Revenues Tax Base Tax Rate Revenues
Property Tax 100,612,299 0.2757% 217.388
Sales Tax 273.B24,125 6.467% 17,708,206
Business & Occupations Tax 27M24,125 0.4710% 1,289.712
Real Estate Transfer -1.2800% -
TOTAL 648.260,549 19.275,306
King County • General Fund 2009 2004 2009
Recurring Revenues Tax Base Tax Role Revenues
Property Tax 100,612.299 0.14315% 144,027
Sales Tax 273.824.125 0.1500% 410,736
Business & Qc:cupationS Tax -O.OOOOo/D -
Real Estate Transfer . -0.0000% -
TOTAL 374436.424 554,763
WashingtonS1a1a 2005-06 2004
One Time Revenues TiIX Base Tax Rate Leakaoe
Sales Tax 98,981,820 6.467% 10%
Business & Occupations Tax 103.881.820 0.471% 10%
Real Estate Transfer 38.485,430 1.280% -
TOTAL 241,329,010
King County -General Fund 2005-06 2004
One Time Revenues Tax Base Tax RaIe Leaka
Sales Tax 98,981.820 0.15% 10%
Business & Occupations Tax 0.0000% 10%
Real Estate Transfer 0.000%
TOTAL 98,981,820
City of Renlan 2005-06 2004
One Time Revenues Tax Base Tax Rate Leakaoe
Sales Tax 98,981.620 0.850% 10%
Business & Occupations Tax -0.0000% 10%
Real Estate Transfer 38,465,430 0.50% -
TOTAL 137,447,250
lakeshore landing Plan FAIt Rev 2 Sum.xJs 800K Printed 10/12/2004 3:49 PM
2OQ5.06
Revenues
5,761.039
440.355
492,358
6.693.751
2005-06
Revenues
133.625
133.625
2OQ5.06
Rewnues
757.211
-
192,327
949,538
PerClty
Revenues
237,587
9,356,669
677,999
64,475
10,356,730
PerClty
Revenues
Per cny
Revenues
95.695
--
-
"95,6
Percny
Revenues
Per cny
Revenues
221,067
1.223,564
-
32,998
76.912
-
1,554.561
PerClty
Revenues
4.355,954-
350.710
1.626 442
6,333,106
Percny
Revenues
-
Per ClOy
Revenues
100.522
--
100.522
PerClty
Reven ....
Olfference
39,801
8.351.537
611.713
(64.475)
8.918.576
om-I 1,095~
Olffelence
48.332
410,736
--
459,068
Difference
105,239
1.103,941
-
(32.998)
88.809
339,488
1,564,279
Olffarence
1,405.085
89.645
[1.134.084
350,645
Difference I
356 335
Diffelence
33,103
--
33.103
Center Oak Properties. LLC
Lakeshore landing Plan F Increased to 800,000 sf
Renton, Wllhlngton
As 01 October 12, 2004
Sales SF per
Anch ..
SIll" Tax -Theater
881 •• Tax-Grocery
Sales Tax· Specialty
8& o TIlt
ReI! estill Tl1IIntfet Talt
Employee Hestd Tax· Anchor
EmpIoyH Head Tax· Theater
EmplOyee Head Tax· Grocery
Employee Head Tax -SpecIalty
Admlnlons Tax
Total· CHy
InaCountv
Transfer from City
Sal!!!! T8)(· Basl!ball
Sales Tax, FOOlbal1
Sales Tax· King MItro Bus
Sales Tax. Crlmlnal Justice
Sales Tax • Transit & Traffic
B & 0 Talt
RuI Ellate Tl1Iiltfef TIIX
Total· County
123,000
82,500
32,000
562,500
123,000
e2,5OO
32,000
562,500
3'"
101
154
350
600
eoo
eoo
250
Tickets
"',000 8.00
Economic Analysis
Value
125,347,250 31.746,600 93,600,650
6,862,000 6,S62.000
132,209,250 31,748,600 100,462,860
10
94.4%
94,4%
94.4%
StabliJud
Tax Base
88,359,014
6,477,728
47,970,000
8,332,500
4,928,000
198,875,000
205
138
53
2,250
6,400,000
94,836,742
256,105,500
258,1015,SOO
256,105,SOO
258,105.500
258,105,500
258.105,500
Don not Include the BXtrII O,SO% sales laX Issessed on IOod and bevera~ sales useued by Ihe County for beHba.
Reglooal Tl1IInsil Authorttv
lIiiiil'ox 258,105.500
132.209,250 31,748,600 100,0462,650 94,4% 94,836,742
258,105,500
B&OTo Retailing 258,105,500
Real Estate Tl1Inster To
Total· StatII
Lakesha-e Landing Plan F AIt Rev 2 Detell Sum.xls BOOK Printed 10113f2004 12:46 PM
.... -04 2007
M""","m Stabilized
TaxRale ......,u.
0,32434% 288,584
0.32434% 21,010
0,850% 407,745
0,850% 70,826
0,850% 41,888
0.85(1" 1,673,438
0,00%
0,50%
55.00 11,275
55.00 7,563
155.00 2,933
55,00 123,7$0
5.00% 320,000
2,967 ,°11
0.14315% 135,759
0.150% 387,158
0.017% 43,878
0.016% 41,297
0.600% 1,548,633
0.100% 258,106
0.200% 516.211
0.00%
0.000%
2.931,641
200.
StablliUld
Revenue
304,037
22,289
432,577
75,140
404,439
1,n5.350
11,275
7,563
2,933
123,750
339,0488
3.138,840
1404,027
410,736
46,550
43,812
1,642,945
273.824
547.64e
3.10i.542
200.
CRy
T1~lIons
221,087
1,223,564
32,9ge
76,912
Proted
Less
Plan
Difference
105,239
1,103,941
(32,998)
88,609
339,488
1,554.561 1,584.279
95,695 48.332
410,736
46,550
43,812
1,642,945
273,824
547,648
95.695 3,013.847
0.0400% 1,°32,422 1,095,396 t095,296
0.27570%
6.4157%
0.471%
1,28%
281,485
18,1591,883
1,215,677
277,388
17,708,206
1,289,712
18,188,824 19.215,306
237,587
9,356,869
677,999
84,0475
39,801
8,351,537
611,713
(84.475)
10,356,730 8,918.576
Center Oak Properties, LLC
Lakeshore landing Plan F Increased to 800.000 sf
Renton. Washington
.A. of October 12, 2004
One Time Revenul
City Of Renion
SaiesTax
Sales Tax Leakage
8&OTI"
Real Eatlta Trensfer Tax
Total-City
Sales Tax Leekege
Sales TBJI-Baseball
Sales Tax leakage
Sales Tax· Football
Sales TBI( leakage
Sales Tax -Klng Metro Bus
Sales T8)[ leakage
Sales Tax· Cr1m1nal Justice
Sales Tall: leakage
Sales Tax -Transit & Traffic
Sales Tall leakage
8&OTlix
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Total· County
Regional Transit Aulhorlty
Sa!es tax
Sales Tax Leakage
)Il :iW1e
Sal. Tax
Sales Tn Luqge
B&OTax
B & 0 Tax Leakage
Tala!· RTA
Real Estate Transfer Tall;
TolIl • State
lakestIonlilAncIlng PlanF AU. Rev 2 Delll6 Sum"'" BOOK Prtnted 10/1:.v2004 12:48 PM center oak Properties. LLC
Lakeshore landing Plan F Increa .. d to 800,000 sf
Renton, W •• hlngton
As of Octobor 12, 2004
illiormatiOn SOurces ana Not .. :
1 sales Tax Washington b8Pt Of ReVenue; local sales tax pee City of Renlan
2 Real Eatel. Transfer Tax Washington Dept of Revenue, City of Renton. KIng County
3 Property Tax City of Renton and King County
4 Sar •• pet Sf Professtonar Judgment based upon demographics and potential tenants
Economic Analy.l.
TIlealer sales per !If. 1,300,000 tick!!!! sold per year tmes $8.00. Thl. total \hen Increased by 30% to ptck up concS!lslon sales
Gnxery store sales. $500 sf Umes WA statewide ratio of taxable sales at grocery stores {30.7B%I: ratio from Washington Dept of Revenue
5 SF per employee Real Estelle Economics Study for BoeIng sit. fumbhed by CIty of ~Ion
6 Land, &Ikllng Shell, Tenant tnp'ovements, and Sllework al coat,. basis for property tax
7 BuIlding SI'IeII, Tenant Improvements. SlIewor1(. and OIfsite Worfo: at coat. basis for sates tax & 8&0 tax; 8&0 tax adds Oestgn & Construction Admin to tax base
B Undlord doe, not pay seta W: on Tenant Improvements, rather the len ants' eoshi are reimbursed. TheM costs are IndWed In this analysis because !he tenant pays sales tax to the enllUes,
9 Undlonl doe. not pay utes Ialc on ~te Work as thIS work It resold. These costs are Included In this analysis because Ihe buyer Of the ortsn", work pays ules tax 10 the goverrvnental enuues.
10 Cost to construct pad to be paid by ground lealee at same cost per sf as landlord's cost pet sf; Induded In this '1\II1ys!s becausa lax wit be paid to the governmental entitles.
11 Property laxn per this analysis aTe lllfarent from property taxes ptI' development costs es other jurtsdk:tlons.1so levy property taxes that ere not Induded above.
These jurtadlc:tlons are Isted beloW. Furthermore, development costs only Include capitalized property taxes· year 1 on bare land, year 2 al 150% Of year 1,
12 Key differences between this analysis and lhat performed for tha City in 2002:
• Tu ratn have changed; the rates In thIS anllySlS ere cu"...t.s Of Oetob .. 12, 2004,
b King County portion or 181ft: tax appeart; 10 have been miscalculated In 2002; In Washington the sales lax base Is the same for ltate, county, and city purposes.
C There Is no real estate transfer tax In reo.Jrrlng revenue as no real estata IS SCk:I on • reomtng basis.
d There Is no real estate transfer tax in one lime revenues on the eos1 of the bu"dlng and Improvements unUI the projed I!I ulUmately ""d by the developer In a future period.
AI that time the termlnel real estate InInsfer laX will be based on (he sales price of the prCfed; not on the cost to develop the prCfed.
13 Seln tax and B & 0 Tax leakage due to constructIOn by out-of-town contradOl'1l and suppliers
1'" Increase from 2007 10 200911 3% per year. 6.09% compounded
15 This analysis omit, the 0.5% sales tax on food and beverages that Is transferred to the County for the public sports authority
16 Components of sates lax rate, per City of Renton Revenue Manual
Slate of Washington 6.467% Siale
Baseban 0.017% County
Football 0.016% County
City of Renlon 0.850% City
King County General Fund 0.150% County
KIng Counly Melro 0.600% County
CrIminal Justice 0.100% County
Trenalt end TrafIIc Congestion 0.200% County
RegIonatTranstlAuthotity 0.400% RTA
Total !!22!.
Gave up 0.033% to baset:JaU and foolball
Bonds lor stadium
Transfer 10 publiC sports authority
Levies 1.0% and transfers 0.15% to County
Funds bua service
Levied by CIty; transferred to County
Prop "1
RaillranSit
Lakeshore landing Plan F Alt Rell 2 Deta" SUm,xls BOOK Ptinled 1011312004 12:46 PM Center Oak Propertles, LLC
•
. EXHIBIT " 5 "
BOEING'S
CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN
Renton, Washington
Submitted to the City of Renton
November 17, 20'03
Background
CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN
lot 3 and 10-SO Sites
Renton, Washington
The BOeIng Company has been working with the Oty of Renton for more than a year
In evaluating potential redevelopment strategIeS associated with Its 737 faclUty In
Renton, Washington. This Conceptual Plan mustrates the. BoeIng COmpany'u'JsIon
for the redevelopment of the first piece of the Renton Plant to be made available for
non-Industrial uses. The Plan Includes that portion of the property commonly
referred to as the lot 3 and 10-50 sites, which have been-detennined to be n0n-
essential to the ongoing illrplane manufac:tuf1ng activities as BoeIng completes It's
~Move-to-the-Lake· COilsolldation plan.
-The Plan covers approximately 53 to 55 aaes of gross land, of which approximately
8 aaes are reseIVE!d for the development of four new arterial streets that are
essential to the ultimate redevelopment of the enUrl! ~ campus. The,
remaining 45 to 47 aaas 'of land wID be marketed to eritItIes Interested In developing
an Integrated retail ~ter on the site, consistent with this Conceptual Plan.
Included within this submittal are a narrative desalpIIon of BoeIng's proposal, a
COnc:eptuaI Planning Diagram with supporting pedestrian street sections, and en
economic benefit analysis demonstrating a range of potential one-tIme and reClining
revenues generated by the proposed development. BoeIng seeks the Oty's approval
of this COnceptual Plan so that BoeIng can complete the nec:essary lot line
adjustments and begin actively marketing the property to local, regional and natiOnal
developers and users.
The aerial on the following page highlights the location of the proposed retail site In
relation to BoeIng's remaining land holdings-and the surrounding North Renton
neighborhood.' ,
Conceptual Urban Retail Plan
Boeing believes that hlgh-quallty retail development is essential to the sua:esSfui
transition of the area from Its Indusbial roots to the Oty's vision for the Urban
Center-North. A well-designed retail center win provide employment, diversify the
economic base, offer a new source of municipal revenue, and wnt attract other
alternatIVe and potentially higher and better uses to the surrounding area.
The Conceptual Plan for the Lot 3 and 10-SO sites, located on the following page,
Illustrates the coh~ redevelopment 0( the parcels Into an urban retal center. The
Plan contains a mix of large forrnat·~estlnatlol)·, ~.II4!!1', ~I!I-slz~ J'et!I,U a~prs,
as well as smaU shop space concentrated along Parle Avenue, envisioned as the
significant pedestrian-oriented street In the area. The Plan responds to the presence
of the existing Fry's building on the property to the east 0( Garden Avenue, and
antldpates that ultimate redevelopment of the northern portion 0( that site wiD relate
directly to the ~e/opment occurring on BoeIng's property.
The site Is bound 'by a combination of existing and new public roadways, which
segregate the property Into four quadrants ranging between 6 and 19 acres In size.
Boeing Is seeking buyers for the 45-to 47-aae property to undertalce a CXIhesIve
redevelopment. Generally, the large format retaU development (users with '
footpr1nts of SO,ooo square f~ and larger and building feature heights up to 45 feet
, taU) Is planned to occur along Silo, Logan and Garden Avenues, facing Inward and
supported by well-organized parlclng areas Internal to the site. These destination
retail uses wHI naturally locate themse/ves along the widest portions of the property,
with good freeway vlslbUlty, much IIlce the recently completed Fry's development on
the eastern side 0( Garden Avenue.
Medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and SO,OOO square feet In area,
with building feature heights up to 40 feet tall) are assumed Inlin between the large
format tenants, with primary pedestrian entrances facing Inward or directed toward
Parle Avenue. Again, parleing Is assumed to be concentrated within each segment 0(
the site, to allow for potential ·second-generatlon" redevelopment at higher
densities, If achIevabfe.
The northwest quadrant 0( the property Is identified as one potential location for a
mld-to high-rise development, which could talce l;Iie form 0( a multi-level podium •
parlclng structure, with multifamily residential or office uses above. this ultimate
development could Initiate the truly urban vision for the area and, together with
pedestrian scale treatments at the comer 0( Parle and Logan,. would identify this as
the .gateway" to the Urban-Center NO(th.
Small, spedalty retail shops and amenities would be concet)trated primarily along'
Parle Avenue. The scale 0( development Is more Intimate here, with an edectIc /nix
of uses, architectural styles and gathering places. In some Instances, single stOry
retaU uses may be topped with one to three levels 0( apartments or pnlfesslonal
office uses, aU overlooking Parle Avenue and the activity along the street edge.
Together, the large-and medium-format users total approximately 450,000 square
feet of space; the smaller shop space totals approximately 110,000 square feet, or
20% of the center.
"
CONCEPTUAL
URBAN
RETA1l
PLAN
Sileol,.-... -......... -4md ..... "GIii' __ --
'11" .1. ' ...... if ==";;:::'1 '11 tar.ac." fl.' ........
CONCEPfUAl PlANNiNG DfAGAAM
FUUfR·SEARS
ARCHITECTS
~OE'NG
.' .
Hierarchy of Streets
Key to the successful development of the property is the reconfiguration and
Improvement of Park Avenue to serve as a critical pedestrlan-oriented street in the
project. To accommodate full redevelopment of the Renton Plant properties, the
ultimate build out of Park Avenue will need to allow for four travel lanes and a center
tum lane, designed for vehicular travel up to 35 miles per hour. To support the
vision for the development of an urban retail center In this location, a generous
sidewalk with street trees and on-street parking for Park Avenue Is being proposed
to enhance the envlronment In the public realm and encourage people to make Park
Avenue a pedestrian street. An illustrative street section for Park Avenue can be
found on the following page. ." . . . .. -
The other major north~sOutt. connection Is Logan Avenue, which extends from 6"
Avenue to the south and joins Park Avenue In the north. The construction of logan,
provldlng direct access to J -405, Will be an Important alternative through connection
to ensure Park Avenue functions as a pedestrlan-o~ shopping street. At the
outset of redevelopment" In the area, Logan Is envisioned as a three-lane street, with
one travel lane In each dln!(;tlon and a center-tum lane. Ultimately, logan wli
expand and function even more so as a hlgher-speed alterlal.
The easJ:-west arterial roadways, 10" and 8" Avenues, are less aItIcal to the
successful development of.the urban retail center, other than servlng as access
points to the center off of Park Avenue. Connections from 10" and 8'" to Logan
Avenue, If constructed, would be favorable,but the center would function as well
with access only off of Parle, the existing leg of 8'" and Garden Avenues.
Urban Center-Nortb VIsion and Pondes
This proposed Conceptual Urban Reta. Plan meets many 01 the Oty's vision anci
policy statements for the Urban Center-North, which cal for "retaU Integnrted Into
pedestrlan-orlented shoppIng-!l1sbic;ts"'" and reccgnizes that:
"At the beginning of this trailsltlon, uses such as retalLmay be viable wIthoUt the
offlce and residential components that ultimately WiN conb1bute to the urban
character of the dlstrld:.· The Oty's vision plans for the transition of the area over a
30-year hOrIzon and antidpates that redevelopment WiD need to address the
potential for future Inflll to allow areas to further grow to UIbiIn densities. This site Is
located Within DIstrIct 1, where the oty Identifies Its first objective as follows:
"Create a major commerdaVretall district developed wJttl uses that ~d sIg~ntIy
to Renton's retan tax base, provide additional employment opportunities WithIn the
Oty, attrad: businesses that serve a broad market area and ad: as agathel1ng place
WithIn the community ••
BoeIng's Conceptual Urban Retail Plan seeks to both allow for the near-term
redevelopment of BoeIng's underutlnzed assets while advocating for a mix of uses
that Improves the Oty's tax and employment base. As Is Dlustrated within the
attached economic benent analysis, more than 1,300 jobs would be created In the
oty of Renton by a redevelopment of this scale. The oty would collect more than
$1.2 million In one-time revenues during development and the City would receive
over $1.5 million In annually recurring tax revenues at full build out. •
,..
.~-", .. , '.' .
'. ,--" ,
II ......
, ,. ,<".
. . .. " .:;-' ..\.
.-.-:---. .
. .. "" • I. ,~
~ .. -
'. " .. -•• f
.....
«)' ~·f, !.~ '. ~ "~ .
, -. ~ , .. ..
"
" .
" .
.. . . :. -". , .
•. .
-....
".
, ~ •
. ~' . .
';"-.
..
; ...
".
• -r-••. ".
" .. .. : . .. .,
.'
-.;
;.~ . ,,;-.
.'
':.
"'
Summary
BoeIng believes that Its Conceptual Urban Retail Plan Illustrates the optimal
dQveiopment plan for this 45 to 47 aaas of land In North Renton. The Plan offers the
opportunity to conbibute to the tra!lSft:Ion of the area !Tom a primarily Industrial
nelghbortlood to a higher Intensity and nlI1ge of viable uses, providing both jobs and
a significant source of new revenue to support the Clty's objectives for the area..
SUMMARY
CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Retail Redevelopment on Part of Boeing s Renton Plant Site
Economic benefits to the City of Renton of re-developing 46 acres of the Boeing
. Renton, Washington plant site follow. Derivation of these benefit estimates is based
on a set of realistic assumptions that correspond to development of451,OOO square
feet of retail bi~edium box space and 110,000 square feet of retail shop space.
» At full absorption of the above 561,000 square feet of retail splK:e on a
redeveloped portion of the Boeing Renton p1ant site; it is· eStimated that 2,197
petmanent jobs would·be created throughout the reiion.
» Of this total, a projected 1,132 direct jobs would be created at the targeted 46-
• acre Boeing Renton site plus 266 additional indireCt jObs \Yithin the City of
Renton, assnming a 25 percent capture rate. ..
» It is estimated that these 1,398 direct and indirect jobs in the City of Renton
would generate an additional $45.4 million in ~annua1 income earned
.inside the City once full occupancy ofthis·newreWl space occurs at the
Boeing Renton plant site. .
» The corresponding increase in property values by redeveloping this 46-acre
portion of the Renton Boeing site into retail uses is forecast to total nearly $66
mijlion upon compl~on in 2009.
» The increase in annually recurring tax reven~ to the City of Renton at full
build-out is estimated ·at over $1.5 million starting in 2009.
». :this is in addition·,to over $1.2 niillion in one-time City revenues collected
. · . .duringland redevelOpmentaild the constroction of 561,000 square feet of retail
space on a part of the Boeing Renton plant site during the 2004-2008 period.
11/13103 REA.LESTATEECXJNOHICS
The daIo and ca'c"lations ~ ....... wID .. "'" _01. are obIaiood from ........ doomed miablc.
PERMANENT JOBS CREATED IN 2009
1600r-----------~~--~~~~~~~~--------------------
1200+-----
.a
~ 800+-----~ z
4OOt------'
0+-------' o
With Project Without Project
NEW JOB ANNUAL INCOMECREATED IN 2009
$~.o.-------~~~--~~~~~llL ______________ __
• $40.0 +-----
"0
Q $30.0 +-----
'0
::! $20.0 +----o
~ $10.0 +-----
$0.0 +----
WIth Project
e $1,GGO
.!! $1,400 +-------------------
8$1~ t------------------
'0 $1.000 t------------, .a $100 +-------------c
III ! $&GO +-------------
o $400 +------------r:. $ZOO t----
$0 +--~
o
WIthout Project
2003 2004 2005 ZOOi 2007 ZOOI 20ft 201. 2011 2012 2011
• LandDev. • Building Dey .
CURRENT ZONING SCENARIO l!EAl. ESTATE ECONOMlCS
'.
I~ -.-~--.Seledeo __ .-. Ii
WII!a!t Pr' ,
NEW PERMANENT JOBS CREAtED BY zoot
2,117
II1II
NEW JOB ANNUAL INCOME IN 200t ... ...
I
p. ...
s r ... ...
'u ..
"-"" UrIiIMI·... It .. 1.,111.MD b.iIIIIIII .... ~........., ........ _ .................... __ ................ .....
lIMLal'A •• Q elK I
'.
NEW STATE TAX REVENUES .aMy-------------------____________________________ _
.... -1--------------------------1
-+-----------1 ! -t------1
..... !-------,.--.-I
.... !--------1
NEW RECURRING STATE REVENUES
WIthout PrajocI 10.114
_ ""')oct SI0A71
PoUar.In_
-,
II5U. esTA re.e: 0 -'
Tolal .-.eIopo .... ~Iand ___ ""8CAIS
ToIaIlluIdabIo .-. 0101'1.",11 land 11188-"ner oq.ll.
Land Dew.lopment
land De. alcpn. It Construction CoStS
land Impio ....... d consIrucIIon duration.)'8818
Pen:ent design & """ IIIg8ITIOnI
Percent COfISWcIIon labor
Percent n_1oIa
Building DeVeIopMnI hr.. lIMa
Change: In" a red value
Percent design and manageuMHIl-COi.I.IIldaI-
Pen:ent -...:lIon labor· co".,," .. :101 P_ -...:IIonmatellals &....-·ocn ..... c:IoI SlIng lldiplierfor design and ___
B-..g lldiplierfor __ .
Pn>perty do'ielopm.nllbaIIon· y-.
Rebill-8lg1Med Box Gloss squano feetaC __
l,oad __ spece
B.-.g construc:tIon cost 1oq.I. __
Sq II per employee -big box ...
Relaloaleo per ~ Il.-big box ...
RoId-$hop Spooce
Groo.squanofeeCaC ... _ l,oad __ opeoo
consINcIIcn cost/oq.l. ......... _
einpIoyee -Shop Speoe
InchcljoIlO ocnRucIion jot.
lnchcljobo
Share by RM*xI
_ of IndIrac:t ""'*"" by RaID! .
I<IngCo. 811. __ FTE ... for_ recunIng _jobs ....
KIng C<1-__ ........... for ellnchcljoIIe
KIng eo: __ ............ torprtlject,' .. """"~
AVWIIQI .......... for __ -.ctionjolle
_ Urtion Will' PAN"" 1111_
$
$
$
$
1.~.821
14,314.1771':~= ... ",
1.0 I'
65.996,2!i7
the .......... , Ie .,.........MNin .... Mt ................. ~ ... ICIIIIqfw.Nb ... ~.
:. ..
Summary
JOBS
OIreclJobs 61 73 1,132
indirect Jobs
Total Jobs
INCOME
Direct Income
Indirect Income
ToIaIlncome
PROPERlY VAlUE INCREASES No! applicable No! applicable $ 65,996,257
TAX BASE INCREASES
Assessed Valuation Not applicable No! applicable $ 65,996,257
Retal Sales $ 12,882,759 $ 61,578,000 $ 143,948,150
Real Estate Sales Not applicable $ 97,742~ $ 6,599,626
Gross Business Receipts $ 14,314,117 $ 68,420,000 $ 143,948,150
SELECTED TAX REVENUE INCREASES
(Property, sales, 8&0 and real estate)
SIal<! Taxes $ 1,169,652 $ 5,143,454 $ 10,35$,129
local Taxes
_ UrIIon ~-AtUI. 11/13103
lbIi cilia .... c ; 7 5 • ~ hIInIin ..... _ ........... bNn obtained tWIll IOUrCe:S bIIIiIwed III bI reliable.
Business ReCeipts
Land Use Net RetaRs.Ies Ann .... Ann ....
Sg!t peragll Relds.les Employment Gross NCeIpt!
428,450 $ 275 $ 117,823,750 714 $ 117.823,750
104,500 $ 250 S 28,125,000 418 S 28,125,000
TOTAL 532,950 $143,948,750 1,132 $143,948,750
_ u.t.an VIIage-I'-ROd, l1M3I03 f';ogo 1 lbo_neola' 5 .. ..-.ood-_ ... _ ~ ______ ..... _. ReALESTATEECONOII/CS
Taxbases
On&-time tIVOlIQh .One-&ne Building
Land De 2005 tIvu 2008 at 2009
A$sessed Valuation $ 65,996,257
Real Estate &iIes $29,322,857 $ 97,742,851 $ 6,599,626
Retail Sales $ 12,882,759 $ 61,578,000 $ 14;4,948.750
Gross BusIness Receipts $ 14,314,1n $ . 68,420,000 $ 143,948,750
_Urban ~~ .... "113m
TIM ... MIl ceIc' , • pI-*d .......... ftOI~ .... __ obWned tom ~~tDbeNiable.
.Assessed Vaklalion •
_ u.t.on VII.~, P Bbl, 11/1_
lht ...... ClbT •• "....... ............ _ .......................................... .......
" Commercial
Bldg, Start Year 2005
New SqFt Per Net Gross
Land Use JobsIEmf)/oyees Enj' Soft Sqfl
~.B"~:ce 714 600 428,450 451.,000
418 250 104:000 110000
TOTALS 1,132 532,950 561,000
_ t-. VIIage-P-FINJd, 11113103 Pogo 1 __ ..,.j ..... '", .. ~ __ ... guotwMod. ______ ..... -. /l£Al.ESTAT'EECtNKJIIIC$
Onetime JObs
From Development From Development
Item Of Land Of
PROFESSIONAl. JOBS
DesIgn and management CO$Is $ 1,431,418 $ 6,842,000
Average salary $ 65,000 $ 65,000
Billing nUtipIier 2.5 2,5
ProressIonaI job ~ 9 42
Total professional wages $ 572,567 $ 2,736,800
Annual professional wages $ 572,567 $ 684,200
Project duration in years 1 4
Professional jobs aeated 9 11
CONSTRUCTION JOBS
ConstrucIIOn labor costs only $ 5.153.104 $ 24.631,200
Average salary $49.000 $49.000
BIIIin9 muIUpIier 2.0 2.0
ConstrucIIOn Job years 53 251
Total consIrucIion wages $ 2,576.552 $. 12,315,600
Annual eonslluclion wages $ . 2,576,552 $ 3.078.1:!00
Project duration in years 1 4
Constn.IdIon jobs aeated 53 63
Total Equivalent New Jobs 61 73
Annual Wage Ina:lme for New Jobs 3.149.119 3.763.100
Total Wage Income for New Jobs $ 3.149119 $ 15.052MJO
, ..
Recurring Revenue
WA_ 2009 2:002 Me i" L m --TuB_ Tu_ -"'-'YTax $65,996,257 $3.BOOO $237/161
SaIosTIIX $1<43.948,750 6.50% $9,356,_
B&OT ... $143,948,750 OA71% $677_
Real ~ Transfer $6,599,626 1.28% $84475
TOTAL $10.356.729
KIng Count)' 2009 2102 -'."ll'lutS Tu_ Tu_ -"'-'YTax $65.996,257 $IASOO $95,695
SaIosTax $0 1_ $0
B&OTIIX $0 0_ $0
Raale-T_ $0 0.50% $0
TOTAL $95.695
----.~ Cllyof_ 2009 2002 --T __
Tu_ -"'-'YTIIX $65.996,257 $3.3500 $221J1e7
SaIosTIIX $1.43;948.750 0.85% $1,223,564
B&OT", $143,948,750
0_
$0
RaaI~T_ $6.599,626 0.50% $32,9118
HoadTDlYr 1,_ $55.00 $76.912
rrOTAL $1,554,562
.... _8&OT .. _"'-..·
.RerD! lIIbon~ 11113103 P_l
11>0_ ..... __ --... ___ ------.... --REALESTAl'CECONOM/CS
Onetime Revenue
WA_ Londo... &-.go... _T .. Londo... .-.-. Ono __ _T .. _ T .. _ -..---_T"" $ 12,182.71i8 $ 81.&11.DOO 8.-10J10'J' $T53.I41 $ 8,8112,313
B&OT ... $ 14;314,177 $ 88,42D,OOO 0A71'110 10J10'J' ~ $ 290.032
-~,......., $ ......... IS 8714HS7 1'-OJlOll S -1~1;08
TOTAL $1,1._ I 6,1-43,4$4
KIng I:c>unIr Londo... &-.eo... _T .. LondDn. .-.-. 0110 __ _T .. _ T .. _ -. , -~ --I-T .. $ 12,182.758 $ 81,578.000 0.15'110 10JlOll $17;3112 $ 83.130
'S&OTox $ 104;314,177 $ 88.42O.DOO 0.00% 10J10'J' SO I .
_ t;staIa,......., $ 29-~ $ 87,74HS7 D.OO% OJlOll SO $ .
TOTAL $17;3112 S S3.130
CII¥"'-Londo... , -.--. _Tox 'Londo... ...-.-. 0110 __
I'otIocIT .. _ Tm/_ -. .~ Rellll ..... --_T .. • 12,182.7&1 • 81,578,000 0.-10JlOll -.sa-$ . 471,on
B&OT .. S 14;3104.177 ! 88.42OJ)OO D.OO% 10J10'J' 1141:': I: --,......., Is 29.322.157 8774U57 0.-OJlOll 481.714'
TOTAL S24S,187 $
_7118
__ aaoTox_Ior-,g
_~~1111_
lM ...... akz' r .~ .......... DOt ........... '*"obWnIId .... IOUI'OIII .....................
October 18, 2004
Monday, 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE
PROCLAMATION
Make A Difference Day -
October 23, 2004
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Development Services:
Wireless Communication
Facilities in Residential Zones
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Council Chambers
Renton City Hall
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council
to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
DON PERSSON, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; TERRI BRIERE;
DENIS LAW; TONI NELSON; RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BY BRIERE,
SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN DAN
CLAWSON. CARRIED.
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief
Administrative Officer; ZANETT A FONTES, Assistant City Attorney;
BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN,
PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Administrator; JENNIFER HENNING,
Principal Planner; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator;
DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; COMMANDER KENT CURRY, Police
Depanment.
A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring October 23,
2004, to be "Make A Difference Day" in the City of Renton, urging citizens to
observe this day by connecting with friends, fellow employees, and relatives,
and with religious, school, and civic groups to engage in projects benefiting the
community. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler reopened the
public hearing continued from 9/13/2004 to consider the proposed City Code
amendments to permit wireless communication facilities in residential zones.
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, explained that the proposed amendments
will allow wireless antennas to be attached to existing street standards or light
poles, or allow the changing out of those poles for taller ones to accommodate
the antennas. She noted that in both instances, an administrative conditional
use permit is required. Ms. Henning stated that the proposal received a
determination of non-significance from the Environmental Review Committee,
and no appeals were filed during the appeal period that ended on October 15th.
Ms. Henning addressed the five concerns expressed at the previous public
hearing, as follows:
1. Ability to contact wireless providers in the event of any problems. The
building permit application form will be changed to request a 24-hour
contact phone number.
2. Interference with public safety radio communications. Existing City Code
language pertaining to interference with localized television and radio
broadcasts will be amended to also address interference with public safety
communications.
3. Removal of graffiti from equipment cabinets. Existing City Code language
concerning prohibition of advertisements or logos on equipment cabinets
will be amended to also include graffiti.
October 18, 2004
Annexation: Johnson, 142nd
AveSE
Renton City Council Minutes Page 357
4. Long-term maintenance of landscaping around equipment cabinets.
According to City Code, any existing landscaping must be maintained.
5. View obstruction. The wireless facilities have a unique set of criteria that
must be met before an administrative conditional use permit is granted.
The criteria address the design of the tower, surrounding topography and
tree cover, relationship to residential structures, and compatibility with
Comprehensive Plan and zoning.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. CARRIED.
MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL AUTHORIZE
FORWARDING THE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES CITY
CODE REVISIONS TO THE CITY A'ITORNEY FOR PREPARATION OF
THE ORDINANCE. CARRIED.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider the proposed annexation and R-8 zoning of 18.24
acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located east of 142nd Ave. SE
and south of NE 9th St., if extended (Johnson Annexation).
Don Erickson, Senior Planner, reported that this is the second of two public
hearings, and the King County Boundary Review Board approved the proposal
effective 8/16/2004. The essentially flat site (with slight slope) contains eight
single-family dwellings, and is paralleled by Honey Creek on its eastern
boundary. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson indicated that the area
is served by Fire District #25, Water District #90, Renton sewer, and the
Renton School District.
Mr. Erickson stated that current King County zoning is R-4 (four dwelling units
per gross acre). The Renton Comprehensive Plan designates this site as
Residential Single Family, for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre)
zoning is recommended. He noted that on a typical ten-acre site, Renton's R-8
zoning allows approximately 66 units and King County's R-4 zoning, with
bonuses, allows 60 units.
Continuing, Mr. Erickson reviewed the fiscal impact analysis, assuming a new
home value of $300,000 and an increase to 106 single-family homes at full
development. The City will realize a deficit of $948 at current development,
and a surplus of $44 at full development. In conclusion, Mr. Erickson said the
proposed annexation is consistent with City annexation policies, furthers City
business goals, and serves the best interests and general welfare of the City.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY LAW,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REZONE
THE JOHNSON ANNEXATION SITE TO R-8 CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION UPON
ANNEXATION, AND EFFECTUATE THE JOHNSON ANNEXATION BY
AUTHORIZING THE FIRST READING OF BOTH ORDINANCES TIllS
EVENING. CARRIED. (See page 361 for ordinances.)
October 18,2004
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORT
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Citizen Comment: Reed -SW
Sunset Blvd Rezone,
Commercial Neighborhood
Zone Design Guidelines
Citizen Comment: Bramblet -
Rename SW 41st St to SW
IKEA Way
Citizen Comment: Telschow -
SW Sunset Blvd Comp Plan
Amendment
CONSENT AGENDA
Renton City Council Minutes Page 358
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted
included:
• The falI softball season ended last week with playoff games at Liberty Park.
Participation in the adult softball leagues was up 21 % this year, with 144
teams representing over 2,160 players for the three seasons offered.
• The City received a letter from Union Pacific Railroad conditionally
agreeing to allow Renton to move the Union Pacific railroad tracks to an
alignment next to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks at the
Longacres Commuter Rail Station. This approval is key in the City's ability
to build the Strander Blvd. and SW 27th SI. extension project.
Brandy Reed, 335 Stevens Ave. SW, Renton, 98055, spoke on the topic of
design guidelines with respect to the SW Sunset Blvd. rezone and the
Commercial Neighborhood zoning designation. She said City staff advised that
the issue of design guidelines for commercial designations will be brought
forward at a later date. Ms. Reed relayed that staff also pointed out the
existence of a footnote that applies to office redevelopment in the Commercial
Neighborhood zone, and specifically addresses developing in character with the
adjacent neighborhood. She requested that the footnote be rewritten to include
retail as well as office space redevelopment so as to cover the interim between
now and when the design guidelines are adopted in the future.
Responding to Council inquiry, Councilwoman Briere stated that the Planning
and Development Committee concurred in applying the guideline to both office
and retail businesses, and it will be incorporated in the future design guidelines.
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Administrator, noted that he cannot find
that such a footnote exists.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE
ISSUE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES CONCERNING CHARACTER
PRESERVATION IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE TO
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
John Bramblet, 441 SW 41st St., Renton, 98055, thanked Council for
rescinding its decision to rename SW 41st St. to SW IKEA Way (on
10/4/2004).
Sarah Telschow, 516 SW 3rd PI., Renton, 98055, spoke on the topic of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and subsequent Development
Regulations proposal for the SW Sunset Blvd. area. Ms. Telschow commented
that the Comprehensive Plan amendment was rushed, and a number of impacts
were not addressed such as traffic flow, and the increase of the unit density to
four units per structure. She expressed concern that the Comprehensive Plan is
being changed without first having applicable development codes that would
determine whether or not a Comprehensive Plan change is adequate and meets
the needs of nearby residents.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan review
process has undergone extensive deliberation by the Planning Commission, as
well as the City Council.
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
October 18,2004
Council Meeting Minutes of
October II, 2004
Appointment: Board of
Adjustment
CAG:04-087, Main Library
Carpet Replacement, Decor
Carpet One
Plat: Clover Creek No.2, Park
Ave N & N 27th Ct, FP-04-
116
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Planning & Development
Committee
Planning: 2004
Comprehensive Plan Update,
Map Amends & Development
Regulations Amends
Renton City Council Minutes Page 359
Approval of Council meeting minutes of October 11, 2004. Council concur.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler reappointed Steve Maxwell, 2827 Mountain View
Ave. N., Renton, 98056, to the Board of Adjustment, Position #7, for a four-
year term expiring on 9/6/2008. Council concur.
Community Services Department submitted CAG-04-087, Carpet Replacement
at Renton Main Library; and requested approval of the project, authorization
for final pay estimate in the amount of $66,489.88, commencement of 60-day
lien period, and release of retained amount of $3,202.79 to Decor Carpet One,
contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur.
Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the
Clover Creek No.2 Final Plat; 15 single-family lots on 4.39 acres located at
Park Ave. N. and N. 27th Ct. (FP-04-1l6). Council concur. (See page 361 for
resolution.)
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report
regarding the 2004 State Growth Management Act (GMA) mandated update of
the Comprehensive Plan, implementing Title IV (Development Regulations)
amendments, and 2004 annual map amendments. The Committee met in
numerous sessions during 2004 to review text amendments to the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, Citywide Comprehensive Plan map amendments, 2004
annual private map amendments, and the Title IV development standards and
uses (zoning) text amendments required to implement the Slate GMA mandated
update of the plan. The Committee also received the Planning Commission
recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan text, Citywide concurrent map
amendments, annual map amendments, zoning, and the zoning text proposals.
The Committee recommended adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan Vision, Housing, Land Use, Transportation, Utilities, Capital Facilities,
and Economic Development Elements; and adoption of three new elements:
Community Design, Human Services. and Parks. Recreation, Trails, and Open
Spaces. The Committee recommended that the existing Environment Element
be retained in Committee pending further review of the critical areas ordinance
and best available science documentation.
The following proposed amendments are held in Committee pending resolution
of an appeal of the critical areas ordinance SEP A determination: 1)
Environment Element and policies in the Land Use Element subsection titled
"Shorelines of the State: Land Use, Recreation, and Circulation Management";
2) Land Use Element policies. including LU-340. LU-360, and LU-368; 3)
Transportation Element revisions to Policy T-70 and T-71; and 4) Utilities
Element text under the heading "Surface Water Quality and Quantity Best
Management Practices" and new Surface Water Policy U-85.
The Committee also recommended adoption of the ordinances approving the
2004 Comprehensive Plan update and the annual Citywide zoning map
amendments as shown on the matrix entitled "2004 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments." summarized as follows:
• 2004-T -01 -City of Renton applicant; 2004 State GMA mandated
Comprehensive Plan update.
October 18, 2004
Committee of the Whole
EDNSP: South Lake
Washington Conceptual Plan
Renton City Council Minutes Page 360
• 2oo3-M-02 (holdover) -City of Renton applicant; King County Public
Health Department property (NE 4th St.) redesignation from Center
Institution to Employment Area-Commercial with concurrent CA zoning.
• 2oo3-M-03 (holdover) -City of Renton applicant; (continue to 2005
amendment cycle).
• 2oo3-M-07 (holdover) -City of Renton applicant; I) Rezone properties
currently in R-5 zone to R-4. 2) Eliminate the R-5 zone. 3) Provide a
change in the new R-4 zone to allow properties developed with R-5 and R-8
lot size and setbacks to remain conforming. 4) Redesignate certain
properties in Residential Single Family to Residential Low Density, except
land in Honey Creek Annexation.
• 2oo3-M-1l (holdover) -IDA Group applicant; (continue to 2005
amendment cycle).
• 2oo3-T -03 (holdover) -The Boeing Company applicant; (withdrawn).
• 2004-M-OI-Troy Jones applicant; (denied).
• 2004-M-02 -Sunset Heights Retirement applicant; (denied).
• 2004-M-03 -AnMarCo applicant; (denied).
• 2004-M-04 -City of Renton applicant; Redesignate Automall District to
new Commercial Corridor. and expand Autornall Area B.
• 2004-M-05 -City of Renton applicant; I) Center Suburban/Center
Neighborhood to Conidor Commercial with CA zoning. 2) Eliminate three
suffixes in the Multi-family zone; Rezone all properties in RM-C, RM-N,
and RM-J into RMF; Allow the former RM-N residential density to
increase from 15 to 20 dwelling units per acre, and increase the height from
30 to 35 feet. 3) Residential Planned Neighborhood and Residential
Options to be combined into Residential Medium Density zoning to remain
as is -R-14 and R-IO. 4) Eliminate Center Institution land use designation
and policies; Redesignate properties to Commercial Conidor and
Employment Area-Industrial. 5) Center Commercial to Neighborhood
Commercial.
• 2004-M-06 -Rod Handly applicant; Redesignate four parcels in SW Sunset
Blvd. area as Commercial Neighborhood with concurrent CN zoning.
The Committee further recommended adoption of the related ordinance
approving amendments to Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW. COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 361 for ordinances.)
Council President Persson presented a Committee of the Whole report
reganding the South Lake Washington Conceptual Development Plan. The
Committee recommended concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt
the conceptual plan proposed by Center Oak Properties for the redevelopment
of 46 acres of surplus Boeing property located in the South Lake Washington
area. The envisioned retail center at a range of densities portrays a vision that
will begin the transition of this historically industrial area to a vibrant urban
village. The resulting development 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
October 18, 2004
RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Resolution #3722
Plat: Clover Creek No.2, Park
Ave N & N 27th Ct, FP-04-
116
Annexation: Johnson, 142nd
AveSE
Annexation: Johnson, R-S
Zoning
Planning: 2004 Comp Plan
Update
Planning: 2004 Comp Plan
Update Implementation,
Development Regulations
Amendments
Planning: 2004 Update of
Zoning Map
Renton City Council Minutes Page 361
related to this property will be checked against the Conceptual Plan document
for consistency prior to approval. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY
PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
A resolution Was read approving the Clover Creek No.2 Final Plat;
approximately 4.39 acres located in the vicinity of Park Ave. N. and N. 27th Ct.
(FP-04-116). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for fIrst reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 10125/2004 for second and fmal reading:
An ordinance was read annexing apprmdmately IS.24 acres located south of the
centerline of SE 118th St., if extended, and east of the western edge of the
142nd Ave. SE right-of-way (Johnson Annexation). MOVED BY BRIERE,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR
SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10125/2004. CARRIED.
An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classifIcation of property
located east of 142nd Ave. SE and west of 144th Ave. SE, if extended, and
south of the midpoint of SE 11Sth St., if extended, to the southern edge of the
Bigelow property, approximately 135 feet south of SE 121st St. from R-4
(Urban Residential -four dwel\ing units per acre; King County zoning) to R-8
(Residential-eight dwelling units per acre); Johnson Annexation. MOVED
BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10125/2004.
CARRIED.
An ordinance was read amending the Comprehensive Plan to comply with the
mandated 2004 State Growth Management Act review and update, and
adopting Comprehensive Plan text, maps, and data in conjunction therewith.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/2004.
CARRIED.
An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Land Use Districts, Chapter 4-3,
Environmental Regulations and Special Districts, Chapter 4-4, Property
Development Standards, Chapter 4-6, Street & Utility Standards, Chapter 4-7,
Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 4-8, Permits -General and Appeals, Chapter
4-9, Permits -SpecifIc, and Chapter 4-11, DefInitions; of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of City Code to implement the 2004 State Growth
Management Act update to the Comprehensive Plan. MOVED BY BRIERE,
SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR
SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/2004. CARRIED.
An ordinance was read adopting the Citywide zoning map amendments to the
zoning classifications of properties located within the City of Renton, and
identified as part of the 2004 State Growth Management Act mandated update
of the Comprehensive Plan. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW.
COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL
READING ON 1012512004. CARRIED.
October 18, 2004
Rezone: Smith Property, SW
Sunset Blvd, R-8 to CN, CPA
Rezone: Handly Property, SW
Sunset Blvd, R-8 to CN, CPA
Rezone: Bonilla Property, SW
Sunset Blvd, R-8 to CN, CPA
Rezone: King County Health
Department Property, NE 4th
St, IT.. to CA, CPA
NEW BUSINESS
Citizen Comment: Larson -
1-405 Corridor Project, Renton
Hill Access
Police: State Patrol Chase
School District: Activities
ADJOURNMENT
Recorder: Michele Neumann
October 18, 2004
Renton City Council Minutes Page 362
An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property
consisting of 7,240 square feet located at 624 SW Sunset Blvd. from R-8
(Residential -eight dwelling units per acre) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
zoning; Smith Property. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW,
COUNCIT.. REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL
READING ON 10/25/2004. CARRIED.
An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property
consisting of 10,780 square feet located at 620 SW Sunset Blvd. from R-8
(Residential -eight dwelling units per acre) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
zoning; Handly Property. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW,
COUNCIT.. REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL
REAPING ON 10/2512004. CARRIED.
An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property
consisting of 6,080 square feet located at 632 SW Sunset Blvd. from R-8
(Residential -eight dwelling units per acre) to CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
zoning; Bonilla Property. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW,
COUNCIT.. REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL
READING ON 10/2512004. CARRIED.
An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property
consisting of 17.2 acres located at 3001 NE 4th SI. from IT.. (Light Industrial) to
CA (Commercial Arterial) zoning; King County Health Department Property.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIT.. REFER THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1012512004.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIT.. REFER
THE LETTER FROM RUTHlE LARSON CONCERNING THE 1-405
CORRIDOR PROJECT AND ACCESS TO RENTON HIT..L TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED.
Council President Persson requested a report on the State Patrol chase through
Renton the evening of October 15th, which caused traffic to backup.
Councilwoman Nelson reviewed the various announcements, events, and
activities of the Renton School District, including: the mini-emergency drill at
Sierra Heights Elementary that tested the school's ability to effectively react to
a disaster, the attendance of 15 students in Renton High School's GEAR UP
Project at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center's "Hutch High" science
symposium in November, and the Rotary Club of Renton's selections for
Teachers of the Month.
MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIT.. ADJOURN.
CARRIED. Time: 8:21 p.m.
~&k'..d. Wal.t.ny
Bonnie l. Walton, CMC, City Clerk
RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 18, 2004
I COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
(Persson)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Nelson)
FINANCE
(Corman)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Briere)
PUBUC SAFETY
(Law)
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION)
(Palmer)
UTILITIES
(Clawson)
DATEfTIME
MON., 10/25
5:45 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
MON., 10/25
4:30 p.m.
THURS., 10/21
2:00p.m.
MON., 10/25
4:15 p.m.
THURS., 10/21
5:15 p.m.
THURS., 10/21
4:00p.m.
AGENDA
Emerging Issues
*Council Conference Room*
3rd Quarter Financial Report;
2005 Revenue Projections
*Council Chambers*
Rating Agency (briefing only);
Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds Issuance;
Vouchers
Sunset Bluffs Appeal
*Council Chambers*
McLendon Street Vacation (briefing only)
Speed Hump at Highlands Elementary
School (NE 7th St & Harrington Ave NE);
Smithers Ave S Traffic Concerns;
Traffic Calming Program & Approach
(briefing only)
Blood Request for Sewer Connection;
Wyman Request for Sewer Connection;
Seattle Public Utilities Broodstock
Facility
NOTE: Conunittee of the Whole meetings arc held in the Council Chambers. AU other committee meetiogs are held in the Council Conference Room
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
COMMITTEE REPORT
October 18, 2004
South Lake Washington Conceptual Plan
(Referred October 11,2004)
Ar=,~"','\-'c~ BY 1
CZry' C;:;:';;~CiL
Date /()-/! -() t.J
The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to
adopt the Conceptual Plan proposed by Center Oak Properties for the redevelopment of 46-
acres of surplus Boeing property in the South Lake Washington area. The envisioned retail
center at a range of densities portray~ a vrsion thaI will qegfn the transition of this historically
mdustrial area to a vibrant urban village. The resulting development 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 ~e. applications related to this
property will be checked against the Conceptual Plan document for consistency prior to
approval.
Don Persson, Council President
cc: Alex Pietsch
Gregg Zimmerman
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Jason Jordan
Center Oak Conceptual Plan.doc\ rev 01/02 bh
CITY OF RENTON, W ASmNGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
AN ORDINANCE· OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE LAKESHORE
LANDING DEVELOPMENT, APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES LOCATED
BETWEEN LOGAN AVENUE N. TO THE WEST AND GARDEN
AVENUE N. TO THE EAST, N. 8TH STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND
EAST OF THE BOEING MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS ON THE
WEST.
WHEREAS, 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) has been prepared for the
Lakeshore Landing site, entitled the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS, and
such document considers the potential environmental impacts of a phased mixed-use project on
property generally owned by the Boeing Company in North Renton, including approximately 55
acres of subject property, proposed to be developed as Lakeshore Landing; and
WHEREAS, with Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map for the subject area from Employment Area.-. Industrial (EA-!), Employment
Area -Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Office (EA-O) to Urban Center North (UC-N);
and
WHEREAS, with Ordinance No. 5027 the City has amended the Zoning Map from
Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urbari Center North 1 (UC-
Nl); and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance would designate certain land uses and activities as "Planned
Actions" which would be consistent with the Urban Center North I (UC-Nl) designation and
zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASmNGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTIONL
ordinance is to:
Purpose. The City of Renton declares tha,t the purpose of this
A Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within the subject site as
"Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21C.03I; 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 will be processed by the City:
and
1
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
C. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process for this site by relying
on completed and existing detailed environmental analysis for the subject site; and
D. Combine environmental analysis with land use planning.
It is the express purpose of this ordinance that all the City's development codes be
applied together with the development agreement framework attached as Exhibit A to this
Ordinance for the purpose of processing Planned Actions.
SECIJONn. Fiodings. The City Council finds that:
A The Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (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 Lakeshore Landing Conceptual
Plan is encompassed by those Alternatives; and
B. The mitigation measures contained in the Development Agreement, Exhibit A of
this Ordinance, together with the City's development Standards, final EIS and standard
mitigation fees (parks, FlTe and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate the significant adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed Lakeshore Landing conceptual site plan; and
C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a
benefit to the public, protects the environment, and enhances economic development; and
D. Opportunities for public involvement and review have been provided as part of
the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning and EIS processes, and the approval of the Conceptual Plan
for Lakeshore Landing and comments have been considered which have resulted in
modifications to measures in the Development Agreement and analyzed Alternatives.
SECI10Nm Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining
Projects as Planned Actions.
A Planned Action Site. The Planned Action designation shall apply to
approximately S5 acres of property commonly referred to as the Lakeshore Landing site, and
referred to in this Ordinance as the "subject site." The City Council has approved, at its regular
meeting on October 18, 2004, the Lakeshore hnding Conceptual Plan for development of
between 500,000 square feet and 800,000 square feet. The property and Conceptual Plan are
illustrated in Exhibit B, and legally described in Exhibit C. Additionally, the Planned Action
designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the proposed development
on the subject site, 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 Renton Boeing
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued by the City on October 21,
2003. The Development Agreement, Exhibit A, is based upon the analysis in the EIS. The
2
,
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees,
and standards shall provide the framework for the 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. ~anned Action Designated. Uses and activities described in the EIS, A1biect to
the thresholds ~escribed in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 anal zed in the EIS . e
mif1gifion measures escribed m Exhibit A, are desi8!)ated...£lanned Mi....9JlS-PUtsuanuo..R.C}V
43.21.C.031.
D. P)Rnned Action Thresbgids. (
1. Land Use. Subject to the measures descnbed in Exhibit A, the land uses
and development levels analyzed as Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EIS, together with their
customary accessory uses and amenities described in the BIS, when applied to, the Conceptual
Plan for Lakeshore Landing approved by the City Council at its meeting of october 18, 2004,
makes Lakeshore Landing a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031.
If futuc!!-refjn,.plC~!S to the approved Lakeshore Landing Conccptnal plap exceed the
~mum development parameters reviewed, supplemental environmental revIew may be
reqUired under SEP A Rilles. If proposed plans significantly change the location of uses in a
minner which would negatively affect land use compatibility (for example, move commercial
and office uses in such a manner that they would not buffer' residential uses from the nearby
manufacturing uses), additional SEP A review would be required.
2. Building Heights and Thresholds: Building heights shall not exceed the
maximum heights allowed in the UC-Nt zone. In compari~n with the building heights
revieWed in the EIS, a proposed increase in height greater than 10"10 shall require additional
SEP A review addressing aesthetics and shadows.
3. Transportation:
a) Trip Ranges: The range of trips were reviewed in the EIS.
b) Trip Threshold: Uses or activities which would exceed the
maximum trip levels shown in the EIS must complete additional SEP A review.
c) Road Improvements: The Planned Action would require on-site
and off-site road improvements. These road improvements have been analyzed in the EIS.
Significant changes to the road improvement plan thst have the potential to significantly increase
impacts to air quality, water quality, fisheries resources, or noise levels beyond the levels
analyzed in the EIS would require additional SEP A review.
4. Earth: A significant change in amount of grading assumed in the EIS
which has the potential to adversely affect water quality or fisheries shall require additional
SEP A review.
3
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
5. Air Quality: A significant change in configuration, iocresse in building
heights, or significant decrease in setbacks between residential and manufacturing uses, which
could affect localized air quality and odor conditions would require additional SEP A review.
6. Water. The following changes by the Planned Action scenarios to the
Alternatives analyzed in the BIS would require additional SEP A review:
a) Change in peak flows to Johns Creek signi ficant1y exceeding the
levels reviewed in the BIS.
b) Increase in number of outfa11s to Johns Creek or Lake Washington
beyond the numbers reviewed in the EIS.
5. Public Services and Uti1ities: A significant increase in the number of
square feet or dwelling units beyond the maximum number analyzed in the BIS would require
additional SEPA review to address impacts to Fire; Police, Schools, Parks, Water, Wastewater,
Solid Waste, as applicable.
E. Planned 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
43.21C.031(2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 191-11-172 and all of the following
conditions:
a) The project is located on the subject site as described in section
m.A, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on the subject
site; and
b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan
adopted under RCW 36. 70A; and
c) The project's significant environmental impacts have been
adequately addressed in the BIS by reviewing the environmental check:list or other project review
form as specified in WAC 190-11-315; and .
d) The project complies with the Planned Action thresholds in the
EIS;and
e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts
have been mitigated through the application of the Development Agreement in Exhibit A, as well
as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees and conditions, which together constitute
sufficient mitigation for the significant environmenta1 impacts associated with the proposed
project; and
4
•
.' ORDINANCE NO. 5107
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 fucjJity.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
1. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned
Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEP A threshold determination, an environmental
impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under SEP A
2. Being designated 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 ElS.
3. Planned Actions will not be subject to further procedural review under
SEP A 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. The Planned Action designation shall not excuse a project from meeting the City's
code and ordinance requirements apart from the SEP A process.
G. 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 PlanningIBuildinglPublic 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.
3. If the project application is within an area designated as a Planned Action,
the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent
with and meets all of the qualifications specified in section m 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 SEP A review, threshold determination,
or EIS shall be required.
5
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
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 special notice is required.
6. If a project is determined not to be a Planned Action, the Director shall
notify the applicant and prescn"be a SEP A review procedure consistent with the 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 environmental review analysis in the BIS prepared for the Planned Action, as
well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEP A requirements. The
Environmental Review Committee may choose to Iimit·the scope of the SEPA review to those
issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the BIS.
SECTION IV. Time Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed
no later than Decemb~ 31, 2009 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, this Ordinance may
be amended as needed, and another review period may be specified.
~ ~ I SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any
~ '\ mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any ordinance, or regulation of the City, the
i~ ... ' I, provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall
.~rt· 'J' supersede . • 1(;
/' SECTION VL 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 vu. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCll.. this 15th day of November ,2004.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Cleric
6
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this J 5 th day of November ,2004.
~~-ul~
yolker-Wheeler, Mayor
Approved as to fonn:
~
Date of Publication: 11/1912004 (summary)
ORD.II 42: I 113/04 :ma
7
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Return Address
Office of1he City Cletk
Renton City Hall
1055 Soufh Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
IUIIIIIIIIUIII 20031210001637
~~tWt ~.AG 111."
12/11/2013 JZ:ZZ '
KII'IG COUNTY, lolA
Docume.oat ntIe(.) (crtnmsactioos contamecltherein):
I. Development Agreement fir Renton Plant Redevelopmcot
,
Reference Number(.) OCDocllDle.oaU lllligaed or released:
(on page _ ofdoc:umcots(s»
Gra.tor(l) (Last name fim, then first name and initials):
1. The Boeing Canpooy
Grantee(.) (Lastnamofim, then first name and initials): -. ,
1. City ofRcnton
Legal descriptioll (ablrcviated: ie-lot, block, plat or section, townsbip, raogo)
Portioos' ofReoIco Farm Plat, Renton Farm Plat No. 2, Plat of sarta:isrine, Rentco BoiI~ Wodcs Shm Plat,
Renton F8I:DI Acreage Plat, City ofRenIco Short Plat, C.H Adsit's Lak. Wamingkn Plat, and Govcmmeut
Lots 1,2, and 3 -STR. amoS TAXLOT 55 PCL 1 BOEING, STR 082305 TAXLOT 115 J'CL2 BOBING,
STR 08230S TAXLOT 880 PeL 3 BOEING, STR 082305 TAXLOT 19 PCL 4 BOEING, 8TR 082305
TAXLOT9l'CL 5 BOEING, SIR08230~ TAnOT 37 PCL 6 BOBlNO,STR 082305 TAnOT I05PCL
7 BOEING, 8TR 082305 TAXLOT 152 PCL 8 BOEING, STR 072305 TAXLOT 1 PC!. 9 BOBING, STR.
072305 TAXLOT 46 PCL 10 BOEING, SIR08230S TAXLOT II PC!.. 11 BOEING, STR 082305
TAXLOT 1S7 PeL 12 BOBING, SIR 082305 TAXLOT 79 PeL 13BOBINCi,'
STR 072305 TAnOT 100 PC!. 14 BOEING, SIR 082305 TAnOT 204 PC!.. IS BOEING.
t2£l Full legal is at pegeI __ ' ihrough __ ofdoc:umcot. '.
AIsoIsor'.·P~TuP.rceIIA_tNlUDber
Portioos.ofthe foIJowii!g: 11756460-00SS-04,1I7223O()..()115-08,II722400-08S()"oo, #082305-9019-00,
#08.2305-9209-00,11082305-9037-08, 117223()O..(l105-OO,1I082305-9152-o7, 11072305-9001-01,11072305-
9046!.oS, H082305-9011~8,1I082305-918,7-06, H082305-9079-07,1I072305-9I()O..(lI,1I082305-9204-05 • .
..
VBOElIIG 0.. ~t 11·24-0._) 11/24103
• ..
DEVELOPMENT. AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BOEING CO:MPANYAND THE CITY OF RENTON
FORREDEvEtoPMENT OF.A PORTION OF THE BOEING RENTON
AIRCRAFl' MANUFACI'ORING FACH.JTY
I; PREAMBLE'
This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") between THE
BOEING COMPANY ("Owner" or 13oeing"), a Delaware cmporation, and the CI1Y
OF RENTON ("Renton"), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, is .
entered into pursuant to the authority ofRCW 36.70B.170through .210, under which
a local government may enter into a development agreement with an entity having
ownership or control of real property within its jurISdiction.
n. RECITALS
A. Owner owns approximately 280 acces of real propetty. known as the
Boeing Renton Aircraft Manufacturing Facility ("Renton Plant" or "Planf'),located
in Renton. King County, Washington. as more particularly described in Exhibit I,
attached. Since the early 19409, the Plant has been used to maoufucture militmy and
commercial aiIpIimes. .
B. The majority of the Renton Plant site has historically been zoned for
heavy industrial1lSe and has, for seVeral years, been designated Employment Area-
Industrial by the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Since 2000, a parCel alOng the Plant's
eastern boundary has been zoned ill and designAted by.the Comprehensive Plan as
Employment Area-Transition (Interim) and a nearby parcel has been zoned CO and
designated by the Comprehensive Plan as EmploYment Area-Office: . .
c. In 2002, Owner informed Renton. of its plan to consolidate its Renton
Plant operations to the site area west of Logan Avenue, an effort commonly'known as
. the "Move-to-the-Lake." Move-to-the-Lake is, among other things, intended to .
release underutilized land as smplus for eventual sale and redevelopment.
D. To provide certainty and efficiency to Owner with respect to further
development of the Renton Plant for aiIplane manufacturing pmposes, to encourage
continued aiIplane manufacturing by Owner at the Renton Plant, and in anticipation
of potential future redevelopment efforts, Owner and Renton entered into a
Development Agreement ("2002 Agreement") on June 28, 2002, by Resolution
(/BOEING i>cY "-'""' 11·24.o3.4ooJ 1I1U1l3
Pap I
, '
No. 3568 which, among other things, established baseline trip counts,
redevelopment credit and vesting of land use regulations under certain circumstances
for ongoing Renton Plant operations and potential redevelopment
E. B8sed on further discussions between Owner and Renton regarding
potential opportunities for redevelopment of the Renton Plant site, in phases, over '
time. Renton resolved, by Resolution 3589, on oCtober14,' 2002, to conduct
environmental review in the form of an environmental impact statement ("EIS'')
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A j of (a) potential alternatives
for~evelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plimt site and (b) related public
infrastructure. Resolution 3589 also established a conqeptual public/private ,
frameWorlc for the eventual mitigation of the impacts of Renton Plant redevelopment
on transportation infrastructure and public services.
F. On December 4, 2002, Owner and Renton entered into an agreement
concerning the funding and construction of the extension of Strander Blvd. across ,
Owner's Longacres property ("Strander Agreement;. Among other things, the
Strander Agreement establishes a $1.7 million transportation mitigation credit to
'Boeing that may be nsed to pay for transportation improvements needed to support
, development of Owner's properties located in Renton. -.
G. On Decetnber 16, 2002, Owner submitted an application to Renton for
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan designation applicable to the Renton Plant site
(''Comprehensive Plan Application,,) from ill to Employment Area -Tnmsition
("EAT',). Renton elected to designate the area under a new qomprehensive Plan
!Iesigilation and combine the Comprehensive Plan Application with amendments
-proposed by Renton to the zoning text,' zoning map and development standard for the
Renton Plant site -
H. On December 20, 2002, Renton imposed, by Resolution 3609, a
Moratorium on -development in areas of Renton, including the Renton Plant, zoned
HI. One stated reason for the Moratorium was Renton's desire to ''provide adequate
time for Renton staff to prepare and present proposed changes to the Comprehensive .
Plan and zoning" of those areas zoned heavy industrial (llI).
I. On January 13, 2003, the City Council ~eld a public hearing on the
Moratorium. At the request of the Boeing Company, Renton amended the
Moratorium to allow Boeing to consolidate its facilities within the Renton Plant.
After the JanU<IIY 13, 2002 public hearing, the Renton City Council adopted
Resolution 3613 which continued the Moratorium in those areas of Renton zoned
{!BOEING 11-24-0J.doc) 11l24.Vl
r.,.2
heavy industrial (lli), but also agreed to support Boeing's ''Move-to-the-Lake''
including any required building modification or construction.
J. On June 9, 2003, the City Council amended the Moratorium for a
second time by the adoption of Resolution 3639. Resolution 3639 lifted the
Moratorium over I-H zoned areas locatccfwithin the Employment Area-Valley
Comprehensive Plan designation. The Renton pImit is the only I-H zoned pIOpetty of
any significant size that cOntinues to be bound by the Moratorium. which is scheduled
to expire on December 2, 2003.
.. K.. On March 4, 2003, Renton's Environmental Review Committee
("ER.C") adopted a determination of significance for the Proposal. Renton issued a
Scoping Notice and Scoping Document for the BIB on March 10; 2003. On March
25~ 2003, a public scoping meeting was held to receive written and oral cOmments on
the proposed scope of study. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
issued by the ERC.on Jw.y 9, 2003. A public hearing was held on July, 30; 2003. A .
thirty day comment period on the DBIS was closed on August 8, 2003: . The Final EIS
was issued on Octobei-21, 2003.
L. Portions of the Proposal were the subject of a Renton PJarining
CommiSlJion hearing held November 12, 2003; the Proposal and related modifications
to Renton's existing parking cOde, site development plan review ordinance. and
binding site plan ordinance were the sUbject of the City Council Hearing held On
November 17, 2003. The City Council adopted all by ordinance OIl November 24,
2003.
M. Owner has determined that the ~rtions of the Renton Plant Site known
as Lot 3 and the 10-50 site will ~me under-utilized at the completion of Move-to-
the-Lake. Consequently, those portions of the Plant may be surplused imd made .
available for sale, in the near future.
IN UGHT OF TIlE FOREGOING, and because sUccessful redevelopment of
all or portions of the Renton Plant site will be oflong-term benefjt to both Renton and
Owner, Renton and Owner do hereby agree as follows: . .
m. AGREEMENT
1. Definitions
1.1 Arterial Roads means the primary public roads supporting District 1 and
2 Redevelopment, as diagrammed in plan and section and described on Exhibit 2
[/BOEING 11~).dllcl 1If24.oV3 r.,.. •
, .
attached, with typical sections of the individual Arterial Roads sho'WJl in Exlubits 2A
through 2E (herinafter collectively referred to as Exhibit 2).
1.2 Boeing means The Boeing Company. a Delaware corporation, and
related or subsidiary entities.
1.3 Design Guidelines means the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations
established by Renton to supplement the Development Regulations with respect to the
design of certain uses permitted within the UC-N zone.
1.4 Development Regulations means those portions of the Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) zoning provisions that govern certain aspects of site planning.
building design, landscape requirements and other elements of development within a
given zone.
1.5 District 1 means that aiea of the Renton Plant Site located east of Logan
Avenue, as designated on Exhibit 3 attached.
1.6. District 2 means that area of the Renton Plant Site located west of
Logan Avenue. as designated on Exhibit 3.
1.7 Economic Benefit Analysis means the calculation of estimated one time
and recurring revenues and jobs generated by a proposed Redevelopment project.
1.8 . Franchise Utilities means electricity. natural gas. telecommunications,
and other utilities not provided by Renton.
1.9 Interchanges mean access points from Renton roadways to and from
. Interstate 405.
1.1 0 Intersections mean the general areas where two or more roadWays join
or cross, including the roadways and roadside facilities for traffic movement within
them.
1.11 Land Use Policies and Regulations means Renton Comprehensive Plan
policies, Development Regulations and Design Guidelines.
1.12 Local Roads means all on-site roads that are not Arterial Roads and that
are necessitated by Redevelopment.
1.13 Off-Site Intersections means intersections not included within District 1
or District 2.
[!BOEING 11-24-03.0!0c) IIQ4I03
pap.
1.14 On-Site Intersections means the intersections shown on Exhibit 4.
·1.15 Owner means Boeing and any transferee or successor-in-interest of all
or any portion· of tile Renton Plant
1.16 ~ means, collectively, Owner's Comprehensive Pian Application
and related zoning and Development Regulation amendments proposed by Renton. . .
1.17 RMCmeans theRentonM~cipal Code.
US RedevelopQlent means co~on ofimprovenients to th~ Renton
Plant for uses other than airplane manufaoturing or uses supporting or associated with .
~lane manufilctnring. . .
1.19 Renton Plant. Operations means airplane manufucturing and supporting
or associated uses conducted on the Renton pIani Site.
1.20 Renton Plant Site means District 1 and Dislrict 2, collectively, as shown
on Exln"bit 3.
1.21 Site Plan Process means the master planning and site plan requirements
of the RMC applicable to Redevelopment within the UC-N zciDe'.
1.22 Subdistrict lA means that portion ofDistric!: 1 commOnly known as
Parldng Lot 3 and the 10-50 Building as shown on: the Subdistrict lA Conceptual
Plan.
1.23 Subdistrict IBmeans that portion of District 1 commOnly known as the
10-80 site, Lot 10, and other Boeing-owned parcels east of Logan Avenue and south
of Slh Street. .
1.24 Subdistricts means Subdistrict lAo Subdistrict lB. and District 2,
collectively.
1.25 .. Utilities means water, sewer and stormwater system iinprovements that
serve the Renton PIant Site.
2. Basis of Agreement
2.1 Intent
This .r\greement establishes certain roles and responsibilities for the potential
phased Redevelopment of all or Ii portion of the Renton Plant Site, including but not
[IBOEIN"O 11-2~3.oIocJ 11Il4m
hge5
, .
" --
limited.to Renton commitments for corresponding potential funding and construction
of certain public i.n.fraStructure improvements benefiting the Renton Plant Site and the
community at large and Owner commitments to participate in the funding of certain
public improvements, to fund all private aspects of Redevelopment, and to redevelop
the Renton Plant Site consistent with applicable Land Use Policies and Regulations.
2.2 SEPA Decision Document
This Agreement is entered into in lieu of a SEP A ''Decision Document" and, as
such, establishes all SEP A-based conditions necesSIUY to mitigate potential adverse
impacts of the Proposal, and Renton's approval of the Subdistrict lA Conceptual
. Retail Plan.
" 3. Redevelopment PIauu'lug
Redevelopment of the Renton Plant Site may occur incrementally starting with
properties within Subdistrict 1A. Conceptual planning for the possible smplus and
sale of property will occur in ~ areas of the Renton Plant site, Subdistrict lAo
Subdistrict lB, and District 2, as illustrated in Exhibit 3. Conceptual planning.
-pursuantto the requirements of this Agr eement, will be' supplemented by master
planning and site planning pursuant to the requirel;nentl! ofRMC 4-9-200.
3.1 Conceptual Plan
At the time "at which Owner wishes to subdivide; develop, sell, or otherwise
alter any property within the Subdistricts for uses not re~ed to airplane
manufacturing or supporting uses, it will submit to RentoD. a Conceptual Plan
including: .
3.1.1. A narrative describing the conceptual Redevelopment proposal
and its relationship to the Renton's Comprehensive Plan VISion and Policies for the
Urban Center-North;
3.1.2 The estimated timing and sequencing of property smplus and sale
(if applicable);
3.1.3 A description of the proposed uses including the general mix of
types, estimated square footage of each building and parlcing for each structure,
heights and residential densities;
3.1.4 The general location of use concentrations (i.e., residential
neighborhoods, office or retail ~, etc.);
(/BOEiNG 1I·24-0J.doc) 11124103
Pale 6
3.1.5 Vehicular and pedestrian circulation that includes a hierarchy and
general location of type, including arterials, pedestrian-oriented streets, other local
roads and pedestrian pathways; .
3.1.6 General location and size of public open space; and
3.1. 7 An economic benefit analysis demonstrating file conceptual
development's anticipated ecOnomic impact to local, regional and state governments.
3.2 Conceptual Plan Approval
Owner will submit the Conceptual PIan to the City Council for' approvaL The
Council will base its BpprovaI on the proposed ConCeptual Plan's :fhlfillment o~the .
adopted Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban CentCl'-Nortb.
3.3 Subsequent Land Use Approv8Js
Renton will evaluate all subsequentdevelopnlent permit applications wi1hin
the Subdislrlcts based on consistency with the approved Conceptual Plan. The process
.', for subsequent master pIan and site plan approval is outlined in RMC 4-9-200.
3.4 Modifications to Approved Conceptual Plans
3.4.1 Modifications to an approved Conceptual Plan may be made after
an administrative determination of the significance of the proposed modification.
3.4.2 Minor modifications to an approved Conceptual Plan may be
approved administratively as long as the proposed modifications remain consistent
with the spirit and intent of thy adopted PIan.
3.4.3 Ifit is ~d that a proposed modification is inconsi$tent
with the spirit and intent of the adopted Conceptual Plan, or if an entirely new ,
Conceptual Plan is proposed, City Council approval is required.
3.5 Subdistrict lA Conceptual Retail Plan .
Owner has produced a Subdistrict lA Conceptual Retail Plan. attached as
ExhIbit 5, that meets the requirements of Section 3, outlining proposed
Redevelopment of Subdistrict lA. By adoption of this Agreement, the City Council
, approves this plan as the Conceptual PIan for Subdistrict lAo
3.5.1 The Subdistrict lA Retail Conceptual PIan includes development
of approximately 450,000 sq. ft. of large-and medium-format retail stores and
[/BOEING Dov ApemCIIIII-24.o3J1oc) 11124.-V3
,Poe. 7
"
approximately 110,000 sq. ft. of small retail shops, as well as potential locations for
strUctured parking and upper story multi-family residential units or office uses.
3.5.2. An Economic Benefit Analysis for Subdistrict lA of the
Redevelopment, attached as part ofExIn'bit 5, demonstrates that the Subdistrict lA
Retail Conceptual Plan, which is forecast to produce estimated revenues to Renton of
approxi rn8tety $1.2 million in one-time, construction related revenues and an
. escalation to approximately $1.5 million in recmring annual revenues to support
Subdistrict IA Retail Redevelopment beginning in 2009, demonstrates revenues
sufficient to fund Renton's obligation to construct public infrastructure supporting
Subdistrict lA Retail Redevelopment subject to Section 4, below .
. . 3.6 Additional Planning Applicable
Owner acknowledges th!it additional site pl&naing based on the requirements of
the RMC will be required for potential Redevelopment within the Subdistricts. For
example, should Subdistrict lA be further divided by short Plat. lot boundary
adjustrilent or otherwise, master planning and site planning for each parcel and
bUilding site pursuant to RMC 4-9-200 would be required. .. '.
4. Infrastru~ Reqniredto Support Redevelopment
Transportation and trunk: utilities anticipated to be necessary to support
Redevelopment and the manner in which each will be funded and developed are
discussed below. Exhibit 2 generally illustrates each segment of ArteiiaJ. Roads.
Exhibits 6A, 6B, 7, 7 A, 7B and 8 illustrate supporting trunk: utilities. Exhibit 9
describes infrastructure components and corresponding anticipated cost. . . .
4.1 Transportation Improvements
4.1.1 Arterial Roads Required at Full Build Oat
The parties agree that the Arterial Roads diagrammed on ExIn'bit 2 and listed
on ExIn'bit 9, will be necessary to support full redevelopment of the Rmton Plant Site,
including District 2, assuming an intensity of total site Redevelopment no greater than.
Alternative 4 studied in the ElS.
4.1.2 Subdistrict lA Arterial Roads
The parties agree that the Arterial Roads or portions thereof diagrammed on
Exhibit 10 as District 1, Subdistrict IA roads and listed by segment on Exhibit 9 are
anticipated to be necessary for full Subdistrict lA Redevelopment
[/BOEING 11·24.03.Il00) 11I2Wl
PageS
4.1.3 Subdistrict 1B Arterial Roadi
The parties agree that the Arterial Roads or portions thereof diagrammed on
Exhibit 10. with typical sections of the individual Arterial'Roads'shown in Exhibits
lOA through 1 ()E (hereinafter colleCtively referred to as Exhibit 10) lIS District I.
Subdistrict IB and listed by segment 0Ji &hibit 9 are anticipated to be necessary fOr
full Subdistrict IB Redevelopment
4.L4 Other Arterials
The cost o:(required improvements to arterial roads nOt addressed by this
Agreement will be paid by property owners or developers benefited by the
improvement based on a fair share allocation of total cost. '
4.1.5 Arterial Road and Other Public InfrastruCtUre
Funding
4.1.5.1 Renton agrees to design and construct the Arterial Roads
and certain other eJements of public infrastructure specified below at &;mon's sole
, . cost and expense; provided, that Renton will rely on revenues from sales tax oil.
construction, increased sales tax from Redevelopment.impro~cnts and the property
tax and other revenueS generated by Redevelopment to fund its share of the public
inftastructure anticipated under this .Agreement. .
4.1.5.2 Renton will retain one-third (113) of the collected tax and
other revenues generatcdby Redevelopment;, and will set aside. the remaining two-
thirds (213) for infrastructure improvements anticipated in this Agreement lIS
necessary to timely suppOrt Redevelopment within the Subdistricts.
4:1.5.3 Renton intends to utilize limited tax general obligation
debt to :fun~ .ArteriiiI Roads and other public infrastrUctm'e Wlder thiS Agreement;, to
be paid for by revenues generated by Redevelopment pursuant to the terms of
Section 4.1.S.1. For example, $12.000,000 in bonds would require approximately
$1.000.000 per year in debt service for a 2O-year bond at S% interest Similarly,
$7,Soo.OOO in bonds would require approximately $625.000 per year in debt secvice
and $4.000.000 in bonds would require approximately $333.000 in debt service.
4.1.S.4 Should tax revenues fall short of those necessary to tiinely
install all inftastructure improvements required for a particular Redevelopment
project, Renton may delay infrastructure construction until the tax revenue shortfiill is
remedied.
I/BOEING Dov "-eat 11-~3.d""J
. '
4.1.5.5 In the event of an infrastructure delay, Renton will
immediately notifY Owner and (if Owner is a non-Boeing entity) Boeing of its need to
delay and representatives of dIe parties will meet to discuss a cure, which may include
(at Owner's or Boeing's option) dIe provision of alternative financing pursuant to
Section 5 of this Agreement
4.1.6 Arterial Rights of Way
4.1.6.1 Owner agrees to dedicate, at no cOst to Renton,1he land
necessmy for dIe rights of way described in Exhibit 2, at the time dIat land on which
the rights of ways are located is sold; provided, that (a) Renton may request earlier
dedication, which Owner may approve in its sole discretion, which approval shall not
. be unreasonably withheld, and (b) easements or license agreements will be proVided
by Renton to Boeing, as Boeing deems necessmy, to allow Continued opemtion of
facilities within the right of way that support Renton ~t Operations. That is. dIe
parties intend that, if.approved, such early dedication would not result in additional
cost to or dislocatiOn of Renton Plant Operations.
4.1.6.2 Should dIere be Owner buildings located in the rights of
'way, it shall be the responsibility of Owner to, at such time as the road needs to be
conslructed, and upon Renton's request, (a) demolish ~ buildings and (b) cap and
abandon any underground facilities that would interfere with Renton's use of dIe
dedicated property for right ofway pmposes.
4:1.6.3 Parle Avenue is conStructed asymmetrically within the
C\J1Tent right of way. ~on of Park Avenue anticipates use of dIe existing road.
Some additional realignment may be necessmy to connect Parle Avenue to Logan.
Owner will dedicate dIe necessary right of waY to realign Parle Avenue to provide
symmetrical right of way and as anticipated for ~ion under Exhibit 2. Renton
will vacate any excess right ofway created by such realignment, at no expense to
Owner. Should Owner have a building occupying property that would need to be
. dedicated to Renton for right of way, then Owner shall grant the right of way, except
for the portion occupied by the building. In such case Owner will reserve the right of
way for Renton, and provide the dedication at no cost to Renton when the building is
demolished.
4.1.6.4 Renton shall not vacate any right of way dedicated by
Boeing necessary to serve Redevelopment, until redevelopment is complete or upon
the approval of Boeing and Owner .
[/BOEING I )-24-03.doc:) 11124Al3
PagolO
4.1.7 Design Fund aDd Timing .
4.1.7 .lRenton agrees. within 30 days of the date of1his
Agreement. to earmark $1.5 million for funding of Arterial Road design and
engineering ("Arterial Road Design FunQ" or "Fund',), The Fund will be utilired, as
needed, to ensure that design and engineering ofthc Arterial Roads occur in
collaboration with Owner and sufficiently in advance of Redevelopment project
Construction to produce needed Arterial Roads in 1ime to serve such Redevelopment.
The parties agree that Renton shall bCgin the consultant selection process for design
of Arterial Roads within 30 days of the date oftbis Agreement. .
4.1.7.2 With respect to Subdistrict lAArterialRoads, Renton will
begin design. through its consultant. of the intetsection ofPIIIk and Logan as the .first
task of the consultant selected pursuant to Secti~ 4.1.7.1. This early'desigri shall be
completed as soon as re8sonablypOssible for the purpose of defining the location and
extent of the needed right ofway of the intersection ofPIIIk Avenue and Logan
Avenue. Owner and Renton will consult on a right ofway definition sufficient to
permit Owner to establish its property lines for pmposes of sale.
4.1.8 General Construction Ti~.
Construction of all or portions of Arterial Roads required for each increment of
Redevelopmentwill occur based upon (II) need for that portion of the Arterial Road as
demonstrated by a SEP A environmental checklist prepared for that increment of
Redevelopment, a 1raffic study, or other documentation agreed to bythc parties. and
(b) a construction schedule established by Renton and approved by Owner.to ensure
final completion ofsuch Arterial Roads, for each increment of Redevelopment. prior
to issuance of the first Occupancy permit for that increment; provided, that if such
Arterial Road Constiuction is not timely completed. Renton shall identUy and
. construct. at its cost, mutually acceptable interim access. '
4.2 ' Intersections
4.2.1 On-Site InterSections
. The cost of On-Site Intersections will be paid by Renton according to the
principles set forth in Section 4.i.5, except that Owner will pay (a) the cost of left tum
lanes necessary to provide access to Redevelopment and (b) that portion of the cost of
the traffic signal necessary to support left tum movements.
[lBOEING 11·2~3.cIocl
4.2.2 Otf-Site Intersections
The cost of Off-Site Intersections will be paidjointly by the parties in shares
proportionate to the amount of preructed traffic using the development and the amount
of predicted traffic that is general pass-through traffic, These traffic predictions will
be made by use of a mutually acceptable traffic forecasting model. Owner's
contribution will be proportionate to the percentage of the traffic trips using the
development, and Renton's contribution willbe proportionate to the percentage of the
traffic trips that are general purpose pass thrOugh trips.
4.2.3 Boeing Trip Allocation
Boeing agrees that it will allocate up to 1,500 of the "baseline trips"
established by the 2002 Agreement for Redevelopment of District L It is understood
that this Agreement is based upon reallocation ofup to 1,500 trips in order to mitigate
or minimize the need for additional transportation improvements. The method. timing
'and distribution ofesch trip shall be atBoeing's sole discretion. It; however, BOeing's
reservation of all or a portion of the 1,500 trips resUlts in the need for transportation
improvements that would have been otherwise unnecessary, Boeing will bear the cost
'of those improvements.
4.3 Interchanges
The parties agree to collaborate on lobbying and other e:lforts to receive state
and federal :fundiilgofI-405 interchange improvements that benefit Redevelopment
4.4 Local Roads '
Owner agrees to pay for all Local Roads required for Redevelopment.
45 Transportation Mitigation Fees
Renton agrees that Renton transportation mitigation. fees assessed as mitigation
, for Redevelopment will be used to fund off-site improvements, required to support
Redevelopment, in proportionate share of the cost of such improvements.
Notwithstanding the foregoing. transportation impact fees shall not be devoted to On-
Site Improvements or for site access improvements required by Redevelopment, such
as left turn lanes on periphery streets.
4.6 Strander Agreement Transportation Mitigation Fee Credits
The parties acknowledge that, at Boeing's sole discretion, all or a portion of
the reserve account established by the Strander Agreement may be utilized to pay for
, [!BOEING J 1·2W3,doc) 1I/24/lJ3
Pag.12
all or a portion of Boeing's transportation obligations associated with Redevelopment,
except that such credit may not be applied to re,duce Boeing's share of the On-Site
Intersection improvements addressed by Section 4.2.1.
4.7 Water
. 4.7.1 Renton shall, acCording to the principles set forth in Section.
4.1.5, install water lines to support redevelopment in coordination with the .
construction of Arterial Roads.
4.7.2 Water lines installed shall be coDsistent with the "Option I" plan
provided by Renton's Department of Planning. Building and Public Worlcs, described
on Exhibits 6A and 6B, attached.
. 4.7.3 Owner and Renton will work together to crest('; a water plan to
. ensure provision ofadequate routine (non-emergency) water and emergency water,
including fire flow protecUoo. to the Renton Plant Site, for continued Renton Plant
OpeIl¢ions and ror Redevelopment, including but not limited to an agreement that
. water for Renton Plant OperatiOIl$ will be of adequate pressure, quantitY, quality and
" "have required system redundancy.
4.8 Stormwater Conveyance
Renton shall, according to the principles set forth in Section 4.1.5, install a
stonnWater drainage and collection ~ to supportRedeVeIopment, in CoorcunstIon
wilh lhe construction of Arterial Roads. The system to be installed is referred to as
Option IB in Exhibit 7, which anticipates reuse of a portioll of the Boehlg stonnwater
drainage and collection system. The segment lengths, type of.veinent, n~ed .
-right of way, lenglh of laterals and estimated costs of these segments is set forth in
Exhibit 7 A If all or a portion of Boeing' s stoDnwater drainage and collection system
-is used, Boeing agrees to grant Renton an easement for maintenance, repair and
replacement of that system and title to the stomiwater drainage and collection system
being used by Renton.
4.9 SaDitary Sewer
4.9.1 Renton shall, according to the principles set forth in Section
4.1.5, install sewer main lines to support redevelopment, in coordination with the
construction of Arterial Roads.
[IBOI!ING 11~4.o3.docJ 1112«13
Pace 13
,"
4.9.2 Sewer main lines shall be installed consistent with the proposed
plan provided by Renton's Department of Public Works, described on Exhibit. 8,
attached.
4.10 Franchise Utilities
Provision for Franchise Utilities must be lDade. in conjunction with installation
of the Arterial Roads. Franchise Utilities and owner shall bear the cost of any out-of-
pocket design costs, extra trenching, conduit, sleeves or other installations to provide
for Franchise Utilities. Owner and Renton agree to reuse existing assets, ifboth
parties agree that such reuse is feasible.
S. Alternative Financing
5.1 Triggering Events
Should Renton be unable to timely fund public i!1ftastructure improvements or
should Owner or Boeing (ifOwner.is a non-Boeing entity) determine that it requires
construction ofall or a portion of public infrastructure forRedevelopment 0J1. a
. schedule more expedited than this Agreement provides, then. subject to the provisions
of Section 5.1 hereo( the parties hereto agree that, Owner or Boeing may choose, at
its sole discretion. to provide alternative financing for all-or a portion of public
infrastructure by one of the following means:
5.2 Potential Alternative Financing Methods -
5.2.1 Owner or Boeing or some other party may build all or a ~rtion
of the Arterial Roads and other infrastructure improvements described in Section 4 of
this Agreement and sell all or any portion of the public inftastnicture to Renton or
other applicable governmental authority pursuant to a c(lnditional sales contract. lease
purchase or instBHment purchase arrangement or similar method, the effect of which _
shall be .to cause the lease or purchase payment obligation to quaJ.i1Y as a promise to
pay within the meaning of Section 103 of the Internal Revenue COde of 1986, as
amended.
5.2.2 Renton. or some other governmental authorl1y, may issue
revenue bonds if and to the eXtent that the property to be ~anced is to be included in
'a utility, system or similar enterprise with respect to which revenues are expected to
be available for the ultimate repayment of the capital cost of such property.
[IBOElHG 11-24011].<100) 11124103
Pllc 14
5.2.3 Renton may issue such other or further debt or other obligations,
including any tax increment obligations, which Renton is now or hereafter legally
authorized to issue. . .
5.2.4 To the extent that any alWmative financing may be structured in
a manner which will permit nationallY recognized bond counsel to opine that 1he
interest on any obligation is excludable from gross income .0f1he holder of any
obligation for federal income tax purposes. then Renton and Owner or Boeing
covenant and agree to coOperate in good fuith to structure the alremaiive financing in
such manner •.
5.3 Repayment
5.3.1 In the event that Owner or Boeing exercises its right of
alternative financing pursuant to Section 5.1, the parties shall cooperate in good faith
to enter into an agreement, pmsuanttowhlch the pames sbalI ideJiti.fY any and all
fees, user charges,revenues. taxes and other benefits which are expected to reSult
directly or indirectly, either from the public infrastructure so constructed or acquired
'. or from the transactions contemplated hereby, in order to determine the aggregate
beriefits to Renton and any other funds that Renton may obtain from other .
goVernmental authorities •.
5.3.2 The parties agree that they shall. to the maximu.ul extent not
prohibited by Jaw, directly or ind,irectly allocate two-tbirds (2/3) ofsuch taxes.
revenues and other. benefits identified in 5.3.1, over time, to pay amounts due with
respect to .alternative financing. or to reimburse Renton or related govemmental
authority therefor. To the extent that such benefits are not permitted by law to be
directly alloCated. to pay debt 'service or similar obligations, the parties hereto I,Igree
tmrt such benefits sbalI nonetheless be taken into account directly or indirectly in
determining the total amounts of public resources which shall be allOcated to repay
such costs, so that the net benefits.reSulting from the transactions and public
infrasttucturC are allocated or deemed allocated for such purposeS, in a fair and
equitable manner. It is further agreed that any costs of issuance of such public
financings, any capitalized interest thereon or any similar fees and expenses shall, to
the extent pennitted by law, be included in the amount so financed and shall be
similarly repaid
IIBOEING 1l-24-C3.doc) 1112«13
Pap 15
•
, .
6 . Vesting
6.1 Site-Wide Vesting to Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Use
Tables, and Site Plan Process for Term of Agreement
Upon signing oftbis Agreement, the Renton Plant Site is vested through the
term oftbis Agreement to the Comprehensive Plan aDd Zoning Use'tables, and Site
Plan Process in place as of the date of this Agreement
6.2 Additional Vesting to Development Regulations and Design
Guidelines at TUne of Conceptual Plan Approval
6.2.1 Generally
Vesting to Developinent Regulations and Design Guidelines shall occur at die
time of Conceptual Plan approval pursuant to Section 3.2 of this Agreement . Such
vesting shall extend for tIu:ee years from the date of Conceptual PIan,approval for
Sulldistricts IA and IB, and extend for five years from the date ofConceptuat Plan
Approval for District 2 ("Conceptual PlaD Vesting Periodj. Development
Regulations and Design GtUdelines may be extended beyond the Conceptual Plan
Vesting Period if a materially eomplete application for master plan appro~ pursuant
to RMC, for all or a pottion of the Conceptual PiaD 8rea inubmitted to Renton prior
to the end of the Conceptual Plan Vesting Period, in which case such vesting liha1l be
extended as to duration and area only for the master plaD area according to the terms
of the master plan approval.
6.2.2 Vesting to Development Regulations ~nd Des~
Guidelines for Subdistrict 1A Conceptual Plan
. The Subdistrict lA Conceptual Retail Plan approved pursuant to Section 3,2 of
this Agreement is hereby vested for three years as provided by Section 6.2.1.
6.2.3 Additional Time Necessary to Finalize N!)n-Retall
Development Regulations and DesigD Guid~nes
The parties acknowledge that non-retail Development Regulations aDd Design
Guidelines will not be in :final form as of the date of this Agreement. Renton shall
consult with Boeing as it finalizes such standards and guidelines and make best efforts
to submit such non-retail Development Regulations aDd Design Guidelines to City
Council for adoption. DO later than April 1, 2004.
[!BOEING 11~3.cIoc:J 11124103
Ptg.lG
6.2.4 Changes to Applicable Land Use Policies aDd
Regulations .
During any vested period, should Renton amend its Land Use Policies and
Regulations, Boeing may elect to have such amended Policies and Regulations apply
to Redevelopment; provided, that the Development Services Director must agree to
. such election, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Renton reserves the BUthorit,Y under RCW
·36. 70B.170( 4) to impose new or diffment regulatiOll8, to the extent required by the
.. federal or state governments, or by a serious threat to public health and safety, such as
changes or additions to the family of building and fire codes, as detcmlined by the
Renton City Council, after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been provided to
Owner. .
7. . Additional Development Agreements May Be N~ry
The parties agree th8t other development agreements, in additi~ to and
following this Agreement, may be necessary to guide Redevelopment owrtime. That
. Is, should all or a portion of District 2 be smpluSed, the parties anticipate that this
Agreement would be supplemented by one or more additional development
agreements, ackiresshig issUes such as open space. and new infm\aJ public and private
road netwotk and public :fiIcilities.
For example, the parties anticipate that construction of additional water,
sanitary ~d stoIInWater utility infrastructure, necessary for the hdevelopment of
District 2. beyond that associated with the Arterial !Wads discussed in Section 4, and
which have been conceptually reviewed by Renton, as shown in Exbibifs 6, 7 and 8,
will be covered by filtuIe development agreements, and that the cOst of such will
generally be the respl>DSlbility ·of Owner.
In addition, the parties anticipate that District 2 Redevelopment w.ill include
public and private open space amenities. Such amenities may include one or more
contiguous parcels-that provide recreational amenities and public access to Lake
Washington, create view conidors to I..ake Washington and Mount Rainier, and serve
as foc8l points for Redevelopment
8. Marketing Information
Boeing wiD generally share with Renton marlceting information for Renton
Plant Redevelopment efforts so that Renton will be infonned about the marketing
/!'BOEING 11-2<1-03.do<:J II/Z<W)
hgelT
•
CITY OF RENTON
~.~~~
ATTEST:
By: Bonnie I. Walton·
Its City Clerk
~ City Attorney
By.' COlette. Temmlnk ----..... '':'\\\\\ ~-~M~.\\
.. Its: . Authorized SIgnatory j"" ~ •• ~.~. "~\ \1 Vice President
:.. ':-f.~ ,
i": to:nt \ ~ .
STA1EOFWASHINGTON) ~ f~ _ ot -~
. ) 1.. 'it. ~"""'o'" 0: ~ . F 88. ~ ~ .... -...V'.L ... ~. jI
COUNIYOF K.inq ) Iltli:;~~::~b>/ .
. ~~ . [ 'i~/It.9"-r~"'/ .
On this ~ day of N!Wm.b~~~ ... ;""2003, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for the ~ f Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared -. to me
known to be the person Who signed as . of the
~.\he corpomtion that execUted the . . • foregoing
fiillhMl'6M.".hft'd'iW.owledged said instrument to be the free and yoluntary act and
deed of said corpOration for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath
stated that 61\, was duly elected, qualified and acting as said·officer of the
Corporation, that \'lb,; was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal
. affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation.
[IBOEINO Il.2W3.clocl 11124Al3
Page 19
..
process, and additionally, so that Renton can adequately respond to inquiries by
prospective purcbasers.
. 9. Potential Renegotiation
Based upon changed or unforeseen circumstances, Renton or Boeing may
request renegotiation of one or more of the proVisions of this Agreement. which
request shall not be unreasonably denied. .
10. . Termination oCMoratorium
Renton agrees that the Moratori~ shall terminate or expire on December 2,
2003 or on the date 1hat the PrOposal takes effect. whichever occurs first.
11. 2002 Agreement
This Agreement shall not be ~ed to ainend or supercede the 2002
Agreement, which remains in full force and effect.
12. , Recording
This Agreement, upon execution by the parties and app~oval of the Agreement
by resolution of the City Council. shall be recorded willi the Real Property Records
Division oftbe lang County Records and Elections Department
13~ . Successors and Assips'
This Agreement shall bind and inure to th~ benefit ofOwnct and Renton and'
their successors in interest, andniay be assigned to sucCeSsors in iritCrest to all or a
portiori,ofthe,RentonPIani S~ .
14. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. each ofwbich shall be
~ed an original.
15. Termination
This Agreement shall terminate on December 31. 2~20.
AGREED this ,st day of [)tr~ .2003.
(!BOEING 1I.,'l4-{Jl.d •• ) 111l«I3
Page 18
STAlE OF WASHINGTON)
. . ) ss.
COUNTI OF ~i~) .
On this 2fI;l.. day of Non m.h J If _ • 2003, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and or the State of ashin~ duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared . tl\. to me
known to be the person who signed as ofTIIE
BOEING COMPANY, the corporation that executed the WI • and regoing
instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free arid voluntary act and
deed of said 9Qrporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath
stated that . obi was duty elected, qualified and acting as said officer of the
corporation, that eiu. was authorized to e::cecute said instrument and that the seal
affix~ ifany, is the corporate seal of said corporation. .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the
day and year first above written. .
[IBOEING Dev Agreemeal Il·24'()3.doc)
"-i2vt:):6aO.e '
(Signature ofNotaIYr
p~ d. St!'\"k-r~
(Print or stamp name of Notary)
NOTARY PuBLIC in and ~ the State '.
of Washington, residing at N lIA(Y$u Ii)". .
My appoin1ment expires: ')-... q .... DI, ,
111241113
Pa&c21
,'.
,"
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and officia1 sea] the
day and year first above written.
~ D. -4.&...42 . (~tary)
~z.af"ll\ D. h,~~.o
(Print or· stamp name of Notary)
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the SJate· ofW8shj~gtoi1, resi~g at w.~-tHe.
My appomtmen~ expues: ~_ 11("
\1124103
Pop 20
EXHIBIT I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Tracts A, B, C, D. E, F, G and H located ill Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, all in Township 23
North, Range 5 East, W.M, described as follows:
1RACTA (Tax Parcel Nos. 082305-9019, 082305-9209 & 7223()(u)105 -portion)
_. Parcels A miil B of City of Renton of Renton Short Plat No. 093-89, according to the
short plat recorded under King County Recording No. 8911149006, records of King
County, Wasbington; TOGETHER WITH that poI1ion of the northwest quarter of the
southwest quarter of said Section 8,lying southerly and easterly of Parcel B of said short
plat and westerly and northerly of Park Ave N, and N. 6" St., respectively.
1RACTB (Tax Parcel No •. 756460-0055)
Lots 1 through 13, inclusive, Block II of Renton Farm Plat, according to the plat thereof
'.. recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 97, records of King County, Washington;
TOGET.HER. wrrn: Lots 1 throngh 12, inclusive, of Sartorisville, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, page 7, records of King County, Washington;
EXCEPT that portion knOWD as Lot 3 ofCityofRcnton ShortPlatNo. 282-79, according
to the sh.ort plat recorded under King County Recording ~o. 7907109002, records of
King County, Washington; and EXCEPT roads.
1RACT C (nix Parcel Nos. 722300-0115 & 7223()().o0105 -portion)
Blocks 3 and 4 of Rcnton Farm Acreage, according to the plat thereof recorded.in
Volume 12 of Plats, page 37, recordS of King County. Washington; TOGEIllliR wrm
those portions of the alley·vacated under City of Renton Vacation Ordinance Nos. 3319
and 4048 and the street vacated under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. 3319 and 3327 as
would attach by opc:mtion of law; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the northwest
quarter of the southwest quarter ofsaid Section 8 lying southerly of the southerly right of
way margin ofN. 8· St,easterly of the easterly right of way margin of Pad: Ave N. and ..
north of the south 315 feet thereof.
TRACT D (Tax Parcel Nos. 082305-9220. 082305-9221.082305-9222 & 082305-9011)
Lots 1,2,3 and 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. LUA-OI-056-SHPL, according to the
short plat recorded under King County Recording No. 20011205900004, records of King
County, Washington.
TRACT E (Tax Parcel Nos. 082305-9037, 082305-9152, 082305-9079. 082305-9204)
. Those portions of said Government Lots I and 2 of Section 7, lying within the abandoned
Burlington Northern Railroad right of way (formerly Northern Pacific, Lake Washington
Belt Line) and northerly of the northerly right of way margin ofN.6'" St; TOGETHER.
WITH said northwest quarter of the southweSt quarter of Section 8, lying northerly of the
northerly right of way margin of N. 6" St and westerly of.the westerly right of way .
margin of Park Ave N.; ·EXCEPT City of Renton Short Plat No. 89-093, as recorded
undcrKing County Reconfing No. 8911149006; and EXCEPT that portion of said
northwest quarter of the southwest quarter lying southerly and easterly of said short plat;
and TOGETHER WIIH those portions of said Goveminei:lt Lots I, 2 arid 3 and the
southeast quartCr of the northwest quarter of Section 8, lying westerly and nOrthwesterly,
respectively, of the westerly right of way margiIl of Park AveN.,and the northwesterly
right of way margin of the North Renton Interchange (SR 405), westerly of a line that
intersects with said northwesterly right of way margin of the North Renton IntCJChange.
said line being described as beginning at Station 6+50 on the A-Line of the North Renton
Interchange, SR 405, as shown on Sheet 2 of 5 of PSH l' (SR 405) North Renton
Interchange, Washington State Department of Transportation Right of Way Plan, and
ending northwesterly, perpendicular to said Station, at a point on the'southeasterly 'inargin
. of the 100 foot main track of Burlington Northern Railroad,'easterly arid southcastcrIyof
. the northwesterly right of way line of the abandoned Burlington Northern Railroad right
of way (formerly Northcm Pacific, Lake WasbiDgtOn Belt Line); EXCEPT from said
abandoned raiIrOadright o!way that portion lying northwesterly Of a line described as
follows:
Beginning at a point 50 feet southeasterly, measured radially and at right
angles to the centerline of the Burlington Northern main tract as now
constructed, from Survey Station 1068-+00, saiel point being'on the
southeasterly right of way margin of the 100 foot wide right of way;
Thence northwesterly along said radial line a distai1ce of 25 feet; Thence
southwesterly in a straight nne to a point 25 feet northwesterly, mCasurcd
from thcsoutheasterly right of way line at Station i074+00; Thence
continuing southWlisterly at an angle to the right, to a point on the
northwesterly margin of the 100 foot Burlington Northern Railroad right of
way, said pOint also being on the southeasterly line of die Spur Tract at
Hoadblock Station 8+85.5 and the end of said descnbed line: and
EXCEPT that portion of said Government Lot 2 described as follows:
Beginning at an intcneclion o{the southeasterly right of way margin of said Burlington
Northem Railroad and the northwesterly margin of vacated Mill St (park Ave N.) per
Vacation Ord. 2513; Thence southwesterly along said southeas\ecly margin of the
railroad right of way, a distance of 60 feet; Thence southeasterly, at right angles to said
railroad right of way, a distance of 10 feet, more or less, to a point on the northwesterly
right of way margin of said vacated Mill St (park: Ave N.); Thence northeastecJy along
said Mill St to the point of beginning: TOGETHER WIllI portion of Vacated Lake
Washington Boulevard adjoining.
TRACf F (fax Parcel Nos. 072305-9046 & 072305-9001 -portion)
That portion of the SE ~ of the SE ~ of said Section 7. lying southerly of N. (;'h St..
Westerly of Logan Ave ~ .• easterly of the Cedar River Waterway (Commercial Waterway
No.2), and northerly of that certain tract of land conveyed to the Renton School District
by Deed recorded under King County Recording No. 5701684.
TRACfG (fax Parcel No. 072305-9001 & 082305-9187)
That portion of said NE !4 and SE 'A of Section 7, NW·'A of Section 8, SW 14 of Section
5, and the SE'A of Section 6, lyiI\g north ofN. 6th Street, easterly of the Cedar River
Waterway (Commercial Waterway No.2). westerly and northwe$!CrIy of the westerly
right of way line of the abandoned Burlington Northern Railroad (formerly Northern
PaCific. Lake Washington Belt Line) and northwesterly of the northwesterly line of the
railroad spurtrack beginning at Headblock Station 8+855, westerly of Lots "A" and "B"
of City ofRcnton Lot line Alljustment No. LUA-98-176-lLA as recorded under King
County Recording No. 9902019014, and southerly of the Lake Washington IDner Harbor
Line; EXCEPT Logan Ave N.
TRACI' H (fax Parcel No. 072305-9100)
That portion of the Burlington Northern Inc. (formerly Northern Pacific Railway Co.)
100 foot railway right of way in said SE 'A of Section 7 and SW 'A of Section .8, lying
north of the northerly right of way margin of N. 4th Street and southerly of the southerly
right of way margin of N. f!' Street.
All situate in the City of Renton, King County. Washington.
----------------
----------. ---. ------- -
-----~---.. _. --
-.
~. "Gil tI> ~.
Z
~ -" s-~
(l>
:z:
~ -<
c
0
0 .--1
N 6th St..
"F"
."H!'
"0"
"E" .
-2: N 8th St.
Q.> > -<
-t:
0 :z: a..
"C~
<C
"Alf C
Q.)
I-
0
c..!)
IT]
I "B"
N St.
o 600 1200
~l ~1iiiiiiiiij;jb~~~1
1: 7200
N 4th
....
~l . ,
\ ,
. ,
...
)i:~'~~;
. \>"' .... :.:~~~
',,.-
. '
......
,.~ ! ,..
_ ,..,Rd
o
!:::;;':':':':jll
",E·
vVN@
PROPOSED ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY
TO SUPPORT DISTRICT 2
(FULL BUILDOUT)
I, '-. \\.~:: .. .,
~ ......... A /'
'\ ...... _..,. I , I \ I,.
, 'I v;
\ i
\
\
I
\
\
\
... \
"""'" ... -......... ............
--~ lUI'I'CIIt ...... l. _ ........ . ............ --
•• 1
stJU __ __
• ..-twIoI. .... _ ------,.--
• """"" om
, ,
i ,
EXHIBIT 2·
TYPICAL, SECTION'1: 'PARK: AVENUE NORTH
FROM PROPOSED LOGAN iAVENUE TO NORTH 8TH STREET
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WllH A MEDIANITURNING LANE
r ~~--~~~e~o
1--,,.---.......... -y'-----I 14" DII"":-r . tt fftW' \' -M' om... ftOAO""y MtlIINt/ KOADD.T 1V
It ItMIII , ~ KlIIlVItO
12' . '. 12', '2' . ' 11'
,m ... m 11' "'mINiI ",,"'m
LAN~ _ IAN!: ' .... !-AHI
EXHISI1 2A ,
_ lOS'·.
fDQlff CJII' WAy .,~ VDUllD
•
"
o 8' 15' '; li',
f " I FULL BUILDOUT
SCALE: 1""'16'
J::/QIE!
SECTIONS ARE,DRAWN IN ACCORDANCEW}TH TfJE
KING C()JJ(TY ROAD STNDARDS NO T1-E CITY OF
RENTON STREET ~TAt-DARClS. ' ,
ALL ROADWAY SCCnONS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE
, ,
k 'ff Consulting Enplneers
101 Stewert ~lrelJt Suite' 800
, Sellttle. WsShlngtQ1 98101
(2(J6) 382-0000 Fax C20p) {382-0500
to NQvaBER 2003
TYPICAL SECTION, 2: pARK·' AVENUE SOUTH
FROM NORTH 8TH STREET TO NORTH !!ITH STREET
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC Wln!t A MEDIAN/WRNING LANE '.
EXHIBIT 2B
r--------------: 7" EJOS1I4G P'NDC ". _________ -: ..... __ j
... -NOtIT or WAY
i
1,1 d ~. 1 ..If.-I. It ,=-=r... -I--.. MHn . ~I~~~·.-~I~}-L __
:!: .. ~----_-___ .... r IICIn' at WAY .,11 U1
o 8' 16' 32' 'FULL BUILD OUT
SCALE: 1".18'
~
SECTIONS NiE mAwN IN ACCOADAta WITH T/-E
KING COI.fflY ROAD STANlARDS AtCJ T/-E CITY a:
F/ENTON STREET STMPARDS. .
I
ALL ROADWAY SEOTIONS N£ ILLUSTRATIVE
,
... ~. ConecJIt/IPJ Eilg/neera
1JI Stewart Slreet, SUIte 800
. BeattIe. WastJ/nQtaI 98rJ/
(2f}6) 382-0600 Fax (2f}6) 382-0500
" NOVEM3EF/ 2003
AL SECTION; 4: LOGAN AVENUE
8 LANES OF TRAFFIC WIT$ AMEDJANrrURNtNG LANE·
6' BICYCLE LANES ON EACI-I SIDE OF. ~OADWAY , .
~:
... 'V"TH EXHIBIT 2C
'.
I .. L 11' I 11' 11' 12' I '" -1-". n' . I " I " ,. , f-..,..-l--cc-l.I'!Yt\t ~Amc-1--1"-AmC TII. ... mc 1~Afl1c--1-MmtAH/ TRAme 'J?IlAmc--L--lRl11lo----m~c--.ICn:u:,L,-.L.T"-I •• u. . "'. • .... I'.... LlN'-nlMHO lAHt IANI' I AU.. • .... I....... lAHr
.. F·ULL BUILDOUT
o 8' 16' 32' I " I
SCALE: ,..-1I;r
liQIE!
SECTIONS ARE DRAWN IN t.CCORDAf'oO: 'W1TH TI-E .
KINC3 COLNTY ROAD 5T AfC.I..ROS AI'CI 1I-ft CfTY OF
RENTON STREET STAtDARDS.
ALL ROADWAY SIroTIONS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE
.. . ,
k if ConsUItlIllj 8Jg/nsers
KJ1 Stewart Street Suite BOO
Seattle. Washll1Qton 9BKJI
(206) SB2-0600 Fax!206J 382-0500
(J t.o\IEM3ER 2003
..'
TYPICAL SECTION 6: NORTH 8TH STREET
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIANITURNUia LANE
•• =
EXHIIBIT 20 .
\ 11 '" 1fWl1'C! ~z .. __" ,t ... _ """"" I ........ \NW: ~lf.1C U" ... _ ~~lOo-..I.-r.J __ 1
. 71".1IGHT OF' WA" 1'11'''. VILlI....... I
·FULL BUILDOU.T o S' 16"· 32'
SCALE: '" .. 16'
M2If!
SECTIONS N1E DRAWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH 71£
KIMa COIRTY ROAD ST..v.DARDS ..v.D TH: CITY oF
RENTON STREET ST..v.DAROS.
ALL ROADWAY SEO~ ARE ILLUSrRA TlVJ:,· . . . .
. . """,------'--;---;...;..-~.....,-......;..---.:..
"
k ff. Ccnsu/~ I:rclneers
K)I stewart Street SUIte 800
SeaW", Wash~ta1 981J1
1200) 382-0600 Fax (200)' 882-0500
KJ NOVEWBEF/ 2003
,
.
• • I .CAL SECTION ,8: NORTH 10TH S I nt:t:T
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH' A MEDIANJiURNINGLANE
,
r_
1
h:--'----.,.-'-.....,. .. ,. o--l-,>, ~ ,. .. '-""~-I.."'T'"-f " ~~mc ~~!!!. 1U=t.m:. mw ~mo-.,;
1--.:..:;::.::=-----~------71· JiIIottl OF' w~y vnonn .. , --.,--_____ """;:,;;:;.--1
" FULL:'BUJLDOUT t 8' 16' 32'
1 1 I
1
SCALE: 1"-16'
I::JDI&!.
SECTIONS ARE DRAWN IN ACCORDAla WITH TI-E
KIM3 COl..NTY ROAD STAl'DAF/DS.AI'D THE CITY a=
RENTON STREET fjTAl'DARDS.
ALL ROADWAY SECTIONS AFIE,n.LUSTRATIVE • . .!
, ,
EXHIBIT 2E '
"':Consu/tlna ~/neers
SUite 800
Seattle. wishlngla1 98D(
(206) 382-0600 Fsx (206) 382-0500
10 NOVE/:/SER 2003
'I
:------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- -----,-"., ---, ---_ ...• ------_. , ..
-,_ -W'o _ __ _ _ __ _ __ .' _.,
.---.-.---------- --- -_. ... -_0-_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
--- ---- - - - ---'----------:-----------------
. -I
\ L.ll.l..LL!!:I,
Jrban Center North District Sub-areas
)istricts Subject to Conceptual Plan Approval
Exhibit 3
- T
ARIA I I 'IGoIO
PARoa lOUT!! a.u-.. O If
'II,4f AO
o
o
I. oIII£A IS ~ RlI.L.D\IN IItILaIMNI ar NIl
A'Itl/U[,»rJ.Slf:MHISN:I,.IlICIIINlarN.1ID
CAlwmN ftIII mJ, I. / lDr ~ IIl'nL
ON-SITE INTERSECTIONS
" oq;.. •. -, .• ..., ................. " ".
0 __
EXHIBIT 1:
•
EXHIBIT" 5 " -
BOEING'S
CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN
. Renton, Washington
Submitted to the City of Renton
November 17/ 20·03
Background
CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN
Lot 3 and 100SO Sites
Renton, WlIShlngton
The BOeIng Company has been working with the my of Renton for more thllO a year
in evaliJating potential redevelopment strategieS associated with Its 737 fadUty In
Renton; Washlngton. ,This Conceptual PIiIn Dlustrates the. BoeIng COmpany's.viSlon
for the redevelopment' of the first piece of the Renton Plant to be made available for
npn-Industrlal uses. The Plan Indudes that portion of the property commonly
referred to liS the Lot 3 and 10-S0 sites, which have been determined to be non-
essentlel to the ongolnll IIlrplane manufacturi!lg ac:tlvltles as Boeing completes It's
·Move-to-the-lZIlce" consolldll.tion plan. .
, The Plan coverS approximately 53 to SS acres of grvss land, of which approximately.
8 acres are reserved for the development of four new arterial streets that are ,
. esseiitIal to the u\tImate redevelopment of the entire 28j7-aae campus. The,'
remaining 4S to 47aaes 'of land will be marketed tp eritItIes Interested In developing
an Integrated retail <;enter on the site, consistent with this Conceptual Plan.
Included within this submittal lire a narrative desaiptlon of BoeIng's proposal, a
, . Conceptual Planning Diagram with supporting pedestrlan'street sections, and an
economic beneftt analysis demonstrating a range of potential one-tIme and recurring
.-evenues generated by the proposed development. BoeIng seeIcs the aty's IIpproval
of this Conceptual Plan so that BoeIng can complete the necessary lot line ,
adjustmellts and begin ac:tlvely marlcetlng the property toJocal, regional lind natIOnal
developers and \!SEIfS.
. The aerial on the follOwing page highlights the location of the proposed retail site In
. relation to BoeIng's remaining land holdings· and the surrounding North Renton
. neighborhood.' .
•
"
1 , ,
!.
!
Conceptual Urban Retail Plan
BoeIng believes that hlgh-quallty retail development 15 essential ~. the Slicressful.
trensltlol) of the area from Its industrial roots to the Clty'sVIsIOn for the Urban.
Center-North. A well-desIgned retail center wID Pl"I!Vlde BlllPlpYmellt. diversify the ecoool* base, offer a new source of munldpal·revfinue, 1!!Id'W!IIattrllCt other •
aJterri<!tJye and potentially higher and better usesl9 the'~irOUndIiIg ilia.
.:rtMiCon~1 Pla~ for the LOt 3 and 10-50 ~i~bn~~fo1loW1rig page,
1I.lustrates the coh~Jve m.!eveloprraent of the<,~i1;eIs:.J!1I:D an Wban retillf \:enter.· ··The
Planco/italns .lImlx ~ .I,al):le rorm!l~ ... ~estlnBl;k?l'r;(tfoIl!~ II)~~ ieb\111I~'
asweJI as small shop space Cl)ncentratedalongPilrn:Aven~,~ astiie
signIficant pedel;tiIa~ol1entecl Street In the area; . TIle Plan iespanCisio the pi'esenc:e
of the existlilf,JFry'$ bU!!dl!'l90il ttle l;!.ioperty to tile em: of Ga~,Avenue, and' . .
antldp8tes~ultlma~e ~eveJopmentofthe .. no!1;h~.portIonofthBt site will relate·,
dl~ to the dev~~pm,~t oceu,!'rlnp .C!O. ~ng:'~,~~ '.' ~ ....' '.
The ~.~:@nd:~DCI)ffi~jn8~~~ng an~~'pUbiJci~dways, wtiJch ' "
segregate thli! 'PFopertylnto four quacli'antS,ranglng. between 6 and 19 acres In size.
Boe/'" Is seeiiln 'J:), . ers forthE!As.-to 41~'~ to undertake a cOheSIve rede~-"""'" ~~icilk.the ·Ia·,·· ~:reta" deVeI ment (users with' '~"'I" .. -.". . ~, . . ~.. .... op
footprintS of 50,000 SQuare ;feet lind la~ BAd bul!dJngfeature heights up to 45 feet .
. tall> Is' planned to Oc:curClIQrjg' 8"', t.ogap BncIGiii1:IenAVenues, facing Inward and ,
supported bYweJ~lm~~rt:Jris!.areas.lntl!''riII(tDthesite. These destination
retail uses wIU natilr;allY~tethe~ aIciilg:tneYtlc!.est portions of the property;
with good freeway vlslbliltyimuq.lllce tilerecenttY completed Fry's development on '.'
the easteni sIde,of Garden 'Avenue; -. " .' . . , . ,"." .,. " ' ........ , .. "" . .... .
MedIum~tretaIJerS(railgln9~een 1C'~~Clnd 50,\100 square feet In llrei.i' .'
with buIlding feature heJght$up'tD.4C! ~ tall) a@.JISSI!meiI InliU between the large' format: tenants 'with' ~"'ma . .-...Iestrilli!ilbi!i1iCeS fad Inward or dlre<:ti!d toward . ,. Im ..ry,...." ... . ../1.... . ..... . ng
Park Avenue •. Aglllii,parldilg Is IISSiJ~to:~ COncentrated within each segment of
the site, to allowforpotlintlal ~nd~· redevelopment lit higher '
densities, If achl~~;' ,', " .. '.
•. .",r. " . .
. The northwest quadrant of the,propeitylsidentlfled as one potantIallocation ror If, . "
mid-to hlgb-risll. develoPment, which. a.uld. ta~ ~ form of a multi-level podium ;,
parklrig strtJctul'Ei, with multifamIly resldentliil1ii' ~ uses above. This ultimate
developn'liint COIJld Initiate the truly Lirban VIsIon for the area lind, together with'
pedeSb1an'Scale treabner1ts at the oomer of Par1c and Logan; WOUld identify i:hJs lis '
the .gllti!waV" tD till! Urban-Center North. . '.
Small, $pedalty .retall shops and IIITI~nltles.WOUId beCOllCel)trated PrimarIly aloog'
ParkAvenue. Ttie scale of development IS inore IntlrnBte lift; .wltl\ an' eclectic: miX
of uses, arch/tI!ctul'lll styles and gll~ .~. lnsonielriSt!lr'ice$, slngle.#rY
retail uses maybe topped with one to three levels ofaparttnents-or.profIissIOiliII
ofIIce uses, 1111 overIooldng Park Avenue and the activity iliong the street edge. .
Together,the lilrge-and medium-format tiSers-totaIilPPfold~450,OOOSquare
feet of space; the. smaller shop space totals IIP~xl,I!llIteIy'110iooO SQuare feet,. or
20% of the center. .
"
1 1
1
1
'" . CONC~PTUAL .
1
1
URBAN""" " ,. '" RETAft~· " .......... ' .'
PlAN '"'' '.' .... . .. "' .. . ..
"~.
. . -"', '.
. . :, "'. -" -.
FUllER-SEARS
ARCHITECTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hierarchy of Streets
Key to the successful development of the property Is the reconnguratlon and
Improvement of Par1c Avenue to serve as II crItIcIII pedest:rian-oriented street: In the
project. To accommodate full redevelopment of the Renton Plant properties, the
ultimate build out of Par1c Avenue will need to allow for four travel lanes and a amter
tum lane, designed for vehicular travel up to 35 miles per hour. To support the
, visIOn far the development of an urban retail center In this IocDtlon, a generous
sidewalk with street trees and on-street parldng for Par1c Avenue Is being proposed
to enhance the enllironment In the publIC realm end encourage people to make Park
Avenue a pedestrian street. An Illustrative street section for Par1c Avenue can be
found on the following page. . ' , . _ .' ' .. _ . . . -. .
The·other major north~sOutn connec:t!<m Is Logan Altenue, which extends from 6'"
Avenue to the south and joins Par1c,l\venue In the north. The construction of Logan,
prolllding direct access to 1-40S, Will be an Important aJtematIve through connection
to ensure Par1c Av~nue functlol'ls!iii .~pe(lestrlan~ shopping street. At the
outset of redevelopment'ln the area;' Logan Is en~1iS a tl)ree-Iane street:, with
one travella"e In eac:h direction lind a c:enter-tum lane.: 'UltImately, logan wUI .
_ expIInd and function even more so lIS II hlgheMpeed aiter1aI;, •.
The eas.t-west arterial roadwIIys, lOtio lind Silo Avenues, are less attIcal to the
• sua::essfiJI development of.the urbitil'l'etall -center, other than serving lIS ea:ess
points to the center off of Par1c Avenue. COnnecllonsfrom lad' and Sll> to Logan
Avenue, If construc:ted, would be fiIvorabIe,·bUt the center would function lIS well
with aa:ess only off of Parle, the existing leg of s'" and GaRten Avenues.
Urban Center-North VIsion and PoIlcfes
~ ~~~tual Urban ReblH Plan meets many of theaty's vision aM
polley ~tS for the Ul'banCenter-Horth, whichCl!llfor, "nItalIlnl:eQl'llted Into
pedestI1a~ ~!Dsbi<;t&" and r9algnl%es~ , '
"At the beglMlng of thiS'l:rIi.n, uses suches retBll~be VIable WithoUt the
omce and reslcI'entllll tmlponents that ultimately wm c:entribute to the Ulban
chantc:ter of the dlstrlct.· The aty's llislon plans for the transition of the IIn11! over a
30-year hoiizon lind antldplltes that redev~lNI\I need to addressthe
potential for future InfAl to allow llrees to further' grow to ~ densities. This site Is
located within Olsb1ct 1, where the Oty Identifies Its first objective as follows:
~Create II major commerdllVretan district developed wJt!! ~ that li'!Id sI!JQIII!;antIy
to Renton's retaD tax base, provide additional employmeot opportunities within the
Oty, 1Ittntc:t businesses that serve a b/'Olld market area and act as a gathering place
within the communlty ••
BoeIng's Conceptual Urban ReblH Plan seeks to both allow for the neaMenn
redevelopment of BoeIng's undenJtlllzed assets while advocating for a mix of uses:
that Improves the aty's tax and employment base. As Is Plustrated within the
attached economIc benent analysis, more then 1,300 jobs would be aeated In the
aty of Renton by a redevelopment Of this scale. The aty would collect more then
$1.2 mUlIon In one-time revenues during development and the ety would receive
over $1.5 mURon In annually recurring tax revenues at fuM build out.
•
• . . --
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
\
.....
,
" ,
"
, '
~
.'
,
..
•
..
'. "
~
• ,
\
,
. \ .. .,.
"t'. ",
,..
'r'· '. ;. ",
... ,
..... '-:'-.':", ~~
," ...... ~;.. . ;
. ", .. , ~
I
\ '
, ., .
.,.. ... "
.~ ~~:.
-~
' . . ,
: '
t::. . t·
,
. .....
.... ,
..
.. ~:
,
ow ••
. ','
': ~ , , ,
...
"
"
~.:....::...,..---:-~ " . . ,
.. ~
.'
•
._--
' .
, . "'. ~ .. -
"
, "J.
.'
.~
"
,-
Summary
Boeing believes that Its Conceptual Urban RemU Plan IIIustnItes the optimal
development plan for this 45 to 47 aaes of land In North Renton. The Plan oftjn the
opportunity to contribute to the tiansItIon Of the area from II prfmarfIy Indusb1al
neighborhood to a higher Intensity and nmg'e of viable uses, proiIkIIng both jobs and
a significant source of new revenue to support the Clty's objectives for the III'A.
. _ .....
. suM:M:ARy .
,,', ,-
. ", ,CIl'fp~~.$j'9ii,JJ::GQNOMlCBlt$0\1!S . .•. • .
.... RetaU RedeveJopUientbil Part of]Joemg sReJironPlant Si~' . ,
. -.. '
... ,.
,. ,-,-'
; :.
I'·'
,'j-
, "
. ,.'. ". ;.',', -, ':-"':., .. ," '~" ,' ..... :: .... : ... :, .... <."< -:.-<~::''''''''':';:<'.>~~.' ... .;;
'., EconQrirlo ,beri~ts to the C~ty:ot RentOn, of re-.devtlo . ~; .. 46,aC,i~ pf th.~~oeh1'" .'
, ,Renton; 'Y~p.tllirt ~~lq¥Ow.P~#Y8tiOJlof~:~~Ptf>P,iin'~~Js~~~": '
on.~ setQf ~~tic~s'ill[1?tj~ij.(tUt co~I)d~~deY~ltiPtrieat~t.f51;Q9PiS~· ' ..
feet of r~il bii¢n~itlm bt#fjit!.pe an4 1 to.()()().il~fi)ei~t retairs~tsp~!" .'. " .
. , . ?-"At full~$Qijitioii:\~ftb~;ab~ve.~ta~bQ();.~~i.;fe~t.;f~Jspa~~ .ana.·.·
.; . . -red." ev.· ... e10' ....... '","':o.·rtibn\otthe<S'oeift iUintoll·.;'~idjj:te":'itis,eStUnatedthat2,l9'i'· . . .. '~p .... . .......... " .. g . . P., ,. . ... " ... . , . 'drillUtent'obs-WOuld'bCcreated1:hroug:1ioutthere'·6n. .. ,.", .. .
:'}; ,..., J;. ; ',",.,. ,; ..... ,>:,:.,:,(gi,,:;c./ . "'.
>Of thistofal; a l'rQjected 1,132 dIrect jobs wouldb,e'~ted at the targ~~ .
. ,~pre. Boe~'~tQI;iSitcr .'p~.f66. ~dditioIl,lIi.fuifi!#(~(i~~iithin theCi.tr~f ",.,' ..
. ' ~ton.assuiniriga'~S,~t~~nlte.:'.','.;; .. ,"·· .. , ... : .. " ....
~ ,,' '1'. . • . . . . ..' ~./\ .. "'.' . . .; ", :. .
. ~ . It. isestiTl)'i~t1}!lJ;these i.~98 dltt#!iDd iIi~Job~>in the CitY of R~~.
, . 'woIild 'enmte'8D additJo7UtJ $45.4 milliOn hi ' ... -.. ;annual inCOme eamed<:, . . :s~~~~~~::oCCllP~~Y of thi~'~~~~'af~
.':> The COIresptiJldifig .inct~e.in pfutlertyValues byxideveloping this 46-acre
, ~~~Jlofthe~fl!~, l,l~gsne intO ~l1Ii,l'11$Os is forec8st totQta1 nearly $66
. ~onupon coJ;liPl~on 1Jl~009.·· . •.... . . "".; .' ..... .
,",-'. . I,. '.: ' . . . . '.
, ,
11113103 JU!AL EST~TE ECONOKlCS
The da .. 0Dd",,1cuIa1ioas ptacaIed ....... while ... ,..........., ... obtained from ......... deemed .. liobic.
,-
PERMANENT JOBS CREATED IN 2009
1200.+----
11,
o ..., 800-1----
!
400-1----
0+----o
WIth Project Without Project
NEW JOB ANNUAL INCOMECREATED IN 2009 . .
$50.0 .r------r
.. : ...
.i $4(i.o +----
Ci
Q $30.0 t· ----
OS
l! $20.0 +----
~ :l5 $10.0 +----
$0.0 -1----o
WIth f'roject .. ~~ut Project
':" .. '" "
E! $1,500 -I---------------=~
S"~ +---------~----
'0 .0 $1,200 -I------~------
'0 $1,000 -1---'---'---"':..------,
~ $800 +----------c 1 "00t-------
o ~00t--------t= $200 t---
$0 -1--_
2003 ZOO4 2005 20011 2007 2001 200t 2010 2011 2012 2011
• Land Dev" • Building Dev. • Permanent Taxes
CURRENT ZONING SCENARIO lI£AL ESTATE ECONOMICS
'.
1-_._" .
~ 1oIIItiotv-._
Selededstolt_._ Ji
WtlbPiOid
.,
" .
~ ...
. ':::.,.
WIIheaIPr'
NEW PERMANENT JOBS CREATED BY 2001
NEW JOB ANNUAL INCOME IN __ :.
lit
i. m'
i' ...
Ii r ...
....
...
I.
. -ProjocI
~"""'''III' P FII_,V'IMt) 'n. ............... ,....... .... .eIa_~ .................... _ ..................
'. . Cho'"
NEW STATE TAX REVENUES
·~··T ------------------------------------~--------
...... t--------.,-----...,-}1-"l r-"1....l-'"
lUI t----'----/
... .. _ -.. _ .. M1' ......... t .......
NEW RECURRING STATE REVENUES
00111 .. I. mIIAoIIS
R..IIIIInw.._, ,. FIH.111Q1uJ
........ ..,...~ .............. fIIII ......................... _~D .. ~. -' l11115U.aTAI'2"B:X7 10 ret
Total redeO'8lopmant land area-"n8l" .....
Total buIdabIe rede.O'8Iopmetd land araa-"nor sq.1I,
Land Development
Land Development ConsIIuc:IIon Costs
Land In1><cwemanl consIrudion duration -yeIn
P_deslgn&mao_'~
P.n:enI ccnstrudion labor
Pen:en\ materials
Bulldinv o...olop_1Il P.......ten
Change In as,assed"vaIue·
PercenI design and manegemat.t ~i'i6l'daf'
PIIfOI<Il ccnsIiucaan labor -oommerciIII P __ maIeIlaIs&~-~
Biling IIaIIIipIIet for design and """_, ...
Biling nUIpIIar for COIIS1nicIIon .
Property de> ,Iopn .. " duraIIQn -yar&,
.Rolioll-8lg1Med Box a..... oquon feet '" .. tal."...
Load faolor'-ralall ."...
BuIIdilg conslruollon cost Isq.JL-retai epaCa
Sql\ per ~ -big bcox mall
ReIaI .... per 8q. 1L-bIg bcox mall
~.laA-Shop 'Space .
Gn>o&sq ..... feel "'.-."...
Loadfaolor .......... space
ccnstrudion cost loqJI.-retaI apace
~ -Shop Spooo
-Jobs
-jobs
Shaoe '" . RIiI*xI
Shaoe'" byRenkin KJngCa. ___ FTEwagefor_......tng_jcobo_
KIng ~ ___ wagefor .. _jobe
KIng 0 •. : __ ........ wage tor pn>jaCl d. III ''' __ melil
AYIiOIIgII annuaI_ for 0IIIJ.IIme o:conAuoIIanjobe
_ Urban VIIIago-P-FIN .... 1111_
$
$ . 65,99tI,257
$
$
1ht ..... Md c.IcIAa. prwerMcI ........... _.,..,.........,. bMn IIIbtIIAed hIII-..wI ~ to be .......
.'
SummaI}'
JOBS
Dire<;! Jobs 61
Indirect Jobs
ToIaIJobs
INCoME
DlIecIlnoome $
Indirect Incom& ..
ToIaIlncome
PROPERlY VAlUE INCREASES Not appflcable
TAX BASe INCREASES
Assassed Valuatiorl Not applicable
Retal Sales $ 12,882,759
Real estata 5aies Nol applicable
Gross BusInessRecelpIB $ 14,314,177
SElECTED TI\X REVeNUE INCREASES
(Property, sales, 8&0 and real estata)
Stall! Taxes $ 1,189,652
Local Taxes
$
$
$
$
73 1,132
Not apprlCllble $ 65,996,257
Not applicable $ 65,996,257
. 61,578,000 $ 143,948,750
97,742,857 $ 6,599,626 .
68,420.000 $ 143,~,750
5,143,454 $ 10,356,729.
Page 1
REALESTATE~·
...
LandU ..
RelaIl-BIgJMed Box ..
Retall-Shop Space
TOTAL
Net
8att
428.450
104.500
532,950
Business ReCeipts
RetaIl SaIea Ann ...
peragll RetaJlSaIea
$ 275 $ 117.823.750
$ . 250 $ 28.125.000
$143.948.750
Ann ....
EmplO)'!!!!!!l Gross receipts
714 $ 117.823.750
418 $ 28.125,000
1.132 S143,!!48,750
Ranlon Urba\ \IIIag&-P-FlN .... 11i1am 1'IIgI' ,... .... ond ..... '" .po-esonIod __ riol _______ lDbo-. REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS
Assessed Valuation •
Bldg. Start Year 2005
ASSESSED VALUATION
_.
Renton uro.n VIIIaQe-P-FiNJd. 11113.103
The dIIIII_wIcI' , I .~""""'IIOt~"''''''&lbWn.dtrom~~IIt'''NIiabkI.
~ '. Taxbases
Qne..IIme fIviK!gh One-lime 81A1ing
Land Devel DeYe 2005 1hnI2OOB at2009 .
AssessedV~ $ 65;896,257
Real EsIata Sales $29,322.857 $ 97,742,857 $ 6,599,628
Retal Sales . $ 12,882,759 $ 6~,57B,ODO $ 1~,948,7fiO
Gft!SS BusIness ReceIpts S 14,314,177 $ . 68,420.000 $ 143,948,750
,.
_ Urban~-Bl.ld.I1/13/03
"..da end ce1o' •• ,........ ........ ..-.....s. .... t..CIbIIIb4 ........ Mlewdtlt .........
" Commercial
_lJrtJIIl VIIIage-P-FIN.ld, 11113103 Page 1
1M data and oak'" 6: os ~ hIrwin ..... 1IICIC ~ ..... been obtain&d fn:Jm aawc.s Mined 10 t. raIiab&e. REAL '.ESTA 7E ECONOIIICS
Onetime JObs
..
From DevelOpment From Development
Item Of Land Of
PROFESSIONAL JOBS
~ ancImenagement I:OSIs $ -. 1.431.418 $ 6.842;000 Av8nige saIaJy -$ 65.000 $ 65,000
BIlling i:nuIIIPIIer 2.5 2:.5'
ProfeSsIanaI job yen 9' ,'42
Total Professional wageS $ 57Z.561 $ 2.136.800
Annual professional wages $ 512.561 $ 684,200
~ duraUon In years 1 . 4
PrtifessIcnaI jobs aeated 9 11
CONstRUCTION JOBS
ConsIrucIibn labor costs only $ '5.153.104 $ 24.631,200
Awrage salary $49.000. $49.000
Billing muHlpier 2.0 2.0
ConsIrucIIon job years 53 251
Total conslruction wages $ 2,576,552 $' 12,315.600
Annual c:onstructIon wages $' '2,5T6.552 $ 3.0T8.QOO
Prujecl dlntloli In years 1 4
ConsIrucIIoti Jobs created '53 63'
Total Equivalent N_ Jobs ,61 73
Annual Wage Income for New Jobs 3.149.119 3.763.100
TotaIWage Income for N_ Jobs $ 3.149.119 $ 15.052;400 "
•
Recuning Revenue
w,,_ 2001 ZOO2 IIaxIiMa ZDDt
R ,..,-TuB_ Tu"'" -. . PiCpertyTax $85,995.257 $3.8000 S237.s&7
SaIoST8ic $143,948;750 6.511% $9.356,_
B&OT ... $1~3,948, 750 OA71% $577.l19li
Real EiIato Transfer $6.599,626 1.28% $801475
TOTAL $10.356,729
King Count;y 2001 2G02 2001 ---T .. _ T .. _ -PnlportrTax $65,996.257 $1_ $95,895
SMlTax $0 1.00% $0
B&OT .. $0 0.00%. $0
RaIl &to1o TransIai $0 0.50% $0
TOTAL $95,695 ., ,
·t
CltycfRanlon 2001 2G02 2001 .......-Taxa-. Tn_ R ........ ·
PnlportrT .. $85,996.257 $3.3500 $221,D1l7.
_T .. $143,943,750 0.15% $1,223,564
SA OT", $1~3,94a,75O 0.00% -. $0
Reale.-T_ $0,599,626 0Ji0% S32M
Heod TlIXIYr 1.398 $55.00 $76,912
!TOTAL $1,554,562
__ II&OT .. _tor~·
_ U!ban ViIIag&-P FIN.lII, 11/1311l3', P~ 1
Thoda .. OI!d""o' •• -""<1--... __ ... ------.... -. REALESTATCECONOMICS
• Onetime Revenue
WAS-L..nd1loY. B..-ogIloY. aoOZTax ~-. -kllng-. 0... time nvenues p,.rIod Ta_ Ta_ -.... -----_Tox l 12,882.759 $ 81,571,Il00 6.110" 10.110% $TA.I4I .. a.eoula
BlOT ... $ 14;31<4.177 $ 88.420.000 . D.471" 10.lI0% ~ S, 2IIO.oaz __ Tl1Ins!or S 3,322,857 $ 87J~ 1.21% 0,00% S . , 1.251;01
TOT"'-$1.1II9.11i2 S 5.'1<43.454
KIag~ ~-. . 1IuIdIng-. _Ta ' ~-.' a-...-. en. __
p,._ Tax a-Tax_ -. .... --..' -. fS"IoIT ... $ 12,182.768 $ 81.&7a.ooo o.mr. 10.110% $17,3112 $ 83.130
'BlOT_ S 14,314.177 $ 88.420,Il00 o.ooor. 10.lI0% SO $ · __ Transfer Ll 28,322,1Sl' $ 97742.157 ~ O.ooor. SO· $ · TOTAL $17,3112 $ a.I3O
CllJof-L..ndDoY., Building _. _Tox -L.-dDw. -.a.v-.
One thne rwenu. p,._ Tax'" TaXB .. -----_Tox S 12.IB2,761 , 1\,571.000
0._
10,00% PUSJ' S . 471.an
,BlOT ... , 14.l1<4.177 , 88A2O.DOO 0.110% . 10.lIO% ,.so S · __ T"-I, 28,322,157 S 87 742.11!l7 0'-o.ooor. $141:'1<4 Is 488714
TOTAL $245.117' , P58.TIB
.-
Renton UrbwI Wag, PFIN-'II.11113«a3
,...dIU eMerie''StiQ • ~hIiNIn"'IKIII""""" bMn Dt!WMd''''eaun:.bllewdllt .. NIabIe.
, ,,-I
REAL ESTAIE a:;oNOIIICS
\
Boeing CPA· Estimated Cost for Water.lnfrutrul:ture Improviments
10{16/03 ' ..
Phase 1 . ,
coat without
Length . coat with atreet atreet restoration
Locatloo ~rom . To In ft. restoration' .*
1 Park Ave N. Garden.Ave N. N. 8th St 2000 $ 500,000 $ 459,500
2 N, 8th St. extension Park Ave N. Logan Ave N. 1300 $ 325,000 $ 298,675
3 Logan Ave N, .N. 8th st. N. 6th st. 1300 $ 325,000 $ 298,675
1· Pressure reducing
4 station at West Hili Pump $ 200,000 $ 200,000
5 N. 10th St, Park Ave N, Garden Ave N. 650 $ . 162,500 $ 149,338
Subtotal 1 to 4 $ 1,512,500 $ 1,408,188
Phase 2
6 Logan Ave N. Garden Ave N. N. 8th st. 2700 $ 675,000 $ 620,325
7 N. 10th SI Houser Way Garden Ave N. 900 $ 225,000 $ 206,775
8 N. 10th St Park Ave N. Logan Ave N. 950 $ 237,500 $ 218,263
2 -Pressure reduqlng
9 stations at Highlands $ 200,000.00 $ .~ 200;000,00
3·200 ft water stu~s to
10 propertles west of Logan 600 $ 150,000 $ 137,850
Subtotal 6 to 10 $ 1,487,500 .$ 1,383,213
I Total 1 ~0_1_0 $ 3,000,000 $' 2,789,400 I
Future Res9Noir In KennycJs/e 320-zone . $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000
"'Note:
Cost excluding street patching for 6 ft wide x 6" thick asphalt patch over water line trench within streets
where new water lines will be Installed -Asphalt cost estimated at $90/ton
\I Abdouliboelng/bof)lng-lnfrastructure-cost-est.01.x1s-1018/03 .
.Exhibit 6A
.J
·,
,;,..
t=;tt=l'1= --/_'0-.---- - - --- - ----~.::l ''-'.ILl _ W"-L ________ ._. ___ ,
,AVAn:::ABlE"""FfRE.r.J.UW-.. -
t-WI+H-Nt':W -WAfER-MAIN-IMPReVEMENFS
PHotSE 1 PHASE 2 HEW 12." WA'T[Rl.IES At«) S1UBS
$2.I1IWON ('" 10.400 FT1I $25O/FIl PROPOSED WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS 'fOR ---, ...... --;:,.~RV~~-:-s SOEING CPA DEVElOPMENT AGREEMENT
• PRY'S II HIClKNIOS HOl' SHOWN ON ..... )
SEP1nfBER 2DO!
\
OD'···
o
I ~ :i
:s
f~
! ~
,.....
f
r
•
I
I
f-. ......
P=l ......
I
X
W
----------.---
..
~ •.
\
DD"
o
----
r'
I-......
Il=I ...... :r: x w
----------
•
Boeing Camp. 'lIn Am.nd~.nt
Ph ••• , Slonnwote,8yatom Im"""",mento -Option 8
S\Otm ROW
• BOC • Boulovard 01 Choniplont (login AVI)
• AI.um. ROW 1O,.lmpervlout, 10" flindlclplno. ..'
• AI'Umtld COlt, Include pennttuno, .nQlnllrtng. d.,lg". mat.rIIl.,
oonoirucUon, and InlpecUon of pip" cbt, btiddDI, oto. .
• Al,ums h.II-w1dth Im"""",monto on BOC .
"Waler Qulllly FaoInUn
-Focllily iJ1}oJ Log,n Ind Po"'AVI N
-Trtllm.nt Are., Logon AVI (N 6th SI!o P,"'Ave N) & P.'" Ave N (N 8th $1I0 Logan)
-Size: 440' x: 20' x12'
-FacUlty #2 At N 10th Stand Garden Ave N fWof Garden AV8 N)
-Tr"lmenIAree: N 10th 51 «(llmlnAve N 10 PmAVI N)
PhaltlandllltormJda
ROW
Dlamllor
1%
-1.
24
30 .
3e
~8
. Col!
Coat ($ill)
16S
110
220
388
510
655
WIler Quollty Wlter Tot.1 eoll
'.
,
Exhibit 74
Boeing Co,mp. Pion Amendment
Phe •• U Stormwaler 870lem Improvomento-CpUon B
•
-W"-Quality
Tolal
Colt "I
Tolal
eostw/out
!ltoraUon ( .... ..1., n~
•
,
E. it7B
BOling Compo Plln Am.ndm.nt
T.I.I Bulld.ul (OpU.n B) SI.nnwaler SY"ltm Improvements
. stenn
~
~ ., r'""ll\ f\V" I'
5 Pari< Avo N "'--" ..... _-...
* I 10 I"" ..... ...
• BOC • Boulevard 01 Champion, (Logan Avo)
• Assume ROW 90% ImpervlouI, 10% I.ndscaplng.
• As.umed cosis l"oIudo pormllUng, englne.rlng, do.lgn, malon,ls,
construction. and Ioapection of pipe, cbs. backflU, .to.
·~.um. filII cro ..... OUon. on IIlll1eaIJ
Raw' Raw Llngth 01 Wlllr QuoIJI)' Water
COat wi COil wloul
Dlametor on.) 't •• to",UO" !$II1'\.ato",Uo" fino
1Z 180 155
18 Z15 190
24 250 220
30 400 355
39 550 510
48 TOO BB5
Tolal
COil wI
Tolal
CO.twlout
Exhibit 7C
1. 5-200' STUB5 _--,
FROM LOGAN
TO THE WEST
AT $20,000 EACH
TOTAL = $100,000
f~
3. 100 LF OF 12'
@ $250 PER FOOT
TOTAL = $250,000
EXISTING KING CO.
EASTSIDE INTERCEPTOR _ .
-.
4. 1200 LF OF 12" iil ". ".
@ $250 PER FOOT
TOTAL = $300,000
19~
190
iii
176 17I 270 • m .. , .271
~ •
279 •
TOTALCOsr
1. WEST STUBS = 100,000
2. LOGAN/PARK CONNECTOR = 125,000
3. N. 10TH -LOGAN TO PARK = 250,000
4. N. 8TH -LOGAN TO PARK = 300,000
5. GARDEN REPLACEMENT = 390,000
$1,165,000
m
OR $1.2 MIWON
PROPOSED BOEING CPA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SEWER EXTENSIONS
EXHIBIT 8
0
0
2
f
,
i
J
I
I
t
I :
I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
.,~tl' '
", ~:j;}.,~':"',
PROPOSED ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY
-,
r --0'
J
J
_ .... -_ .
..,.~u. ---. ..... ~1. -_ .....
TO SUPPORT DISTRICT 1 EXH/e/T 10
TYPICAL SECTlqN 1: PARK .AVENUE NORTH
FROM PROPOSED LOQAN AVENUE TO NORTH 8TH STREET
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDIANITURNIN~LANE
EXHIBIT 10A
r ~Q. 'I'--!-~I ·-'---!~l~ __ I ~ I ,. d. ,_ I-...,.--'-" ....... "AMCINQ . --'MIIrfa LAIIC ·'liM'"' ----,~,.",.--.,
U1lU,,~ -.... " WAY 1I01H"
tOO' . _______________ _
o ~ 1~ 3r
I !' I PARtiAL· 'BUILDOUT
. '-(SAMe, AS FULL' B.UlLOOUT) SCALE: 1".16'
!:mE! .
SECTIOO ARE ORA \'IN IN ACCOI'ID.Ata WI7}/ TI-E
KING CCJUIITY ROAD STA/iDIY'/DSANJ TI-E CITY. OF
RENTON STREET STNDAROS.
ALL ROADWAY SECTIrMI ARE II..LUSTRAT/VE
Consult/fill EnrJlneers
DI SteWll1t Stree~ Suite 800
Seattle. Wa8h~too 98KJI '
(200) 382-0600 F8J( 1206.1; 382-0500
KJ NOVEM3eR 200s
. ,
TYPICAL SECTION 2: PARK AVENUE SOUTH
FROM NORTH 8TH STREST TO NORTH 8TH STREET
4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WItH A MEDIANnoRNINQ .LANE
EXHIBIT 108
l
I I.r It I It --'-~.. •• \ « ~ . 'l'!!!!' -=.'... -'---"I:lI' ,=,,-_-I-I~...,,-'-r-l
o ~. ,t H' I l'! I
SCALE: ,"-16'
WIE!
-----------.. 11' IHfI'f f'I .,q.y IImI UIlI
PARTIAL BUllDOUT .
(SAME AS 'FULL "SUILDOUT)
SECTIOOS ARE ORA""" IN ACCOROAta wm./1l-E
KIM3 COl.MY ROAD STA/IDNiDS NO TI-E CiTY a=
RENTON STREET STNDAROS. .
ALL ROADWAY SECTIONS ARE 1I.LU87tto\ TIllE ~ .
---Omsuitlng EngIneers
KJt stewart Street Suits 800
. S6aft/s. Wash/ngtI:n 98101
c206.I 3S2-06OO FIX (200) 382-0500
KJ MJV9.eER 2003
:AL SECTION 3: LOGAN AVENUI: .ITH
2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WIT~ A TURNINa'-l:ANE
, .
.,
.~~! • ;~ .;l ~" }!.
,Cl.II\!I Nn::J
"'"""
.-
EXHIBIT IVC
'9-~' itJ;4 -'" tJ;Ij~. , ~~~ Ali-,Si.,~
.)~ , r..:..t"".:.-"-=-=..:....=.::..-_.,...:.:.::.::-~:.;.."7'-~.:::-:-=-'-':::: ---' ~l @ Q --Jl ~ I I I I'll H
u' ," u' I !I' L-!......nIIRP1"_ 'Iltmte/, ~int---l8Ie~ IL-.,...J_.-~
., UHt 5.5', I tNfI; ~, LAHt lAN[
f----------------= 118.~ -f'\J't'JM. M'An" .... .,. , _____________ -'_-1 mEt! 'MTH CAA1[$ ,', 6Ot4m~otC fa ~T. DISll'Ur:rt"l 5IOtWMJ<.' L-______ JIQ· _ ~o ... o" .... y t:t:flrnwen~ UlIUT1[S
10 JU!'1ICIIlT IUWtIT1IICT U.
\--____ --, ___ --:--:--:_-,. ____ -, ___ ,'" "'" or ... ,---.,..-__ -,..----..------,------.\
PARTIAL. BUJLDOUT
'TO SUPPORT" SUBDISTR'ICT :'1A'
," " .
t r 16' 32' , r
SCALE: 1".16'
tmE!
SECTIONS ARE DRAWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH TI-E
KING GOUm'ROAD STAfoDARDS I#:J THE CITY OF
RENTON STREET STANJA$ , .
ALL ROADWAY SECTIONS ARE ILLI.JSTRA TIVTf.
k' , _ "' ..... _ Consulting Engineers
K)t St9W111t Street SuIte 800
Seattle. WashlngtaJ 98101
(206) SS2-oBOO FII)(!206J 382-0500
KJ NOVEMBER 2003
, ,
\
,
TYPICAL SECTION 5: NQRT~ 8TH STREET
2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH f. MEDIANITl!RNING LANE
"
L E"=:' -::.~ ::;:-.
It I It If'
MUllNI/ """""--'ntNQ liWFIm"" ...,....1-,.....1-.-1 'I\MnIfQ INI: INfr • --"
.... -"'-_T ............. · .... _ ''''-'-,,------1 . 10 IVI'I'CftT CIftIcT 2 10 """'" ........ tI .-
I. ,..-.... ,.------------1
·PARTIAL BUILDOUT'
o B" ,)6' . 32' I ; .' . ! TO SUPPORT SUBDISTRICT 18 . " .: .
SCALE: '''-Iii'
lJO:fE!
SECTIONS ARE DRAWN IN ACCORDAN:::E WItH 7H:
KING 00I.tITY ROAD STAfOAROS }K) .m: CITY OF RENTON STRl:i:I STAIbARos; . . .
ALL ROADWAY~IONS ~ lU.USTtl-.\tlYE -... -:-:--~-~~-:--~~
EXHIBIT 100
I.
Coosutt~ Engineers I
VI Stewart Street SuIte 80tP
Seattle. W8sh/ngton 98VI :
. C2OI5J 382!"0600 Fax I2D6J 882-0500
IJ M:l1iEI.eER roos
TYPICAL SECTION 7: NORTH 10TH STREET EXHIBIT10E
o
2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH ·A MEDlANITURNING LANE
~·~.~')I
f '.I. .
';", ~ . ::}JL~~
, .)\ . -=_\' J\ i @ ,W 1 1"_~-=-=-_ L---J W._,
t:t I tt 1" .... "", ~""'" ........... -ol-.,...J...,..-l 1VftttNO u.HE L.AN[ tNf[
ua' -~~I'~=~rwCl1Vrl 4~ ;:::l~~'-------!
/------'--...,-----u' IIKIHt or WAy---,-----------i
PARTIAL ·B~I~OOUt
.. TO SUPPORT S~BDISTRI9T. 1A
o. 8 t 151
• . 32'
SCAlE: 1".16' .
MJIf:
SECTIONS ARE DRAWN IN ACCORD..vcE: WLTH n-e
KING COLMY ROAD STA/'DARDS A/'D T1-E CITY CF
RENTON STREET STAI\OAROS
ALL ROADWAY SECTIONS ARE IlL!.I8TRA T1VE;.
"
k' ff Consulting SlQlneers
VI Stewart Street SUite 800
SlJ8ttle. Washlngten 98101
C206? 382-0000 Fax i206J: 382-0500
10 NOVEM3ER 2003 .
~:
I
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
EXHIBITB
ILLUSTRATIVE MAP
--- ----- -~ --
.--~. ----
-. _. -
---
N 5lr SI..
c o
0> o
.....J
Illiust.
. It
ORDINANCE NO. 5107
EXHIBITC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 1 OF BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING BINDING SITE PLAN
ALL THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., BEING MORE PARTlCULARL Y DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION, BEING A 4" X 4"
CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH A COPPER TACK, THENCE S89'28'22''E ALONG THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1.133.26 FEET;
TIlENCE NOO'S6'42''E A DISTANCE OF 871. 74 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
TIlENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING NO'S6'42"E A DISTANCE OF 141.03
FEET;
TIlENCE TANGENT TO THE PRECEDING COURSE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE
LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 547.50 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'54'05", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 276.17 FEET; .
TIlENCE TANGENT TO THE PRECEDING CURVE N27'57'23''W A DISTANCE OF 50.69 FEET;
THENCE N70'54'S7''W A DISTANCE OF 39.12 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WillCH BEARS N23'41 '59''W;
TIlENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,066.50 FEET
AND A cENTRAL ANGLE OF 9'5S'5S", AN ARC LENGTH OF 184.87 FEET TO A POINT OF
REVERSE CURVATURE;
TIlENCE TANGENT TO THE PRECEDING CURVE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE
LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 933.50 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39'00'14", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 63S.48 FEET;
TIlENCETANGENT TO THE PRECEDING CURVE S37'13'42''W A DISTANCE OF 5.25 FEET;
TIlENCE S07'S3'04''E A DISTANCE OF 44.75 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WillCH BEARS N37'08'4S''E;
TIlENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 410.50 FEET AND A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46'01' 14", AN ARCLENGTH OF 329.72 FEET;
TIlENCE TANGENT TO THE PRECEDING CURVE N8J'07'31"E A DISTANCE OF 211.31 FEET;
TIlENCE TANGENT TO THE PRECEDING COURSE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 489.50 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9'26'36", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 80.68 FEET;
. THENCE TANGENT TO THE PRECEDING CURVE S89'25'53''E A DISTANCE OF 186.92 FEET;
THENCE N45'45'24''E A DISTANCE OF 39.05 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 299.538 SQUARE FEET +/-(6.88 ACRES)
November 7, 2005
Monday, 5:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE
SPECIAL
PRESENTATIONS
Community Event: Return to
Renton Car Show,
Contribution of Proceeds to
Police Department
AJLS: Mayor's Presentation of
2006 Budget
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Council Chambers
Renton City Hall
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council
to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
TERRI BRIERE, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON;
RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW.
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief
Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE
WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, PlanninglBuilding/Public
Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development
Administrator; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DENNIS CULP,
Community Services Administrator; MIKE WEBBY, Human Resources
Administrator; MICHAEL BAILEY, Finance and Information Services
Administrator; LINDA HERZOG, Interim Assistant to the CAO; CHIEF LEE
WHEELER, DEPUTY CHIEF ARTHUR LARSON, and DEPUTY CHIEF
LARRY RUDE, Fire Department; CHIEF GARRY ANDERSON,
COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE, COMMANDER KATIE MCCLINCY,
and COMMANDER KEVIN MILOSEVICH, Police Department.
Jim Medzegian, member of the Return to Renton Cruise-In Car Show Steering
Committee, stated that the mission of the car show is to raise funds for the
Police Department's youth education programs. Mr. Medzegian reported that
200 velticles were displayed at the 15th annual event held at Renton Memorial
Stadium on July 9th. He showed pictures taken at the event, and reviewed the
vision for future car shows, wltich includes increasing the number of vehicles,
expanding family activities, and moving the 2007 event to downtown Renton.
Mr. Medzegian presented Police Cltief Garry Anderson with a check in the
amount of $3,200. Chief Anderson accepted the money with appreciation,
saying that the Police Department just authorized two grants to the Renton
School District for a middle schoolleaming program.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler presented her proposed City of Renton 2006 Budget to
members of the City Council and Renton citizens. She acknowledged the
policy work and guidance provided by the City Council, and the efforts of City
staff.
The Mayor reviewed the 2005 acltievements, which include: RenStat (a
program that addresses, identifies, and targets crime), the Federal Reserve Bank
of San Francisco (broke ground this summer on its new facility in Renton),
downtown redevelopment, the securing of Federal and Sound Transit funds for
important transportation projects, REACT (a program that addresses non-
criminal activities and nuisance abatement), volunteerism such as the Mayor's
Planting Day, the Clean Sweep program, the operation of the Henry Moses
Aquatic Center at a profit, and the master plan for the Heather Downs
neighborhood park.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted the continuing challenge of high expectations
versus limited resources. Voter-enacted limits on taxes and State mandated tax
exemptions continue to constrain the City's revenues. Reporting that property
November 7, 2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Annexation: Querin II,
Hoquiam Ave NE
Renton City Council Minutes Page 378
taxes make up almost one-third of the City's general governmental revenues,
she explained that with the limit on the amount the City can coUect and the
continuing increase in the value of property, the actual amount of the tax levy
declines. It has declined over the past ten years from $3.60 per thousand
dollars of assessed valuation to $3.07. She pointed out that in the meantime,
the growing economy has added significant new construction and annexations,
which helps the property tax base grow.
Turning to the key 2006 initiatives, the Mayor began with the promotion of
neighborhood revitalization by proposing the continuation of the REACT
program. which includes adding three police officers; the continuation of the
Clean Sweep program; and th~ completion of the Highlands Sub-Area Plan.
The promotion of Citywide economic development includes the redevelopment
of the Boeing property ("The Landing" project), the Downtown Action Plan,
and on-going business recruitment.
Continuing, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler discussed the management of growth
through sound urban planning, highlighting various transportation projects.
She noted that the proposed budget includes funds to build the Heather Downs
neighborhood park, and a new parks and facilities maintenance complex. In
regards to annexations, the Mayor explained that State and King County
policies require the City to e"'plore annexing surrounding unincorporated areas.
The City is trying to respond to these demands in a balanced and objective way
that does not negatively impact existing residents.
Continuing with the meeting of service demands that contribute to a livable
community, the Mayor reported that the proposed budget maintains existing
service levels, proposes no new taKes, does not use reserves to balance the
General Governmental Budget, updates user fees such as fire inspection fees
and system development charges, and implements an annexation fee. The
budget proposal adds: three police officers, one fire inspector, one fire support
staff member, local matching funds for a grant to potentiaJl y add three
firefighters, court security measures, and two staff positions and others costs
related to operating the new Maplewood Water Treatment Facility.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that the total proposed 2006 Budget is
approximately $171.2 million, of which $72.5 million is the General
Governmental Budget. The proposed budget includes increasing the water and
stonnwater system rates by 3%, and the wastewater system rate by 4%.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler proposed that the City Council partner with her in
2006 to engage in a comprebensive "priorities of government" process with the
following goals in mind: alignment of City services with community needs and
priorities, continued accountability, and effective communication. She
explained that the City needs to strike the right balance between what the
community needs from its local government, and the amount of resources
necessary to accommodate those needs. The Mayor emphasized that this
process will be a way to examine unmet needs, and ensure that the City is using
its scarce resources in the best way possible.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and publisbed in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider the 60% Petition to Annex and R -8 wning for the
proposed Querin IT Annexation; 7.3 acres located between Hoquiam Ave. NE
on the west and l44th Ave. SE, if extended, on theeast, south of SE 112m SI.
November 7. 2005
Planning: Boeing Subdistrict
IB Conceptual Plan
Renton City Council Minutes Page 379
Senior Planner Don Erickson reported that the annexation area contains three
single-family dwellings. The topography of the site is relatively flat where it
abuts Hoquiam Ave. NE. and the eastern portion contains steep slopes as a
result of Honey Creek and its ravine. He noted that King County's 2005 surface
water design standards or greater are recommended at the time of development.
The site is served by the following public services: Fire District #25, Water
District #90, Renton sewer. and the Renton School District.
Mr. Erickson stated that existing King County zoning is R-4 (four dwelling
units per gross acre), and the Renton Comprehensive Plan designates the site as
Residential Single Family, for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre)
zoning is proposed. He indicated that the proposed annexation is generally
consistent with City annexation policies and relevant Boundary Review Board
criteria. In regards to the fiscal impact analysis, Mr. Erickson estimated a
surplus of $236 at current development, a surplus of $9.278 at full
development, and a one-time parks acquisition and development cost of
$27,176.
Mr. Erickson indicated that the proposed annexation does not present any major
impediments to the provision of City services to the area. He concluded that
the annexation appears to further Renton business goals and is in the best
interests of the City.
Public comment was invited.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler referred the request by Virginia Broyles, 11224 l42nd
Ave. SE, Renton, 98059. for information regarding utility rates and the sewer
system to Mr. Erickson.
Jim Montcrief, 11216 142nd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated that an additional
house exists in the annexation area, for a total of four dwellings.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON.
SECONDED BY NELSON. COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY CLAWSON. SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE
QUERIN II DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX. SUPPORT R-8 ZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMIL Y LAND USE DESIGNATION. AND AUTHORlZE THE
ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE
TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. CARRIED.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider the Boeing Subdistrict IB Conceptual Plan for a
second phase of redevelopment of surplus property located south of N. 8th St.
and east of Logan Ave. N.
Alex Pietsch. Economic Development Administrator. explained that conceptual
planning is a requirement of the 2003 development agreement between the City
and Boeing. which pertains to the future redevelopment of Boeing Renton Plant
site. Conceptual planning provides the City with certainty that its vision will be
met. and confidence for its infrastructure commitments. He reported that three
subdistricts were created within this site. which bears the Urban Center-North
(UC-N) land use designation. and pointed out that a conceptual plan has already
been adopted for Subdistrict IA.
November 7, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 380
Mr. Pietsch reviewed the conceptual plan requirements. which include
consistency with the UC-N vision. a description of the development. and an
economic benefit analysis. He indicated that the Subdistrict IB Conceptual
Plan divides the property into two distinct parts. The northern 21 acres is
currently under a "right of first offer" agreement with Harvest Partners and
likely will be sold in the very near future and be used for retail development.
The southern 31 acres. which is not expected to be declared surplus in the near
future. contains.660.000 square feet of existing office buildings and remaining
land for in-fill development.
Continuing. Mr. Pietsch reviewed the economic benefits associated with the
development of the two parts of Subdistrict IB such as job creation and
revenues. and he noted that the conceptual plan meets the vision of the UC-N
designation. He reported that staff proposes the following two conditions to the
plan: 1) Park Ave. N. be designated as a pedestrian-oriented street, and 2)
transit facilities be allowed within the northern 21-acre portion should funding
opportunities arise and the development of such facilities support the
surrounding development and be supported by the property owner(s),
Mr. Pietsch stated that staff recommends approval. with conditions. of the
Boeing Subdistrict IB Conceptual Plan. He indicated that the related
Committee of the Whole report will be presented to Council for adoption, and
if approved. Boeing will then present its Planned Action for Council
consideration.
Responding to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding the potential transit
facility and the financing of the infrastructure. Mr. Pietsch stated that Sound
Transit's Sound Move 2 plan consists of a parking garage and a bus rapid transit
facility. He described future road and trunk utility infrastructure improvements.
including the realignment and widening of Park Ave. N., the widening of Logan
Ave. N .• a new N. 10th St. and the extension ofN. 8th SI. He explained that as
part of the 2003 Boeing development agreement. the City will build main
arterial roads and trunk utility lines deemed necessary for the project as long as
there is revenue from the development allowing two-thirds of that revenue to
support debt service on bonds. The remaining one-third would be for the
general fund to support City services.
Discussion ensued regarding the number of lanes proposed for Logan Ave. N .•
the improvements to various area streets such as Park Ave. N. and Garden Ave.
N., the ability of the utility infrastructure to support future expansion of the
roads, and the traffic flow in the area. In response to Councilman Connan's
comments. Planning/B uildinglPublic Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman
noted that the City is reevaluating the traffic counts as part of the design
process for the area's roadway system, and he described the findings and the
ad justtnents that are being made.
Public corrunent was invited.
Ray Giometti. 323 Pelly Ave. N .• Renton. 98055. suggested that the widening
of Logan Ave. N. occur sooner than later; otherwise. traffic will be forced onto
Park Ave. N., fracturing the North Renton neighborhood. Pointing out that his
neighborhood is located aCf{)SS the street from the southern 3 I-acre portion of
Subdistrict lB. Mr. Giometli expressed opposition to the development of the
land for big-box retail use.
November 7, 2005
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORT
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Citizen Comment: DeMastus -
Firefighter Tribute Program
Renton City Council Minutes Page 381
Mike O'Donin, 423 Pelly Ave. N., Renton, 98055, expressed concern that
Logan Ave. N. will become a traffic choke point, thereby increasing transit
traffic on Park Ave. N. He asked for further review of the Logan Ave. N.
expansion.
Richard Zwicker, 446 Pelly Ave. N., Renton, 98055, agreed with the previous
speakers' comments. He confirmed that the original plan was for Logan Ave.
N. to be the main thoroughfare, and for Park Ave. N. to be pedestrian friendly.
In response to Council inquiries, Mr. Pietsch confirmed that the street network
design was adopted in the 2003 development agreement with Boeing, and the
SUbject conceptual plan is a separate matter. Chief Administrative Officer Jay
Covington pointed out that since Boeing owns the right-of-way on Logan Ave.
N., the City does not have the ability to expand the road beyond three lanes at
this time.
Councilmembers Corman and Palmer suggested further review of the
transportation plan for the subject area.
Lee Chicoine, 406 Burnett Ave. N., Renton, 98055, expressed concern about
the flow and amount of traffic, saying that he wants Logan Ave. N. expanded to
five lanes to prevent a choke point.
Nora Schultz, 540 Williams Ave. N., Apt. 12, Renton, 98055, stated her desire
for consistent traffic flow on Logan Ave. N., and less traffic on N. 6th SI. Ms.
Schultz suggested further review of the matter.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED.
MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN RELATED TO THE BOEING PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR A BRIEFING.
CARRIED.
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted
included:
• City Hall Information Desk volunteers were recently presented certificates
of appreciation at a dinner hosted by City Clerk Division staff. Since the
program's establishment in 1984, the volunteers have given over 51,000
hours of excellent service to the City.
• Work is now underway on the SW 27th St.lStrander Blvd. Connection,
Segment 1, construction project, which initially will provide access to the
proposed Federal Reserve Bank facility and, ultimately, will result in a new
five-lane arterial connecting Renton and Tukwila.
Sandel DeMastus, 1137 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, said she is an
independent producer with public access cable channel 77, and announced that
she has completed her firefighter tribute program, which will air on channel 77.
She presented a copy of the program to the Council, and suggested that it be
cablecast on Renton's government access channel 21 as well.
November 7, 2005
Citizen Corrunent: Blake -
Fairwood Incorporation
Citizen Comment: Finlayson -
Fairwood Incorporation
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes of
1012412005
Appointment: Municipal Arts
Commission
Renton City Council Minutes Page 382
Jay Paul Blake, 17627 133rd PI. SE, Renton, 98058, stated that he is a member
of the Fairwood community, and asked the City to consider initiating the
annexation of the proposed Fairwood Incorporation area into Renton's
boundaries. Noting that he has attended several meetings organized by the
Fairwood Task Force, he expressed his dismay at the inaccuracy of some of the
statements made by the speakers. Mr. Blake indicated that he opposes the
incorporation for reasons related to the limited financial viability of proposed
city.
Mr. Blake cited passages from the Fairwood Incorporation feasibility study
concerning the proposed city's financial viability.
MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ALLOW THE
SPEAKER FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES FOR HIS COMMENTS.
CARRIED.
Mr. Blake continued with his review of the feasibility study. He concluded that
Renton is in a strong financial position, and consequently, the residents of the
Fairwood area will be best served by being annexed to the City of Renton.
Laurie Finlayson, 14224 SE 163rd PI., Renton, 98058, supported Mr. Blake's
request that Renton consider annexing the Fairwood area. She expressed her
surprise at some Fairwood residents' negative opinions of Renton, and surmised
it may be because they do not relate to Renton since much of the area resides
within the Kent School District. Ms. Blake indicated that the analysis of the
financial feasibility of the proposed city did not convince her that incorporation
will work. She stated her desire to be apprised of all the options, including a
comparison of both incorporation and annexation to Renton, in order to make
an informed decision.
Discussion ensued regarding the Fairwood Incorporation effort; Renton's
practice to wait for parties to express interest in annexing to the City;
regulations concerning the allowance of an annexation effort while an
incorporation effort is pending; the possibility of an advisory vote on the
interest of Fairwood residents annexing to Renton; the unlikelihood that the
vote for the Fairwood Incorporation win occur in February 2006, as the
Boundary Review Board will be conducting hearings in January and February;
Fairwood residents' perception of Renton; Council's stance on the annexation of
the Fairwood area to Renton; and the provision of information concerning
annexation to Renton.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler asked Economic Development Administrator Alex
Pietsch to research the questions that surfaced during the discussion.
Councilman Clawson acknowledged the consent of the Councilmembers for the
continued conveyance of information regarding annexation to Renton.
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which fonows the
listing.
Approval of Council meeting minutes of 1012412005. Council concur.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler appointed Denise Bisio, 1301 W. Newton St., Seattle,
98119, to the Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term expiring
1213112007. Refer to Community Services Committee.
November 7, 2005
Release of Easement: Robert
West, Lake WA Blvd N &
Wells Ave N, RE"()5-OO1
Lease: Renton Housing
Authority. Edlund Property
House
Plat: Elmhurst. Bremerton Ave
NE. FP-05-090
Development Services: Baxter
Meadow Short Plat, ROW
Dedication. NE 18th Circle
Development Services: Urban
Craft Mixed Use
Development, ROW
Dedication. Olympia Ave NE
Annexation: Perkins, SE 95th
Way & 128th Ave SE
EDNSP: Neighborhood
Program Standards
Human Resources: Police
Officers Guild Non-
Commissioned Employees &
Firefighters Local 864
Battalion Chiefs Labor
Agreements
Utility: System Development
Charges, Annexation Fee
WSDOT: 1-405 to SR-169 Off-
Ramp Alignment
Utility: Central Plateau
Interceptor Phase II, Roth Hill
Engineering Partners
Renton City Council Minutes Page 383
City Clerk submitted request for partial release of easement by Robert West,
3904 Park Ave. N., Renton, 98056, for property located between Lake
Washington Blvd. N. and Wells Ave. N. at N. 37th St. Refer to Utilities
Committee.
Community Services Department recommended approval of a five-year lease
with the Renton Housing Authority for a house on the City-owned Edlund
property located at 17611 103rd Ave. SE. Refer to Finance Committee.
Development Services Division recommended approval. with conditions, ofthe
Elmhurst Final Plat; 64 single-family lots on 9.6 acres located at 201 Bremerton
Ave. NE (FP"()5-090). Council concur. (See page 385 for resolution.)
Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of
dedication for additional right-of-way to include a cul-de-sac as part of the NE
18th Circle street extension from Duvall Ave. NE to fulfill a requirement of the
Baxter Meadow Short Plat (SHP"()3-088). Council concur.
Development Services Di vision recommended acceptance of a deed of
dedication for additional right-of-way along Olympia Ave. NE and NE 4th SI.
to fulfill a requirement of the Urban Craft Mixed Use Development (SA"()3-
035). Council concur.
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
submitted 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Perkins
Annexation, and recommended a public meeting be set on 1112112005 to
consider the petition; 15.1 acres located south of SE 95th Way and east of
128th Ave. SE (if extended). Council concur.
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
recommended adoption of standards for being an officially recognized
neighborhood in Renton's Neighborhood Program. Refer to Community
Services Committee.
Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended approval
of the Renton Police Officers' Guild Non-Commissioned Employees and the
Renton Firefighters Local 864 Battalion Chiefs labor agreements for 2006-
2008. Council concur.
Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the 2006 System
Development Charges for water, wastewater, and surface water utilities, and
adoption of a $2,500 Annexation Fee to be implemented on 11112006. Refer to
Utilities Committee.
Utility Systems Division recommended concurrence with the Washington State
Department of Transportation regarding the proposed alignment of the
northbound 1-405 to SR-169 off-rarnp and future widening of 1-405. Refer to
Utilities Committee and Community Services Committee.
Utility Systems Di vision recommended approval of a contract with Roth Hill
Engineering Partners, LLC, in the amount of $258,599 for design and
permitting of the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II project. Refer to Utilities
Committee.
November 7, 2005
Utility: WRIA 8 and WRIA 9
Interlocal Agreement
Extensions, CAG-OI-004 &
CAG-OI-OO5
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Utilities Committee
Latecomer Agreement:
. LandT rust, Sanitary Sewer
(Hoquiam Ave NE), LA-05-
004
Planning & Development
Committee
Comprehensive Plan:
Amendments, Inclusion of
West Hill in PAA
Planning: Residential Uses in
Commercial Arterial Zone
Renton City Council Minutes Page 384
Utility Systems Division recommended approval of a one-year extension to the
Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8) interlocal agreement in the amount
of $11.303, and to the WRIA 9 interlocal agreement in the amount of $10.397
for salmon conservation planning. Council concur. (See page 385 for
resolution.)
MOVED BY BRIERE. SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE
CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the latecomer
agreement request by LandTrust, Inc. (LA-05-004). Dick Gilroy of LandTrust,
Inc. has withdrawn the request for a latecomer agreement for sewer installation
along Hoquiam Ave. NE. Therefore. the Committee recommended the removal
of this item from the Committee's referral list MOVED BY CORMAN.
SECONDED BY CLAWSON. COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMIITEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning and Development Committee Cbair Clawson presented a report
regarding the evaluation of potential boundaries for the West Hill Potential
Annexation Area (P AA). The Committee recommended referring the issue of
amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the West Hill in Renton's PAA to
the Committee of the Whole. MOVED BY CLAWSON. SECONDED BY
LAW. COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMII lEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning and Development Committee Cbair Clawson presented a report
regarding City Code changes for residential development in the Commercial
Arterial (CA) zone. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff
recommendation to:
• Amend the purpose of the CA zone under 4-2-020 to acknowledge that
limited residential use is appropriate when it is well integrated with
surrounding commercial development.
• Amend the use table at 4-2-060 and 4-2-070 to allow attached and semi-
attached housing in the CA zone as an administrati ve conditional use
subject to condition number 18.
• Amend note 18 of the Conditions Associated with Zoning Use Tables under
4-2-080 to prohibit garden style apartments. and set the conditions that
must be met to be eligible for residential development in the CA zone.
• Amend 4-2-080 to eliminate maps duplicated in 4-3-040.
• Amend the development standards for the CA zone at 4-3-120 to allow a
I.2oo-foot minimum lot size for attached residential plats. and change all
corridor references to "B usiness District."
• Amend 4-3-040 to create a Sunset, NE 4th. and Puget Business District
overlay. including development standards for commercial and residential
uses.
• Amend maps in 4-3-040 to show the corrected Business Districts.
• Insert Special Designation Criteria for residential uses in the NE 4th,
Sunset. and Puget Business Districts in 4-9-030.
MOVED BY CLAWSON. SECONDED BY LAW. COUNCIL CONCUR IN
THE COMMrITEE REPORT. CARRIED.
November 7, 2005
RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Resolution #3779
Plat: Elmhurst, Bremerton Ave
NE, FP-05-090
Resolution #3780
Utility: WRIA 8 and WRIA 9
Interlocal Agreement
Extensions, CAG-OI-004 &
CAG-Ol-OO5
NEW BUSINESS
Council: 2006 Council
President EJection (Corman) &
Council President Pro Tern
Election (Nelson)
ADJOURNMENT
Recorder: Michele Neumann
November 7, 2005
Renton City Council Minutes Page 385
The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption:
A resolution was read approving the Elmhurst Final Plat; approximately 9.6
acres located in the vicinity of Bremerton Ave. NE, north ofNE 2nd St.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an
extension of the interIocal agreements among participating jurisdictions with
the GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Resource Inventory
Area (WRIA 9) and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED
BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ.
CARRIED.
Council President Briere opened nominations for 2006 Council President and
Council President Pro Tern. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW,
COUNCIL ELECT COUNCILMAN CORMAN AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FOR 2006 AND COUNCILWOMAN NELSON AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM FOR 2006. CARRIED.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADJOURN THE
COUNCIL MEETING AND START COMMITIEE OF THE WHOLE AT
7:25 P.M. CARRIED. Time: 7:12 p.rn.
&at,u:J. WaU:ur-<
Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk
RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 7, 2005
I COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATErrIME
COUNCil.. BUDGET WORKSHOP WED., 11/09
1:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 1lI14
(Briere) 5 :00 p.m.
COMMUNITY SERVICES MON., 1lI14
(Nelson) 3:30 p.m.
FINANCE MON., 11114
(Persson) 4:00 p.m.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Clawson)
PUBUC SAFETY
(Law)
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION)
(palmer)
UTILITIES
(Corman)
AGENDA
2006 Revenue Sources and Preliminary
Budget
*Comerencing Center*
Comprehensive Plan Briefing Regarding
West Hill;
2006 Budget Deliberations;
Briefing on Transportation Plan related to
Boeing Property Development
Denise Bisio Appointment to Municipal
Arts Commission;
1-405 to SR-169 Ramp Alignment
Concurrence with WSDOT
Vouchers;
Business License Fee Reporting Period
Changes
",nom, ("nrn ..... ;tt .. ,. nf th~ Whnl .. ~till~ arr: held in tht: Council Chambers unless otherwisc...nmed. All other committee meetiogs are held io the Council
November 14. 2005
Monday. 7:00 p.rn.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLLCALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
WSDOT: Springbrook Creek
Wetland & Habitat Mitigation
Bank
PUBLIC MEETING
Annexation: Hudson. Benson
Rd S & SE 168th St
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Council Chambers
Renton City Hall
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council
to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
TERRl BRIERE. Council President; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON;
RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON. MOVED BY
BRIERE. SECONDED BY CLAWSON. COUNCll... EXCUSE
COUNCll...MAN DENIS LAW. CARRlED.
KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER. Mayor; JAY COVINGTON. Chief
Administrative Officer; ZANETT A FONTES. Assistant City Attorney;
BONNIE WALTON. City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN.
PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Administrator; NICK AFZALL Planning and
Programming Supervisor; ALEX PIETSCH. Economic Development
Administrator; REBECCA LIND. Planner Manager; DON ERICKSON. Senior
Planner; LINDA HERZOG. Interim Assistant to the CAO; CHIEF LEE
WHEELER. Fire Department; MICHAEL BAll...EY. Finance and Information
Services Administrator; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE. Police
Department.
Nick Afzali. Planning and Programming Supervisor. introduced Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 1-405 Project Manager. Stacy
Trussler. and 1-405 Environmental Project Manager. Allison Ray. who
conducted a briefing on the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation
Bank. Ms. Ray described the location of the bank (west of SR-167 and south of
1-405). which is within the GreenlDuwamish and Cedar/Sammamish
watersheds. and noted that all five parcels within the l30-acre bank are
currently owned by Renton.
Ms. Ray explained that a wetland mitigation bank is wetland restoration set up
in advance of project development to compensate for wetland impacts in the
service area. The service area is a geographical area where projects can draw
from the bank. This banking approach sets aside a larger. connected wetland
area with credits that can be sold for wetland mitigation. She pointed out that
WSDOT will increase habitat diversity and flood storage capacity at the bank,
as well as improve water quality. enhance hydrologic function. and provide
educational value.
Ms. Trussler reviewed the forthcoming agreements related to the bank between
the City and WSDOT. and the terms and timing of the agreements.
Additionally. she reviewed agreements needed with other entities. such as King
County Drainage District #1. She concluded by detailing the bank project
milestones. which indicate construction starting at the end of 2006. and the
opening of the bank to the public in the fall of 2008.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public meeting to consider the 10% Notice of Intent petition for the proposed
Hudson Annexation; 14.6 acres located west of Benson Rd. S. and south of SE
168th SI.
November 14, 2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Comprehensive Plan: 2005
Amendments, Inclusion of
West Hill in PAA
Renton City Council Minutes Page 391
Don Erickson, Senior Planner, reported that the western portion of the site is
relatively flat, and the eastern portion slopes down toward the headwaters of
Soos Creek. He noted that staff recorrunends the use of King County's 2005
Surface Water Design Manual at the time of development. The site contains 19
single-family homes, 152 multi-family units, and at least one vacant parcel.
Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson indicated that the site is within
Fire District #40, Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and the Renton School
District.
Mr. Erickson stated that the site is currently zoned R-8 (eight dwelling units per
gross acre), R-12, and R-1S"in King County. The Renton Comprehensive Plan
designates the area as Residential Single Family and Residential Medium
Density, for which R-S (eight dwelling units per net acre) and R-10 zoning is
proposed. The fiscal impact analysis indicates a deficit of $52,349 at full
development due to the area already being significantly developed, and an
estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost of $13S, lOS.
In conclusion, Mr. Erickson reported that the annexation proposal is generally
consistent with City policies and relevant Boundary Review Board objectives.
He pointed out that surface water costs are estimated at $3,25S per year, and the
City will be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and other improvements
at the intersection of 10Sth Ave. SE and SE 16Sth SI.
Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding the deficit and
including more developable land in the annexation area, Mr. Erickson noted
that it may be possible to invoke jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board to
expand the boundaries of the site to the north, as the parcels in that area appear
to be underdeveloped.
Public comment was invited.
Terri Arnold, 14700 SE Petrovitsky Rd., Renton, 9S058, spoke on behalf of
Bruce Hudson, a signer of the petition. She relayed that Mr. Hudson wishes to
annex to Renton for the following reasons: timely fire and police service, lower
taxes, higher property values, efficient building permit process, and his already
deep involvement in the Renton community.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT
THE HUDSON 10% ANNEXATION PETITION, AND AUTHORIZE
CIRCULATION OF THE 60% DIREcr PETITION TO ANNEX SUBJEcr
TO PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORTING ZONING CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ASSUMING A PROPORTIONAL
SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED ll'IDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use
map to include the approximately 1,930-acre West Hill in Renton's Potential
Annexation Area (PAA).
Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, reported that Renton's original Comprehensive
Plan, adopted in 1993, included West Hill in the Renton PAA. The W-est Hill
area was removed from the PAA in 1998 due to uncertainty about the fiscal
November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 392
implications of a possible annexation. As a result of the King County
Annexation Initiative, King County established the West Hill Governance
Alternatives Task Force to provide citizen input and community dialogue about
annexation. She indicated that the task force has asked Renton to consider
adding West Hill to its PAA.
Ms. Lind stated that King County contracted with Berk and Associates for an
analysis of governance options for the West Hill (West Hill Governance
Alternatives Assessment). The City subsequently contracted with the same
consultants to anal yze the impacts of a possible annexation of West Hill
(Assessment of the Fiscal Impact of Annexation of West Hill). She pointed out
that the information from these reports provides the basis to reconsider the
1998 decision about the P AA boundary.
Continuing, Ms. Lind explained that being in Renton's PAA means the City
agrees to provide services in the future, and that annexation requests from
residents/property owners must be made to Renton and not to another city. Ms.
Lind emphasized that adding the area to the P AA is a City decision.
Annexation is a property owner and voter decision, and can be conducted via
two methods: 60% direct petition or election. She noted that the services and
governance of West Hill would remain in King County with the P AA change.
In regards to the timing of the proposal, Ms. Lind said the City reviews its
Comprehensive Plan once a year per State law, with the only exception being
an emergency. If Renton does not act this year, the decision will be delayed for
one year. She pointed out that the data from the studies is current to 2005, and
no more new data or information will be brought forth over the course of the
coming year.
Ms. Lind reviewed the fiscal impact study, highlighting the different annexation
scenarios of the tbree areas within West Hill, as well as the long-range fiscal
impacts. She stated that staff recommends including the entire West Hill area
within Renton's P AA based on information from the studies, which indicate that
incorporation of the area is not cost effective, future annexation of a portion of
the area is not cost effective, and residents from the entire area identify with
Renton.
Continuing, Ms. Lind reported that the City made a comparison of the existing
King County land use designations to current Renton designations and potential
zoning to ensure that the proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan designations
are compatible with land use plans currently used for King County governance.
She noted that Renton zoning would be determined at the time of annexation.
In conclusion, Ms. Lind stated that the addition of West Hill in Renton's PAA
can be accommodated within existing land use categories, that designating the
area as part of the P AA will allow future discussion of annexation to occur, and
that negotiation over future annexation will require additional analysis of
funding and level of service requirements.
Ms. Lind reported that the Planning Commission received correspondence
stating positions on this matter as follows: Oppose: Christopher Sandford,
7535 S. Sunnycrest Rd., Seattle, 98178, and Maxine Woodcock, 7829 S. 112th
St., Seattle, 98178; Support: Iames Fick, 10644 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle,
98178, and Brian 1. Skaggs, 10932 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, 98178.
Entered into the record was correspondence from Philip Martin, 12022 Renton
Ave. S., Seattle, 98178 (oppose), and Dorothy L. Streuli, 7235 S. 127th St.,
November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 393
Seattle, 98178 (support); and a telephone call expressing opposition from
Donna Hoffman, 12023 67th Ave. S., Seattle, 98178. Additionally
correspondence was read from King County Executi ve Ron Sims, 70 I 5th Ave.,
Suite 3210, Seattle, 98104, expressing support for the proposal.
Public comment was invited.
The following people spoke in opposition to including West Hill in Renton's
PAA: Lorraine A. Knight, 7242 S. 126th St., Seattle, 98178; Steve Brozowski,
8228 S. 134th St., Seattle, 98178; Steve Gray, 8414 S. 115th PI., Seattle, 98178;
Ken Noll, 7731 S. Sunnycrest Rd., Seattle, 98178; Stanley Nanevicz, 8418 S.
134th St., Seattle, 98178; Gurine Nordby, 6234 S. 119th St., Seattle, 98178;
James Moe, 8005 S. 117th St., Seattle, 98178; Elaine Chandler, 8207 S. 132nd
St., Seattle, 98178; and Michael Coyote, 10608 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle,98178.
Comments from opponents included: there is a preference for leaving the area
the way it is (in unincorporated King County); annexation to Renton does not
have widespread public support; West Hill task force members are not
democratically elected and their recommendation is being forced upon area
residents; there will be a revenue loss to Renton if the area is annexed, resulting
in increased taxes and utilities; there will be a decrease in property and house
values due to having a Renton rather than Seattle address; the number of
residents surveyed by the consultants only amounted to approximately 3% of
the area's population; there is a need for more review of the matter; there is
concern regarding the length of time a signature is on an annexation petition;
Seattle and Tukwila are shopping destinations, not Renton; there are concerns
regarding provision of fIre and police service; there are concerns regarding the
reduction of library services; there is a lack of knowledge about the task force;
inclusion in Renton's PAA precludes West Hill residents from annexing to
another city; and West Hill identifIes more with Seattle.
The following people spoke in support of the proposal: Suzann Lombard,
10637 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, 98178; David Paul Zimmerman, 7003 S. 132nd
St., Seattle, 98178; James Routos, owner of a Skyway-area business, 11829
Renton Ave. S., Seattle, 98178; Wally Adams, 10729 Crestwood Dr. S., Seattle,
98178; Senator Margarita Prentice (lIth District), 6245 S. Langston Rd.
Seattle, 98178; Sylvia Bushnell, governance task force co-chair, 7119 S. 129th
PI., Seattle, 98178; Dave Pardey, Skyway Park Bowl owner and member of
governance task force, 24932 136th Ave. SE, Kent, 98042; Ann Uhrich, 8420
S. 115th St., Seattle, 98178; Elissa Benson, King County Executive's office,
7014th Ave., Suite 3200, Seattle, 98104; Kathleen Royer, West Hill
unincorporated area council member, 10841 Rustic Rd. S., Seattle, 98178;
Sheila Blech, 10832 Lakeridge Dr. S., Seattle. 98178; Kathleen Sidwell. 7034
S. 127th St., Seattle, 98178; Paul Schorr. 8210 S. 114th St., Seattle, 98178;
Donald Sorenson, 7126 S. !3Oth St., Seattle. 98178; and Celeste DaVault, West
Hill unincorporated area council president and member of governance task
force, 11232 Auburn Ave. S., Seattle. 98178.
Comments from proponents included: a proposed pocket park at 10602 Rainier
Ave. S. may benefIt from Renton's Neighborhood Program and be a positive
addition to Renton; there is support for the process but more information is
needed for a decision on annexation; the area already identifIes with Renton;
businesses in Skyway will be better served by Renton and better able to develop
a vibrant economy thereby increasing City revenue; Renton is the logical city to
annex to; there are concerns regarding infrastructure improvement costs and
November 14,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 394
utility providers; the entire area should be annexed together; continued
discussions on the matter are encouraged; there are more taxes in Seattle;
Sound Transit projects will have a positive impact on land values; there is a
desire for the revitalization of the Skyway business district; police and fire
service will remain the same or improve; there is a need to think about the
future; a survey conducted in 2000 found Renton was the preferred City if the
area had to be annexed; Renton's leadership is important in the handling of its
P AA; West Hill is within the Renton School District; the library is important to
West Hill residents; things are not going to stay the same; police response times
in King County are poor; the area should remain in the King County Library
System; sewer projects are currently taking place in West Hill; the Skyway
Water and Sewer District is on record in favor of annexation to Renton; and
there is a need for the involvement of the community in future annexation
discussions.
Additional comments on the proposal were made by: Doug Silva, 8050 S,
114th St, Seattle, 98178; Jeff Dixon, 6804 S, Langston Rd., Seattle, 98178; and
Linda Stewart, 8425 S. 113th St., Seattle, 98178. They remarked on the need
for more information to determine the best city to annex to -Seattle or Renton;
the top-driven decision making rather than people-driven; the Growth
Management Act directive that P AAs be determined by a consultation process
with the cities surrounding the areas, the county, and the affected residents;
concern that the proposal is being rushed; the need for additional time before a
decision is made; and concern regarding the potential change of status of the
employees at the Skyway Post Office.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL RECESS
FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. A break was taken at 8:58 p.m. The
meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilrnembers were
present except Law, previously excused.
Council and staff made the following comments and clarifications in response
to the speakers' questions and concerns:
-An annexation petition is not pending at this time; however, if annexation is
pursued it will most likely be carried out via the election method rather than the
petition method.
-Petition signatures are only valid for 180 days.
-The City would work with the area's fire district regarding fire service
provision, and with King County regarding provision of library services.
-Property values may be affected more by physical location of dwelling, rather
than by the address.
-The task force study found that Seattle would close the Bryn Mawr fife
station, as well as the Skyway library.
-Renton's fife department will be able to serve West Hill with equal or better
service without the Bryn Mawr fire station, and will continue to operate the
Skyway fife station and use the training facility.
-The City has coordinated with the cities of Seattle and Tukwila with regard to
the West Hill area.
-In regards to the timing of the proposal, Renton is responding to a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request by the governance task force, which
is one in a package of proposed amendments. The subject amendment can be
removed and considered during next year's Comprehensive Plan cycle.
November 14.2005
Planning: Highlands Sub-Area
Plan Study Area Moratorium
Renton City Council Minutes Page 395
There being no further public comment. it was MOVED BY PERSSON.
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that Committee of the Whole will discuss this
matter next Monday at 5:00 p.m. The public is invited to attend; however,
conunent will not be accepted.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider a six-month extension of the moratorium on new
development in the R-IO (Residential-ten dwelling units per acre) and RM-F
(Residential Multi-Family) zones in the Highlands Sub-Area Plan study area
generally located between Aberdeen Ave. NE and Monroe Ave. NE, and
between NE 23rd SI. and NE 5th PI.
Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, stated that a modification is proposed to
properties affected by the original moratorium. She explained that during the
last six months, several property owners in the R-IO-zoned area on Monroe
Ave. NE presented new information regarding the existence of covenants
restricting the use of these properties. As a result, staff reconunends that the R-
IO area located on Monroe Ave. NE. which is subject to the covenants, be
excluded from the extended moratorium.
Ms. Lind reported that exclusion is also requested of a R-IO-zoned area that is
part of a condominium development in the northern portion of the study area.
In addition, she indicated that continuance of the exemption from the
moratorium is still recommended for Renton School District properties, R-8-
zoned single-family neighborhoods, and conunercially zoned areas that
encourage mixed-use residential and conunercial development at higher
densities.
Continuing, Ms. Lind explained that the moratorium extension will allow time
for staff to continue work on the sub-area plan, and to complete the analysis of
various land development and zoning options. She noted that an open house
will be held on November 15th, where information will be presented regarding
existing housing stock and conditions, ownership characteristics, existing
infrastructure, and conceptual land use alternatives.
Public comment was invited.
Keith Thompson, 660 Index PI. NE, Renton, 98056. reported that he owns three
properties in the area, including his residence, and favors increased density in
the Highlands. Mr. Thompson expressed concern about the moratorium
extension. saying that he is reluctant to make the financial investment to
improve his properties, if in a short period of time he will be tearing his
buildings down. He stated his plan to retire next year, and noted the financial
interest he has in his properties, and his concern as to how he is going to plan
for and invest in the development of his properties during this process.
Heidi Beckley, 806 Index Ct., NE, Renton, 98056, expressed her support for the
moratorium. noting that planning ultimately leads to more livability.
Glenda Johnson, 1216 Monroe Ave. NE., Renton, 98056, stated her agreement
with the removal of the properties affected by the restrictive covenants from the
moratorium area.
November 14,2005
Budget: 2006 Revenue
Sources & Preliminary Budget
Renton City Council Minutes Page 396
Councilman Persson and the Mayor sympathized with Mr. Thompson's
concerns with regards to planning. Economic Development Administrator Alex
Pietsch noted the future possibility of the upzone of Mr. Thompson's property.
Councilwoman Nelson noted the possibility that the moratorium may end prior
to the six-month term. Councilman Corman encouraged property owners to
continue to maintain and improve their properties.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED. (See page 399 for resolution.)
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the
public hearing to consider the 2006 revenue sources and preliminary budget.
Michael Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, stated that
the total 2006 Budget is approximately $171.2 million, and of that,
approximately $72 million is the General Government budget provided mostly
by taxes. He explained that the property tax limit the City is able to assess is
$3.60 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; however, the 1 % increase in total taxes
on the existing tax base causes the actual levy amount to drop. Mr. Bailey
noted that the City began to control the growth in property taxes prior to State
Initiative 747.
Mr. Bailey reported that the City's total tax assessed valuation increased by just
over 10%, and over the last decade it has increased an average of 9% per year.
The City receives 27% of the total property taxes collected within the City, and
allocates those taxes to a variety of services. In regards to sales tax, Mr. Bailey
stated that the City receives less than 10% of the total sales tax collected within
the City, and sales tax receipts have grown 43% over the past ten years.
Additionally, he noted that utility taxes have experienced a slow but steady
climb over time.
Continuing, Mr. Bailey explained that the expenditure of the funds to provide
services are tied to Renton's Business Plan. The proposed 2006 Budget
maintains existing service levels, contains no new taxes, does not require
reserves to balance, and updates user fees. The budget proposal adds the
following: three police officers; one fire inspector; one fire support staff;
matching funds for a Federal grant for a potential of three additional
firefighters; Municipal Court security measures; and costs associated with the
new Maplewood Water Treatment Facility, which includes two staff positions.
In conclusion, Mr. Bailey stated that in the non-general government areas, user
fees are the exclusive source for paying for services. In order to pay for the
increased cost of those services, some utility rate increases are proposed.
Public conunent was invited.
Heidi Beckley, 806 Index Ct., NE, Renton, 98056, stated that the Renton public
library has been without a director for one and one-half years, and she asked
that the position be added to the 2006 Budget. Pointing out that the City has
advertised to replace the Museum Supervisor, Ms. Beckley suggested that
rather than hiring a Museum Supervisor, the Library Director position be filled
first She expressed her appreciation for the museum, but noted that in a City
services survey, citizens rated the importance of the library higher than the
November 14,2005
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORT
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes of
I1nt2005
EDNSP: 2005 Neighborhood
Grant Program
Comprehensi ve Plan: 2006
Amendments, Pre-
Applications
CAG: 04-098, Airport Apron
C Utilities Conversion, Potelco
Utility: Renton Village Stonn
System Improvement, Gray &
Osborne
CORRESPONDENCE
Citizen Comment: Laulainen -
North Renton Neighborhood,
Truck Traffic
Renton City Council Minutes Page 397
museum. Ms. Beckley stressed that the importance of the library to the
community should take precedence over any favoritism for the museum.
Councilmembers Corman and Oawson assured that the matter will be
discussed.
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBUC HEARING.
CARRIED.
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted
included:
• The Hassle Free Holiday Bazaar will be held on November 18th and 19th at
the Community Center, where a wide variety of handcrafted items will be
sold by over 100 vendors.
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
Approval of Council meeting minutes of llnl2005. Council concur.
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
reported submission of grant applications for the 2005 Neighborhood Grant
Program (second round) and recommended funding five projects and one
newsletter in the total amount of $17,446. Refer to Community Services
Committee.
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department
submitted four pre-applications for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
pre-application review process. Refer to Planning and Development
Committee.
Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-04-098, Airport Apron C
Utilities Conversion; and requested approval of the project, commencement of
60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $15, 132.89 to Potelco,
Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur.
Utility Systems Division recommended approval of a contract in the amount of
$141,039 with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for engineering services for the Renton .
Village Storm System Improvement project. Council concur.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNOL APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Correspondence was read from Angelina Laulainen, 314 Garden Ave. N.,
Renton, 98055, expressing concern regarding the potential increase in truck
traffic in the North Renton neighborhood as a result of the development of the
Lakeshore Landing project, and suggesting ways to inform truck drivers of the
appropriate truck routes. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY
PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
November 14,2005
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Committee of the Whole
Planning: Boeing Subdistrict
lB Conceptual Plan
Finance Committee
Finance: Business License Fee
Reporting Period
Finance: Vouchers
Renton City Council Minutes Page 398
Council President Briere presented a Corrunittee of the Whole report
recommending concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the
conceptual plan proposed by The Boeing Company for the potential
redevelopment of 50.7 acres of Boeing property in the South Lake Washington
area known as Subdistrict 1B with the conditions outlined below. The northern
21.2 acres of property is expected to become surplus and brought forward for
redevelopment in the immediate future. This property is under a "right of first
refusal" agreement with Harvest Partners, the owner and developer of the 46
acres of property fonnedy owned by Boeing immediately adjacent to this
property to the north. Boeing proposes that this initial parcel be developed with
as much as 270,000 square feet of retail. The remaining property is expected to
be retained by Boeing for five to ten years. However, upon redevelopment, as
much as 900,000 square feet of lab andlor office, as well as some additional
retail and multi-family housing anticipated to be sold and reoccupied by other
companies, could be developed in and around the 660,000 square feet of
existing office buildings.
To enhance the plan and its consistency with the vision and policies for the
Urban Center-North designation adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the
following conditions should be imposed on the conceptual plan:
1) Park Ave. N. be designated as a "pedestrian-oriented street," to ensure an
urban fonn of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the
subdistrict and the planned retail/entertainment center expected to be developed
to the north, and
2) A transit facility be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if
funding for such a facility emerged and it was developed in a way that was
supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property
owner(s).
The envisioned retail and employment center resulting from the redevelopment
proposed under the conditioned conceptual plan will have positive economic
and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003
development agreement with Boeing, all subsequent land use applications
related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency
prior to approval.
Pointing out that the committee report pertains only to the conceptual plan,
Council President Briere assured that the City will continue to discuss the
concerns expressed about the transportation plan for this area. MOVED BY
BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Councilman Persson announced that the Finance Committee report and
ordinance regarding the business license fee reporting period will be held until
November 21st.
Finance Corrunittee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval
of Claim Vouchers 242498 -243017 and three wire transfers totaling
$3,445,995.68; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 60666 -60884, one wire
transfer, and 602 direct deposits totaling $2,003,123.98. MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
November 14,2005
Communitv Services
Committee
Appointment: Municipal Arts
Commission
RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Resolution #3781
Planning: Highlands Sub-Area
Plan Study Area Moratorium
ADJOURNMENT
Recorder: Michele Neumann
November 14,2005
Renton City Council Minutes Page 399
Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report
recommending concurrence in the Mayor's appointment of Denise Bisio to the
Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term that expires 1213112007,
replacing Diana Hagen who resigned in 2004. MOVED BY NELSON,
SECONDED BY PALl\ffiR, COUNC1L CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
A resolution was read establishing facts, extending a moratorium on new
development in the R-JO and RM-F zones within the Highlands Sub-Area Plan
study area, and establishing a termination date of 5/14/2006 for the moratorium.
MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN.
CARRIED. Time: 10: 16 p.rn.
~&'Y;W'~
Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk
RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 14, Z005
I COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DA TEITIME
COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP TUES., 11/22
9:00 a.m.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 11/21
(Briere) 5:00 p.m.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Nelson)
FINANCE
(persson)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Clawson)
PUBUC SAFETY
(Law)
TRANSPORTATION (A VIA TION)
(palmer)
UTILITIES
(Corman)
THURS., 11117
2:00p.m.
MON., 11121
THURS., 11117
3:30 p.m.
THURS., 11117
4:00 p.m.
AGENDA
2006 Budget Deliberations
*Conferencing Center'"
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Regarding West Hill;
2006 Budget Deliberations
Rosario Ave. SE Street Vacation (briefing
only);
2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Pre-Applications;
2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
CANCELLED
SR-167 HOT Lanes & Corridor Study
(WSDOT briefing only)
1-405 to SR-169 Ramp Alignment
Concurrence with WSDOT;
2006 System Development Charges &
Annexation Fee;
Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II
Contract with Roth Hill Engineering;
Robert West Request for Release of
Easement
NOTE: Comminee <!f the ~ole ~tin~ are_h:ld in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All othercomminee meetings are held in the Council
,
•
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
CITY OF RENTON'S CONCEPTUAL PLAN
FOR
SUBDISTRICT lA
OF
URBAN CENTER NORTH, DISTRICT ONE
1. Background and Purpose
In November 2003 the City adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan
designating an area then owned by The Boeing Company north of downtown as
Urban Center North, District One (UC-Nl). For planning purposes, this area was divided
into two districts, District One and District Two. In November 2003 the City also
reclassified (rezoned) the Urban Center North District One area to UC-N1, under the
City's adopted UC-NI development regulations.
The City's Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for the area designated as
Urban Center North, District One, envision a broad range of redevelopment uses in a
dense employment =ter, including but not limited to retail uses integrated into
pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban-scale mixed-use residential,
office, entertainment, and co=ercial uses .
In December 2003, as part of the 2003 Development Agreement between the City
and The Boeing Company, the City Council also adopted and approved a Subdistrict lA
Conceptual Plan for a pcrtion of the Urban Center North District One planning area.
The adopted Subdistrict IA Conceptual Plan is Exhibit 5 to tha12003 Development
Agreement, recorded under King County Recording No. 20031210001637.
As originally adopted, the Subdistrict 1 A Conceptual Plan envisioned an urban
retail center with a mix oflarge-format "destination" retailers, mid-sized retail anchors.
small shop spaces, and parking structures, office, and residential components.
The adopted Subdistrict IA Conceptual Plan contemplated development of 451,000
square feet of large and medium-format retail space and 110,000 square feet of smaller
retail shop space, for a total of 561,000 square feet of retail uses.
On October 18. 2004, the City Council approved a first amendment to the
Subdistrict 1 A Conceptual Plan, in order to permit a wider range of future retail
development. This range encompassed a minimum of the 561,000 square feet of retail
space already approved in the original Conceptual Plan, up to a maximum of 800,000
square feet of retail and entertainment space or other commercial development in
Subdistrict lA. . ,. ': .. "
2nd Am.Subdisl.IA.Concepl.Plan
f121186 U449·004 6xS)'Ol!'doc 212312006
pagel
I
I'
•
The purposes of this Second Amendment to the Subdistrict IA Conceptual Plan
are to reaffirm the overall vision for Subdistrict IA embodied in the City's
Comprehensive Plan and its goals and policies, and to further describe contemplated
residential uses in Subdistrict IA. The original Subdistrict IA Conceptual Plan, the First
Amendment to the Subdistrict lA Conceptual Plan, and this Second Amendment, are all
consistent with the City'S Comprehensive Plan as it applies to Subdistrict lAo
2. Second Amendment to Subdistrict lA Conceptual Plan
The Subdistrict IA Conceptual Plan (December 2003), as amended by the
First Amendment to the Subdistrict lA Conceptual Plan (October 2004), is hereby further
amended by the addition of the following clarifying statement:
Subdistrict IA has been and continues to be envisioned by the City
as a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented gathering place for living,
working, and entertainment. A mix of both larger
destination-retail stores and smaller specialty retail stores, as well
as entertainment, office, hotel, cultural, and residential uses, are all
appropriate for and encouraged to develop in Subdistrict lAo
Residential development should be in low-to mid-rise buildings
that incorporate upper-story office andlor ground-related retail
uses, where appropriate.
Except for the foregoing addition, the Subdistrict lA Conceptual Plan
(December 2003), as amended by the First Amendment to the Subdistrict IA Conceptual
Plan (October 2004), remains unchanged.
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF RENTON:
Name
T)evr/v {IH(1I1 )~VJlfc'S Div'.:'c1.,y
Title
Date
2nd Am.Subdi:st IA. Concopl.Plan
'123386 18<49·004 6x$yOll.do< 212312006
page 2
. i
BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY
BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC .
FOR
THE CITY OF RENTON
In Compliance With
The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C)
and City of Renton SEPA Policies and Procedures
I
BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy ............................................................................................. E-1
CHAPTER 1
DESCRIPTION OF EIS ALTERNATIVES AND SUB-DISTRICT 1A
MASTERPLAN
Introduction ................................................................................................. : ...... 1-1
Site Area & Range of Alternatives in 2003 EIS .................................................. 1-2
Current SUb-District 1A Redevelopment Plan .................................................... 1-5
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Introduction ....... ~ ................................................................................................ 2-1
Comparison of EIS Alternatives and Current Sub-District 1A
Redevelopment Plan ................................................................................. 2-1
Stormwater Drainage ......................................................................................... 2-2
Transportation .................................................................................................... 2-3
Land Use Patterns ................................................................. ~ ........................... 2-5
Relationship to Plans & Policies ........................................................................ 2c8
Summary Matrix ............................................................................................... 2-16
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 2-17
SUMMARY MATRIX ......................................................................................... S-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................... 1-3
1-2 EIS Site Area Map ............................................................................. 1-4
1-3 Sub-District 1A Master Plan ............................................................... 1-7
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1A
Environmental Consistency Analysis
i Table of Contents
May, 2006
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Redevelopment that the 2003 EIS Assumes for Sub-district 1A-
2015 & 2030 ...................................................................................... 1-5
1-2 Sub-District 1A Potential Redevelopment Capacities-
2015 & 2030 ...................................................................................... 1-8
2-1 Comparison of EIS Alternatives and Current Sub-District 1A
Redevelopment Plan -2015 & 2030 ................................................. 2-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A -Surface/Stonnwater Consistency Analysis
for Sub-District 1A
Appendix B -Transportation Consistency Analysis
for Sub-District 1A
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1 A
Environmental Consistency Analysis
/I Table of Contents
May, 2006
J
I
I
I
I
)
! ,
~
i
1
1
1
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive. Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Statement ("2003 EIS") in October 2003. The 2003 EIS evaluates
potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Boeing Renton Plant
site with a mix of residential and commercial uses. In 2004, Boeing conveyed to Harvest
Partners that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site known as Sub-district 1A. Boeing
continues to hold title to Sub-district 1 B, which is that portion of the site immediately south of
Sub-district 1A Harvest Partners and Boeing are now proceeding with plans for future
redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and ,1 B.
Subsequent to issuance of the EIS, the City of Renton and Boeing executed a Development
Agreement to guide long-term redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant site (December 2003).
As part of the Development Agreement, a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1A was approved. In
October 2004, an amendment to the Conceptual Plan was approved by the City to allow a
broader range of future retail development in the sub-district. In November 2004, the Renton
City Council passed ordinance No. 5107, which designated Sub-district 1A as a Planned Action
site and designated uses and activities described in the EIS (subject to the thresholds described
for the EIS alternatives and mitigation measures described in Exhibit A to the ordinance) as
Planned Actions (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 EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning
,) stage), and that the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
_ •. /i<' ~
t ' .......... ' ,
; ,,' ,,~ In March 2006, a second amendment to the Sub-district 1A Conceptual Plan was approved by
,j;", the City to reaffirm the overall vision for the sub-district, allowing a broad mix of uses. Harvest r "oJ:!","\. Partners, the potential developer of the Sub-district 1A property, submitted a specific Master
",<" " Plan application to the City for Sub-district 1 A redevelopment in October 2005, Modifications to
"
A if -II
II
the plan were subsequently submitted to the City.
Harvest now seeks Master Plan approval from the City and a determination as to whether the
current plan is consistent with the previously granted Planned Action designation per ordinance
No, 5107. The following report contains the Environmental Consistency Analysis for Sub-district
1A
A separate Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the proposed
Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B and is on file at the City of Renton. That report also
addresses the cumulative consistency of the combined Sub-district 1A Master Plan and the
SUb-district 1 B Conceptual Plan.
Goal of this AnalYSis. The goal of the Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis is
to determine whether the environmental impacts of the redevelopment currently proposed for
Sub-district 1A are within the range of development altematives and associated environmental
impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. If determined to be within this range, the Sub-district lA
project will be considered by the City to be consistent with the previously granted Planned
Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrlct 1A Environmental Consistency Anelysls
May, 2006
E·1
Development Levels and Types. The Sub-district 1A Consistency Analysis compares the
levels and types of development called for in the proposed Master Plan for Sub-district 1A to the
levels and types of development assumed for this sub-district in the 2003 EIS. The analysis
herein determines that the maximum potential development level currently proposed for Sub-
district 1A.is within the maximum development level assumed in the 2003 EIS for this sub-
district (1,522,500 square feet of mixed uses versus 2,700,000 square feet of mixed uses,
respectively). The Sub-district 1A Consistency Analysis also concludes that the types of uses
that are currently proposed for Sub-district 1A (retail, office, and multifamily residential) are
consistent with the range of uses assumed in the EIS for this sub-district.
Potential Environmental Impacts. The Sub-district 1A Consistency Analysis then compares
the potential environmental impacts from the redevelopment currently proposed for Sub-district
1A to the potential impacts from implementation of the EIS altematives, as identified in the 2003
EIS. The following elements of the environment are addressed in the 2003 EIS and are
evaluated herein: Earth; Water Resources; Fish and Wildlife Habitat; Hazardous Materials;
Land Use Pattems; Relationship to Plans and Policies; Population, Employment and Housing;
Parks and Recreation; Aesthetics/light and Glare; Transportation; Noise; Public Services;
Utilities; and Air Quality. Detailed analyses are provided in this report for the Transportation,
Land Use and Water elements.
I
I
1
I
I
I
The Sub-district 1A Consistency Analysis determines that the potential impacts from I
redevelopment under the proposed Master Plan for Sub-district 1A are within the range of
. potential impacts adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS'-1!I
Conclusion. The proposed Master Plan for Sub-district 1A is consistent with the previously
granted Planned Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrict 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
E·2
I : . '
1-
Introduction
CHAPTER 1
DESCRIPTION OF EIS ALTERNATIVES
& SUB-DISTRICT 1A MASTER PLAN
The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Statement C'2003 EIS") in October 2003. The 2003 EIS evaluates
potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping Boeing's Renton Plant site with a
mix of residential and commercial uses. In2004, Boeing conveyed to Harvest Partners that
portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site known as Sub-district 1A. Boeing continues to hold title
to Sub-district 1 B, which is that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site immediately south of
Sub-district 1A Harvest Partners and Boeing are now proceeding with plans for future
redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B.
As discussed in greater detail below, Sub-district 1A is subject to a Planed Action ordinance
designation adopted by the City via ordinance No. 5107 in November 2004. Harvest now seeks
Master Plan approval for redevelopment of Sub-district 1A and a determination by the City that
its proposed Master Plan is consistent with the previously granted Sub-district 1A Planned
Action designation. Sub-district 1 B is not encompassed by the Sub-district 1A Planned Action
ordinance.
Boeing received approval'of a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1B redevelopment in November
2005. Boeing now seeks a Planned Action designation for Sub-district 1 B, pursuant to an
ordinance that would be adopted by the City, A separate Environmental Consistency Analysis
has been prepared for Sub-district 1 B.
Overview of SEPA Planned Action Designation
Per the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a "Planned Action" is a designation for a project
that shifts environmental review from the time a permit application is made to an earlier phase in
the planning process. The intent of the designation is to ,provide a more streamlined
environmental process at the project stage by using 'an existing environmental impact statement
prepared at the planning stage for SEPA compliance, as allowed by RCW 43,21C.031 and
WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315.
Request for Planned Action Consistency Determination for Sub-clistrict 1A
In November 2004, the Renton City Council passed ordinance No. 5107, which designated Sub-
district 1A as a Planned Action site and designated "[u]ses and activities described in the EIS,
subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives 1. 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and
subject to the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A [to the ordinance]" as Planned Actions,
The Sub-district 1A ordinance allows streamlining of the permitting process by using the 2003
EIS as the environmental documentation for future projects that fll within certain thresholds,
The City determines whether an individual project fits within those thresholds and is consistent
with the previous Planned Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May,200S
1-1
Accordingly, Harvest has submitted a Master Plan application for Sub-district 1A to the City and
the City has prepared this Environmental Consistency Analysis that compares the proposed
Sub-district 1A Master Plan to the range of alternatives and potential for significant
environrnental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS.
Site Area & Range of Alternatives in 2003 EIS
The 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS evaluates a site area that
includes approximately 275 acres of Boeing property and approximately 15 acres of contiguous
property owned by others. The site area is situated adjacent to the south shore of Lake
Washington, between Renton Municipal Airport and the Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park,
and includes the existing Boeing Renton Plant (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). As indicated above,
Sub-district 1A is a portion of this overall site area. SUb-district 1A is generally equivalent to
Urban Center Subareas A and B in the 2003 EIS. One part of Subarea A, the Puget Sound
Energy (PSE) property in the northem portion of the subarea, is no! part of the area currently
proposed for redevelopment, and is not considered part of Sub-district 1A herein.
Four redevelopment scenarios are analyzed in the 2003 EIS (Alternatives 1 through 4). These
scenarios encompass a broad range of land uses that the site could potentially accommodate in
the future, given existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies and
designations (note: an Urban Center -North (UC-N) Comprehensive Plan designation and
zoning classification were adopted for the site area in November 2003).
The Alternatives that the 2003 EIS analyzes include:
• Alternative 1: No Action/Existing Zoning (2015 Buildoutl. Alternative 1 is a partial
redevelopment scenario under existing zoning at that time (Industrial -Heavy [IH] and
Commercial OffIce [CO]), and is assumed to be built out by the year 2015. Some
Boeing operations are assumed to continue within the site area, generally west of Logan
Avenue N.
• Alternative 2: Partial Redevelopment (2015 Buildout). Alternative 2 is a partial
redevelopment scenario under the proposed UC-N Comprehensive Plan designation,
and Is assumed to be built out by the year 2015. Again, some Boeing operations are
assumed to continue within the site area. The partial redevelopment to higher intensity
land uses would include new mixed-use retail, office and residential uses.
• Alternative 3: Full Redevelopment. Low to Mid-Rise (2030 Buildoutl. Alternative 3 is a
full mixed use redevelopment scenario under the proposed UC-N Comprehensive Plan
designation at a low to mid-rise level, and is assumed to be built out by the year 2030.
Some continued Boeing operations are assumed to continue within the site area at year
2015; however, no continued operations are assumed for year 2030. A portion of the
overall buildout is assumed to occur by 2015.
• Alternative 4: Full Redevelopment. Mid to High-Rise (2030 Buildout). Alternative 4 is a
full mixed use redevelopment scenario under the proposed UC-N Comprehensive Plan
designation at a mid to high-rise level, and is assumed to be built out by the year 2030.
As with Alternative 3, no continued Boeing operations are assumed for year 2030. A
portion of the overall build out is assumed to occur by 2015.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental ConSistency Analysis
May, 2006
1·2
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
1
"1)
b',
,Ii
. I
I :
. I
I
I
JI·"IBlUMEN
§CONSULTING
.~.GROUP, INC
Boeing Renton Sub·District 1A
Consistency Analysis
Figure 1·1
Vicinity Map
o
'"' -
a '00
t G4&..,. ;a
:SCALE: IN n!T
'· .... BLUMEN
':]CONSULTING
5:GROUP, INC
BOEING
Su 1A
(EIS Subareas and B)
------I!-
4TH
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B
Consistency Analysis
N BTH
Nota Part
Source: Heartland llC, 200)
Figure 1-2
EIS Site Area Map
, :'.
Table 1-1 presents the redevelopment that the 2003 EIS assumes for the subareas equivalent
to Sub-district 1A (EIS Subareas A and B) by 2015 and 2030, respectively. As shown in Table
1-1, the redevelopment that the 2003 EIS assumes in Sub-disirict 1A by year 2015 would range
from approximateily 680,000 to 1,660,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office,
muijifamily and lab uses. As shown in Table 1-1, the redevelopment that the EIS assumes in
Sub-district 1A by year 2030 would range from approximately 680,000 to 2,700,000 square feet
of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab and multifamily uses (1,112 multifamily units).
Table 1-1
REDEVELOPMENT THAT THE 2003 EIS ASSUMES FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1A-
2015 & 2030
2003 EIS Sub-district 1A Sub-dlstrict 1A
Alta. Square FeetlLand Uses -2015 Square Feet/Land Uses -2030
Alt. 830,000 SF! 830,000 SF!
1 RetaiUCommercial, Ught Industrial Retail/Commercial, Light Industrial
Alt. 680,000 SF! 680,000 SF!
2 Retail/Commercial, Office Retail/Commercial, Office
Alt. 1,275,000 SF! 2,450,000 SF!
3 Retail/Commercial, Office, Multifamily Retail/Commercial, Office, Multifamily (1,112
units) 1
Alt. 1 ,660,000 SF! 2,700,000 SF!
" Retail/Commercial, Office, Lab Retail/Commercial, Office, Lab 1
Source: The Boemg Renton ComprehenSive Plan Amendment ElS, 2003.
1 Does not include the development on the PSE property that the 2003 EIS assumes, because this property
is not induded in the current Sub-distlict lA area, and there are currenUy no plans for redevelopment of
this parcel (the development area shown for Sub-district lA under Alternatives 3 and 4 does not include
310,000 SF of offices uses that the EIS assumes; the development shown for Sub-district lA under
Altemative 4 does not Inc/ude 620,000 SF of office uses that the EIS assumes).
Current Sub-District 1A Redevelopment Plan
Subsequent to issuance of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment FEIS in 2003,
the City of Renton and Boeing executed a Development Agreement to guide long-term
redevelopment of the Renton Plant site (in December 2003). As part of the Development
Agreement, a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1A was approved. In October 2004, an
amendment to the Conceptual Plan was approved by the City to allow a broader range of future
retail development in the sub-district. In November 2004, the Renton City Council passed
ordinance No. 5107, which designated Sub-district 1A as a Planned Action site and designated
uses and activities described in the EIS (subject to the thresholds described for the EIS
altematives and m~igation measures described in Exhibit A to the ordinance) as Planned
Actions. In March 2006, a second amendment to the Sub-district 1A Conceptual Plan was
approved by the City to reaffirm the overall vision for the sub-district, allowing a broad mix of
uses.
Harvest Partners, the potential developer of the Sub-district 1A property, submitted a specific
Master Plan application to the City for Sub-district 1A redevelopment in October 2005.
Modifications to the plan were subsequently submitted to the City. Harvest now seeks Master
J
I Plan approval from the City and a determination as to whether the current plan is consistent with
the previously granted Planned Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
1-5
Figure 1-3 is the Master Plan currently proposed for Sub-district 1A. Table 1-2 outlines the
potential redevelopment capacities for the various parcels in Sub-district 1A by years 2015 and
2030. As shown in Table 1-2, redevelopment of Sub-district 1A would feature:
• A minimum of approximately 125,000 square fee! and a maximum of approximately
171,500 square feet of retail uses in Quadrant A;
• A minimum of approximately 218,000 square feet and a maximum of approximately
336,500 square feet of retail and office uses in Quadrant B;
• A minimum of approximately 181,000 square feet and a maximum of approximately
189,500 square feet of retail uses in Quadrant C; and,
• Approximately 810,000 square feet of retail and multifamily uses on the Fairfield property
(900 units).
Overall, redevelopment of Sub-ciistrict A would result in a minimum total of approximately
1,349,000 square feet of mixed use development and a maximum total of approximately
1,522,500 square feet of mixed use development. It is anticipated that buildout of the entire
Sub-district 1A area would occur by year 2015.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrk;t 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
1-6
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
, ;
...
""'" '"
Quadrant B
Source: Callison Architects
'· ..... BLUMEN
4!1CONSULTING
.5:GROUP, INC
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1A
Consistency Analysis
Fairfield
,.,... .""'"
... ..... .....
Quadrant C
i
North
Figure 1-3
Sub-District 1A
Master Plan
. i
Table 1-2
SUB-DISTRICT 1A POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES -2015 & 2030
1 Assumes 100 percent buildout of all redevelopment areas by year 2015 .
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
1-8
, .,
Introduction
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
This chapter compares the potential impacts from the redevelopment currently proposed under
the Sub-district 1A Master Plan to the potential impacts from implementation of the EIS
development alternatives in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS (2003)
(see Chapter 1 for a description of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1A and the EIS
Alternatives). Storrnwater Drainage, Transportation, Land Use Pattems, and Relationship to
Plans and Policies, are the key environmental elements analyzed in this Consistency Analysis.
As such, more expanded analyses of these elements are provided in this chapter. A
comparison of potential impacts on other elements of the environment from the redevelopment
currently proposed for Sub-district 1A to impacts from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives
is contained in the Summary Matrix at the end of this chapter.
Comparison of EIS Alternatives & Current Sub-District 1A
. '! Redevelopment Plan
••
Table 2-1 compares the range of development assumed under the 2003 EIS alternatives to the
proposed range of development under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan in years 2015 and 2030 .
Table 2-1
COMPARISON OF EIS ALTERNATIVES &
CURRENT SUB-DISTRICT 1A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -2015 & 2030
Sub-district -Bulldout EIS Alternatives Current Redevelopment
Year Total Development-Plans
Square Feet Total Development -
Square Feet
Sub-dlstrict 1A -2016 680,000 -1,660,000 1,349,000 1,522,500
Sub-district 1A -2030 680,000 -2,700,000 1,349,000 -1,522,500
. Source. Blumen Consulting Group, 2006 •
As is evident in Table 2-1, the maximum development level currently proposed for Sub-district
1A is within the maximum development level assumed for that area in the 2003 EIS (1,522,500
square feet versus 2,700,000 square feet, respectively). The number of multifamily units
proposed for Sub-district 1A by year 2030 is slightly lower than the number of multifamily units
assumed in the EIS (900 units versus 1,112 units). The 2003 EIS assumed the following uses
for Sub-district 1A in 2015 and 2030: retail/commercial, light industrial, office, multifamily, and
lab uses. Under the current Master Plan for SUb-district 1A, the following uses are proposed:
retail, office and multifamily. Therefore, the types of uses that are currently proposed for Sub-
district 1A are similar to the range of uses assumed in the EIS.
As shown by the above, the development currently proposed under the Sub-district 1A Master
Plan is considered to be within the range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-1
Stormwater Drainage
The following section is based on the SU/face/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district
1A prepared by KPFF (see Appendix A to this document), the Water Resources section of the
Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (2003) (pages 3.2.1 through 3.2.27),
and Appendix B to the Draft EIS.
Background
The analysis methods and calculation assumptions used in Appendix A were identical to those
used in the EIS SurfacelStormwater Technical Report (see Appendix B to the Draft EIS for
further explanation).
In its existing condition, stormwater runoff from Sub-district 1A is collected and conveyed via a
stormwater drainage system that discharges through outfalls located on the Cedar River, John's
Creek and Lake Washington. These outfalls are identified in the EIS as Outfall #15 (Cedar
River), Outfalls #13 and #14 (John's Creek) and Outfall #1 (Lake Washington). As assumed in
the EIS, conveyance system components could be designed to divert water away from existing
overcapacity outfalls within the EIS study area, to the extent possible. As stated in the EIS,
some outfalls serving the site area and the John's Creek channel are currently over capacity
during certain storm events (i.e., Outfalls #13, #14 and #15), while some have excess capacity
(i.e., Outfall #1). Two cases were considered in Appendix A, consistent with the EIS analysis
for Sulxlistrict 1A: one in which the areas drained by each of the existing outfalls are generally
maintained in size and configuration (Case 1), and one in which areas drained by the outfalls
are modified to direct stormwater from overcapacity outfalls to outfalls with excess capacity
(Case 2). A separate stormwater consistency analysiS has been prepared for the Sub-district
18 Conceptual Plan (see the SurfacelStormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1B on
file at the City of Renton).
Also consistent with the EIS, Appendix A evaluates the potential surface/stormwater impacts of
the City's current plans to improve existing roadways and develop new roadways associated
with the proposed Sub-district 1A and 1B redevelopment plans (note: the roadway sections of
these roadways will provide capacity at a greater level than required for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B,
but less than required for the entire EIS study area).
Sub-cllstrlc:t 1A
The area covered by the current Sub-district 1A Master Plan proposal roughly covers Subareas
A and B, as analyzed in the EIS Surface/Storrnwater Technical Report (see Appendix B to the
Draft EIS for details). The area of the current Sub-district 1A proposal is 8.4 percent larger than
EIS Subareas A and B. The area subject to redevelopment would be larger, because the
roadway area would be reduced, as described below.
The City of Renton intends to improve existing arterials and develop new arterials to serve Sub-
districts1A and 1B ~.e., Logan Avenue N., Park Avenue, alii Street and 10lll Street). The area
covered by the planned arterials is 42 percent Jess than the area assumed to be covered by the
arterials in the EIS. This is because the analysis contained in the EIS assumes roadway
development that would be sufficient to support redevelopment of the entire EIS study area
(including District 2 to the West of Logan Avenue N.), while the City's current plan includes
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct 1 A Envlronmentsl Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-2
I
I
I
.1
...
J
]
1
j
]
I
J
J
, ; I; .
I
I
I
roadway development (i.e., roadway sections) that will provide capacity at a level that is greater
than required to serve District 1 only (Sub-district 1A and 1 B redevelopment), but less than
required to serve redevelopment of the entire EIS study area.
Since the areas currently proposed for the Sub-district 1A Master Plan and the arterials planned
by the City do not precisely match the assumed drainage subareas identified for the EIS
alternatives, Appendix A presents stormwater quantities in terms of totals, as well as quantity
per acre. The purpose of this presentation is to compare the relative impacts of the current
Sub-district 1A Master Plan and associated arterials 10 the EIS alternatives.
Peak stormwater flows are very closely linked to the amount of impervious surface area. The
redevelopment currently proposed for Sub-district 1A would result in impervious surface
coverage of approximately 93 percent. This impervious surface coverage would be within the
range of impervious surface coverage estimated under the EIS alternatives (at approximately 80
to 100 percent), and would be less than the existing baseline condition (at 100 percent). The
arterial development currently planned by the City would result in impervious surface coverage
of approximately 87 percent. This impervious surface coverage would be less thari the
impervious surface coverage estimated for the arterials in the EIS (at 100 percent).
Total peak flows from redevelopment under Ihe Sub-district 1A Master Plan would be higher
than under the existing baseline condition and under the EIS alternatives. However, the peak
flow per acre from the Sub-district 1A redevelopment would be at the low end of the range
calculated for the EIS Alternatives. Total peak flows from the City's currently planned arterial
system would be significantly lower than the total peak flows calculated for the arterials in the
EIS. The peak flows per acre from the arterials would be similar to the peak flows per acre from
the EIS.
Appendix A concluded that stormwater conditions and calculated impacts associated with the
Sub-district 1A Master Plan and arterial system would be consistent with the conditions and
calculated impacts with the range of redevelopment alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
Peak runoff flows from Sub-district 1A to the applicable outfalls would generally be reduced in
comparison to the baseline condition. Except for Outfall #1, the outfalls affected by the Sub-
district 1A proposal (Outfalls #13, #14 and #15) would see reductions in peak flows in
comparison to the baseline condition. Flows to Outfalls #13, #14 and #15 would increase
relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS alternatives. This difference is attributable to the
fact that the EIS alternatives include, at a minimum, redevelopment of Subareas A, Band C,
while the Sub-district 1A proposal reflects only redevelopment of Subareas A and B. Since
Outfalls #13, #14 and #15 receive a significant portion of their flow from Subarea C, the lower
flows at these oUtfalis 0dentified under the EIS alternatives) would not occur until Subarea C is
redeveloped in the future. The peak flow at Outfall #1 would be increased in comparison to the
baseline condition; however, the increase would result in a peak flow that would be well below
the capacity of the outfall and within the range of the EIS alternatives. Similar to the conclusion
of the EIS, there would be no significant impacts to the surface or storm water environrnent as a
result of the current Sub-district 1A Master Plan and associated arterial system.
Transportation
The following section is based on the Transportation Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1A
prepared by TENW (see Appendix B to this document), the Transportation section of the
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-3
Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (2003) (pages 3.10.1 through
3.10.36), and Appendix E to the 2003 Draft EIS.
Background.
Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive
Plan Amendment EIS were used to estimate a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that
would be generated by redevelopment currently proposed for Sub-district 1A For traffic
analysis purposes, Sub-district 1A was assumed to comprise approximately 1,522,500 square-
feet of new deveiopment, the maximum development scenario (see Chapter 1 of this
Consistency Analysis for further details). Trip generation comparisons for this Consistency
Analysis do not consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation
estimates evaluated in the EIS, and therefore, should be considered conservative. A separate
transportation consistency analysis has been prepared for the proposed Conceptual Plan for
Sub-district 1 B and is on file at the City of Renton for Sub-district 1 B (see the Boeing Renton
Sub-district 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis).
Sub-ciistrlct 1A
Total off-site vehicle trip generation from redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1A would be
substantially Jess than that estimated for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site under EIS
Alternative 4 (the EIS alternative with the highest vehicle trip generation). In 2015, estimated
vehicle trip generation from Sub-district 1A would total approximately 1,249 fewer trips than
identified under EIS Alternative 4 during the a.m. peak hour, and 448 fewer trips during the p.m.
peak hour.
By 2030, no increase in additional development is assumed to occur within Sub-district 1A (for
purposes of this analysiS it is assumed that any redevelopment of the Puget Sound Energy
property north of Logan Avenue would be part of District 2 redevelopment plans). However, due
to future additional redevelopment within Sub-district 1 B between 2015 and 2030, more vehicle
trips within Sub-district 1A would internalize within the site area (there would be more trips from
use to use internal to the sub-districts). As such, a slight reduction in total off-site trip
generation from redevelopment in Sub-district 1A is expected by 2030, over those levels
estimated in 2015. This characteristic is consistent with the trip generation methodologies and
assumptions applied in the 2003 EIS. In 2030, estimated vehicle trip generation from Sub-
district 1A would total approximately 2,806 fewer trips than identified under EIS Alternative 4
during the a.m. peak hour and 1,885 fewer trips during the p.m. peak hour.
The lower overall trip generation for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site would result in
improved intersection levels of service, as compared to those reported in the 2003 EIS. There
would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from
redevelopment proposed under Sub-district 1A beyond those disclosed in the EIS;
redevelopment of approximately 1,522,500 square feet of new mixed use development in Sub-
district 1A, as proposed under the Master Plan, would be within the range of development
alternatives and associated impacts presented in the EIS.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrfct fA Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-4
I
I
I
. l
I
I
I
I
I
'j
]
J
I
11
, j'l , ,
I "
: j
Consistency with Infrastructure Needs Identified in the EIS
Key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the EIS were
reviewed in the cumulative analysis for Sub-districts 1A and 1B in the Boeing Renton Sub-
district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis to identify whether any significant changes have
occurred since the Final EIS was issued in October 2003,
Subsequent to issuance of the EIS and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, the
Boeing Company and the City of Renton entered into a Development Agreement in December
2003, Based on this agreement, the City is completing design engineering and will be
constructing improvements to the local roadway system that will serve the Sub-district 1A and
1B redevelopment area and provide a basic through-street grid system within the sub-districts.
This includes improvements to Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, North 8'" Street and North 10'"
Street to be implemented by the City (see Appendix B of the Boeing Renton Sub-district 1B
Environmental Consistency Analysis for more information on the specific improvements), as well
as certain on-site access and circulation improvements to be constructed by the applicants, The
planned improvements to the local road system will provide capacity at a level that is higher
than required to serve only Sub-district 1 A and 1B redevelopment in 2015 or 2030 (higher than
assumed necessary for redevelopment of these sub-districts in the EIS). Per the EIS, this
through-street system was not required to only support redevelopment levels evaluated in the
EIS for Sub-districts 1A and 1B by 2015 or 2030; instead, this system was required to also
support the redevelopment of a portion of the EIS study area west of Logan Avenue N, (a
portion of the area defined as District 2).
Based on the traffic consistency analysis for redevelopment of both Sub-clistrict 1A and 1 B, all
infrastructure needs identified in the EIS would either be mitigated through expected trip
generation reductions (as compared to trip generation evaluated in the EIS) or as part of the
planned transportation improvements to be implemented by the City of Renton or the applicants.
No additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support cumUlative
redevelopment under Sub-districts 1A and 1B.
If redevelopment of Sub-district 1A is considered as a standalone project, in comparison to
cumulative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1B, there would be no changes in
conclusions regarding transportation impacts or infrastructure needs. See Appendix 8 to the
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis for further discussion of the
specific intersection, arterial and freeway access infrastructure needs identified in the EIS' for
the cumulative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, and the relationship of the current
redevelopment plans to these infrastructure needs. ,
Land Use Patterns
The following section draws from the Land Use section of the Boeing Renton Comprehfmsive
Plan Amendment Draft EIS (pages 3.5.1 through 3.5.17),
Background
As described in the 2003 EIS, SUb-district 1A is considered part of the existing Boeing Renton
Plant site (defined as Subareas A and B), The alternative redevelopment scenarios analyzed in
the 2003 EIS are evaluated against a "baseline condition" which included certain land use
BoeIng Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
2-5
assumptions for the existing site area (see Draft EIS pages 3.5.3 and 3.5.6 for details). Since
2003, the baseline land use condition has changed in certain respects. In particular, below is
one of the key land use assumptions from the EIS related to Sub-district 1A, followed by an
update on the status of the assumption in bold italic.
• Continuation of existing utility operations on the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) property
(under EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 only).
The PSE property was Included In Subarea A (a part of Sub-district 1A) In the EIS,
but Is not Included In the cummt Sub-dlstrlct 1A Master Plan. Future
redevelopment of this property Is not anticipated to occur by 2015, as Is not
considered a part of Sub-district 1A for purposes of this analysis.
Land uses that are currently located adjacent to Sub-district 1 A are the same as those
described in the 2003 Draft EIS (see Draft EIS page 3.5.6 and 3.5.7). Sub-district 1A is
surrounded by: Boeing industrial and office uses and the Puget Sound Energy sub-station to
the north; the Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B property to the south; the Fry's Electronics retail
store to the east and PACCAR industriaVmanufacturing uses to the southeast; and Boeing
industrial and office uses and parking lots to the west.
At the time that the 2003 EIS was prepared, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan
designations for Sub-district 1A were Employment Area -Industrial and Employment Area -
Office, and the zoning classifications were Industrial -Heavy (IH) and Employment Area -.
Transition (IH). Subsequent to the Final EIS issuance, the City adopted new Comprehensive
Plan and zoning designations for the Boeing Renlon Plant site area. The current
Comprehensive Plan designation for Sub-district 1A is Urban Cenler-North (UC-N). The
current zoning classification for Sub-district 1A is Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1). The 2003 EIS
analyzes the potential impacts of re-designating and reclassifying the Sub-district 1A property to
its current land use designation and zoning classification.
Sub-dlstrlct 1A
The current Master Plan for Sub-district 1A proposes a total of approximately 1,349,000 to
1,522,500 square feet of retail, office and multifamily development, with buildout projected by
2015 (see Chapter 1 of this Consistency Analysis for details). Retail uses are proposed to be
located in the northwest and south portions of the property On Quadrants A, B, C and a small
area in the west portion of the Fairfield area); multifamily uses are proposed to be located in the
northeast portion of the property (in the Fairfield area); and office uses are proposed to be
located in the southwest portion of the property (in uppsr floors of retail uses in Quadrant B)
(see Figure 1-3).
As noted above, re-ciesignation of the Boeing Renton Plant site from EA to the UC-N in the
Comprehensive Plan and reclassification of the site to UC-N1 zoning occurred subsequent to
issuance of the Final EIS. The 2003 EIS analyzes the impacts of these land use changes, and
indicates that the changes would facilitate an eventual transition in land use patterns In the north
Renton area from primarily employment based to a broader and more urban mix of employment,
retail, residential and open space land uses. The EIS also evaluates the potential land use
impacts of four redevelopment scenarios (Alternatives 1 through 4) that encompass a range of
land uses that the site could potentially accommodate in. the Mure (see Chapter 1 of this
Consistency Analysis for further description of these altematives).
Boeing Renton SutJ.dlstrfct 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
2-6
1
I
J
J
1
J
The principle conclusions that the EIS reaches with respect to potential land use impacts are
summarized below, followed in bold italic by an analysis of how the proposed Sub-district 1A
Master Plan compares to each.
• EIS Land Use Conclusion 1: Sub-district 1B would be converted to a mixed use,
urban district Implementation of EIS Altemative 2 would convert Sub-district 1A
(defined as Subareas A and B) to low-rise office and retail uses. Implementation of EIS
Altematives 3 and 4 would convert the Sub-district 1 A property to an urban district,
characterized by retail shopping, a commercial business district, multifamily residences,
and public amenities.
Under the cu"ent Master Plan, redevelopment of Sub-district 1A Is proposed to
include retail, office and multifamily uses_ This redevelopment would contribute
.: to the creation of an mixed use, urban district In the Boeing Renton Plant site
area, similar to under EIS Alternatives 3 and 4, and would, therefore, be consistent
with the analysis of Impacts in the E/S. . ,
, I c·
! .,
.. J
: \
r.. ,
,
..
r
I
.. 1
•
•
EIS Land Use Conclusion 2: The mixed use. urban character proposed for Sub·
district 1B would be compatible with surrounding uses. The land uses assumed
under the EIS altematives would be compatible with the existing uses surrounding Sub-
district lA. Implementation of Alternative 2 would convert Sub-district lA to low-rise
office and retail uses. These new office and retail land uses would be compatible with
ongoing Boeing operations, as well as existing commercial and industrial uses to the
east and southeast, including the Fry's Electronics superstore and PACCAR.
Implementation of Altematives 3 and 4 would convert Sub-district lA to a more intensive
urban district, characterized by retail, commercial, multifamily uses and public amenities.
The higher intensity retail and multifamily development in the east portion of Sub-district
1A would be compatible with the Fry's Electronics superstore and would be adequately
buffered from manufacturing uses further to the southeast; the higher intensitY retail and
commercial uses in the west portion of Sub-district 1A would be compatible with ongoing
Boeing operations.
Under the cu"ent Master Plan for Sub-district 1A, future uses are generally
proposed to be located In similar areas of the property as under the range of
alternatives in the EIS (retail uses would be located In the northwest and south
portions of the property and multifamily residential uses would be located In the
northeast portion of the property); proposed uses would, therefore, be consistent
with the analysis In the E/S (see Figure 1-3 in this Consistency Analysis).
EIS Land Use Conclusion 3: Eventual conversion of Sub·district 1A to a mixed
use. urban district would Increase the likelihood of similar changes In the
su"oundlng area. consistent with the Citv's vision for the area. Redesignation of
Sub-district 1A to UC-N, and redevelopment to higher intensities across the property,
could generate pressure for Comprehensive Plan map and zoning redesignations for
surrounding properties located generally between 1405 and Rainier Avenue (north of N.
4th Street), currently designated for a more limited range of uses. Overall, redesignation
of Sub-district 1A to UC-N reflects the City of Renton's goals for its Urban Center. Over
time, the redesignation could facilitate changes in land use pattems that are consistent
with the City's vision for where different types of land uses should be concentrated and
the ongoing transition of the Boeing Renton Plant site area from an industrial base to
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-7
one that is more mixed and urban in character. Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning
provisions and individual project review by the City would serve as mitigation to preclude
potential future impacts.
Subsequent to issuance of the Final E/S, the Boeing Renton Plant site and
properties between the site and 1-405 (north of the PACCAR property) were
redesignated to the UC·N Comprehensive Plan designation and reclassified to the
UC·N1 zoning classification, consistent with the City's vision for the area within
the Urban Center. Further pressure for eddltional Comprehensive Plan map and
zoning redesignations, as a result of Sub-district 1A redevelopment, Is expected
to be limited. Consistent with the conclusions the ElS reaches, Comprehensive
Plan policies, zoning provisions and individual project review by the City would
selVe as mitigation to preclude potential future Impacts.
The EIS concludes that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to land use patterns would
result from development under the range of alternatives. Redevelopment under the current
Master Plan proposed for Sub-distrfct 1A would be consistent with this conclusion.
Relationship to Plans & Policies
The following section draws from the Relationship to Plans and Policies section of the Boeing
Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (2003) (pages 3.6.1 through 3.6.13).
Background
The 2003 EIS analyzes the consistency of the proposed land use designation for the Renton
Plan site with applicable state and local land use plans, policies and regulations (in place at that
time). The EIS summarizes important elements of each applicable plan, policy, or regulation,
and provides an analysis of consistency. Highlights of the EIS analysiS are presented below,
followed by an evaluation of the consistency of the current Master Plan proposed for Sub-district
1 A with the analysis in bold italic.
Sub-district 1A
State of Washington Plans and Policies
The 2003 EIS addresses relevant State of Washington Plans and Policies, including the Growth
Management Act (1990) and the Shoreline Management Act (1971). The EIS concludes that
the City of Renton had adopted a Comprehensive Plan to guide future development and fulfill
the City's responsibilities under GMA. The City had also adopted mitigation Ompact) fee.
standards for fire protection and par1<s and recreation consistent with GMA. The EIS
determines that the proposed amendments to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan would
encourage future growth in the City's Urban Center (within its UGA), and would be consistent
with GMA goals and policies. The Shoreline Management Act is implemented in the City of
Renton through the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (see the discussion of City of
Renton plans and policies below).
Amendments to the Renton Comprehensive Plan that encourage future higher Intensity
growth In the City's Urban Center (which Includes Sub-dlstrict 1A) were adopted
Boeing Renton Sub-district fA Environmental Consistency AnalysIs
May, 2006
2·8
I
I
I
1
1
I
. . ,
I
]
1
.1
J
J
I
,
, 1
. i
I
subsequent to issuance of the Final EIS. The Master Plan proposed for Sub-district 1A
would represent an urban, mixed use development in the City's Urban Center, and would
be consistent with the EIS analysis regarding GMA goals and policies.
King County Plans and Policies
Relevant King County plans and policies, specifically the King County Countywide Planning
Policies (CPP) (1992) are also discussed in the EIS. The EIS indicates that, as mandated
under the GMA, the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan was consistent with the Countywide
Planning policies. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan included policies to accommodate the
CPP housing and employment growth targets city-wide. The City of Renton also had a
designated Urban Center, with associated goals and policies, consistent with the CPP (see the
discussion of City of Renton plans and policies below). The EIS concludes that the general
policies proposed for Renton's Urban Center reiterated the CPP language regarding the vision
and "design" of Urban Centers; and, that the proposed :Zoning would create capacity for Urban
Center employment and residential density levels that reflect the CPP household and
employment capacity criteria,
The current general policies for Renton's Urban Center North area, and the zoning of the
Sub-district 1A property, were adopted subsequent to issuance of the Final ElS. The
current Sub-district 1A Master Plan includes both employment and residential
development, and would help the City to meet its employment and household targets,
consistent with the EIS analysis regarding the CPP.
City of Renton Plans and Policies
City of Renton Comprehensive Plan
The EIS addresses the following elements of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan: Land
Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Downtown and Economic
Development and Environmental.
• Land Use Element The EIS states that policies in the Land Use Element encouraged a
compact urban city with a revitalized downtown that would function as a regional Urban
Center. Office, retail and residential developments were encouraged in the downtown
area. New commercial and multifamily development outside the downtown would be
accommodated in "centers". The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan would divide the existing (at that time)
Urban Center into two parts: Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) and Urban Center North
(UC-N). The proposed policies that would apply to the Urban Center would establish
these areas and outline objectives for Renton's Urban Center that would reflect the CPP
objectives and criteria for Urban Centers. The proposed zoning would create additional
capacity for mixed use development.
The EIS indicates that proposed policies specific to the UC-N designation were intended
to provide a blueprint for transition of land over the next 30 years into a dynamic mixed
use district. The UC-N policies were developed to correspond to the EIS alternatives,
and allowed an analysis of the impacts associated with different thresholds of land use
and intensity in the Boeing Renton Plant area. The policies reflected the assumed level
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-9
of redevelopment associated with each EIS altemative and a wide range of potential
uses and densities of redevelopment.
Subsequent to Issuance of the Final EIS, the City adopted the UC-N
Comprehensive Plan designation and the UC-N1 zoning classification for the
Boeing Renton Plant area, Including Sub-district 1A, In November 2003. The City
also adopted new policies and regulations to support the re-designation/rezonlng
In November 2003. These new policies were consistent with those In the EIS
analysis (see below for an analysis of the consistency of the Master Plan currentiy
proposed for Sub-district 1A with key Urban Center North policies). The Sub-
district 1A Master Plan would contribute to the creation of a dynamic mixed use
district In an Urban Center, consistent with the intent of the UC-N land use
designation and UC-N1 zoning classification.
• Transportation Element The EIS indicates that the re-designation/reciassification of
the Boeing Renton Plant area, and related adoption of policies, would increase the
area's employment and residential capacity. Actual redevelopment would result in
additional traffic volumes distributed on the local and regional roadway network. Under
EIS Altematives 3 and 4, higher density mixed-use redevelopment would support transit
and non-motorized travel pattems (at a lower density, Altemative 2 would not be as likely
to support transit and non-motorized travel pattems). The EIS concludes that demands
on transportation infrastructure would be dealt with through ongoing capital facilities
planning by the City, consistent with the policies in the Transportation Element that
require coordinating land use and transportation planning, and phasing transportation
plans concurrently with growth.
Following issuance of the Final EIS, the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan was amended to address potential Impacts from Increases in
Boeing Renton Plant site area capacity (Including the capacity from Sub-district
1A). Various Improvement needs were defined and Included In the City's six year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which Is updated annually. The City
is planning new improvements to certain existing' arterials and planning new
arterials (Logan Avenue N., Park Avenue, tfh Street, and 1fJ1' Street) surrounding
Sub-district 1A to support redevelopment of this area. See the Transportation
section and Appendix B to this Consistency AnalySis for an analysis of the
consistency of the potential transportation impacts under the current Master Plan
for Sub-district 1A wfth the analysis in the ElS.
1
I
I
l
J
j
]
]
• Housing Element According to the EIS, the redesignation/reclassiflCation of the j
Boeing Renton Plant site, and related adoption of policies, would generate new ,
residential capacity within the area that would accommodate future population growth
within the City. Potential future redevelopment allowed under mixed-use zoning would .1
add to the multifamily housing supply in the City and would be consistent with the J
Housing Element goals that call for adequate supply of multifamily housing capacity to
meet Urban Center goals. Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated
employment and housing, served by transit, with a wide range of other land uses. .J
The current Master Plan for Sub-dlstrlct 1A would Include multifamily housing,
consistent with the Housing Element goal to provide an adequate supply of
multifamily housing in Urban Centers. This housing would be located In a mixed
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstr/ct 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-10 j
t
. ,
. ,
i , ,
; i
,
use development area that also features employment opportunities and is served
by transit
• Capital Facilities Element As the EIS describes, the amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations would create the capacity for a range
of uses at the Boeing Renton Plant site, and associated employment and housing
potential. The EIS concludes that ongoing capital facilities planning related to provision
of public services (i.e., fire and police protection), parks and recreation facilities,
transportation, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure would address the
increases in population and demands on services associated with potential future
redevelopment.
Following Issuance of the Final EIS, the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan was amended to address phased improvements required by
future redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant site. See the Summary Matrix at
the end of this chapter for a comparison of the potential impacts of the Sub·
district 1A Master Plan on public services, paries and recreation, and utilities with
, the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on these elements •
• Utilities Element. The EIS indicates that future redevelopment of the Boeing Renton
Plant site area that occurs as a result of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning would require utilities infrastructure to serve the area. utility policies in the
Comprehensive Plan support those improvements that are necessary for redevelopment
of the Urban Center.
Any utility improvements that would be made as a result of redevelopment
proposed for Sub-district 1A would be consistent with the policies in the Utilities
and Capital Facilities Elements. See the Summary Matrix at the end of this
chapter for a comparison of the potential Impacts of Sub-district 1A
redevelopment on utilities with the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives.
• Downtown Element The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan would divide the existing (at that time) Urban Center into two parts:
Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) and Urban Center North (UC-N). Adopted general
policies would be consistent with CPP criteria for Urban Centers that would apply to the
whole of Renton's Urban Center. Individual policies and zoning for the UC-N area would
support a higher density mixed use urban district. Potential future redevelopment that
could occur under these land use regulations, particularly under EIS Alternative 3 and 4,
could result in a spillover effect to the downtown area as a result of increases in
population (Alternative 2 would be less likely to have this effect, given the lower densities
of development assumed under this alternative). This could generate support for
businesses in the downtown area and create new types of businesses. Alternatively,
sorne downtown businesses could compete with uses in the Boeing Renton Plant site.
Subsequent to Issuance of the Final EIS, the City adopted the UC-N
Comprehensive Plan designation and the UC-N1 zoning classification for Sub·
district 1A. The City also adopted new policies and regulations to support the
redesignation/rezoning. Redevelopment under the Sub·district 1A Master Plan
would represent a higher density mixed use urban district with an Increase In
employment and population. This could result In Impacts to (and from) downtown
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency AnalysIs
May, 2006
2·11
businesses, similar to those described In the EfS. However, given that Boeing
operations are continuing in Sub-district 2 (the area west of Logan Avenue N.),
such potential for Impacts would be less than identified in the EIS for Alternatives
3 and 4.
• Economic Development Element The EIS concludes that the proposed amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan and related new general policies for Urban Centers would be
consistent with the goals and policies from the Economic Development Element.
Redevelopment under EIS Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would include office, retail and
commercial uses, consistent with policies in the Economic Development Element
relating to expanding the City's office and retail employment bases. Redevelopment
under EIS Alternatives 3 arid 4 would encourage mixed-use redevelopment in a range of
office, retail, residential. and community-based land uses (redevelopment under
Alternative 2 would be less diverse and intense). This type of redevelopment would be
consistent with policies supporting a diversified employment base, and expansion in
retail and office use.
The redevelopment currently proposed under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan
would contribute to the creation of a mixed use development that would Include
retail, office and residential uses. This redevelopment would be consistent with
. the Economic Development Element policies related to supporting a diversified
employment base and expanding the CIty's office and retail employment bases, as
identified· In the ElS.
• Environmental Element The EIS concludes that redevelopment of the site, as allowed
by the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and related policies and regulations,
would occur consistent with City adopted environmental and critical area regulations.
Redevelopment under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan would occur In compliance
with City-adopted environmental and critical area regulations, consistent with the
conclusion in the ElS. See the Summary Matrix at the end of thhl chapter for a
comparison of the potential Impacts of the redevelopment under the proposed
Sub·district 1A Master Plan on the environmental elements (I.e., earth, water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat) with the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives
on these elements.
City of Renton Shoreline Master Program
No portions of Sub-district 1A are located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington or Cedar River
shorelines, and, therefore, are not subject to the provisions of this program.
City of Renton 2003 Long·Range Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan
The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and associated
development regulations would create capacity for a range of uses in the Boeing Renton Plant
site area, including housing and employment uses. Future redevelopment would lead to
demands on parks and recreation facilities. These demands would be addressed in annual
updates to both the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Redevelopment within the Boeing Renton Plant site area would
be subject to the City's Park and Recreation Mitigation Fee policy (Resolution 3082). EIS
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2·12
J
I
I
.1
j ,
1 ,
i
I
, ,.
. i
:. ,
: _J
Alternative 2 did not include residential development, and demands for open space and/or park
and recreation opportunities were assumed to be minor; Altematives 3 and 4 were assumed to
generate greater demands, because of the greater range of uses (including residential). All of
the EIS alternatives were assumed to include some open space.
The redevelopment under the proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan would contribute to
the creation of a mixed use development that would Include residential uses. These uses
would lead to demands on parks and recreation facilities; however, overall demands
would be less than under EIS Alternatives 3 and 4, because fewer housing units are
proposed (900 units vensus 1,112 units). See the Summary Matrix at the end of this
chapter for a comparison of the potential impacts of Sub-district 1A redevelopment on
parks and recreation with the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives. Residential
development In Sub-district 1A would be subject to the City's Park and Recreation
Mitigation Fee policy.
Redevelopment of Sub-district 1A is proposed to include open space/landscaping
(including pedestrian paths and connections between areas of the sub-district and
adjacent areas, plazas, courtyards and outdoor seating areas and other landscaped
areas). The Fairfield residential neighborhood would include approximately 45,000
square feet of common space/recreation area in a combination of courtyards, plazas and
multipurpose open space. The applicant proposes to construct community buildings
and pool/spa areas (one per each of the two phases of residential development in this
area). The community buildings and pool/spa areas would provide active and
recreational opportunities for residents. A more detailed description of proposed
recreation opportunities would be presented with the site development and building
pennlt application for the specific residential project. Approximately 23,000 square feet
of pedestrian-oriented space would be provided In the non-residentiaf portions of the
Sub-district 1A development (primarily in a plaza located in the northwest portion of the
property).
New City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies
The 2003 EIS analyzes a new UC-N land use designation for the Boeing Renton Plant site
(including Sub-district 1A). The EIS includes a proposed intent and vision for the UC-N area, as
well as new policies to support the UC-N vision. Following issuance of the Final EIS, the City
adopted the UC-N land uses deSignation for the Boeing Renton Plant area, and related policies
and regulations in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Comprehensive Plan [2004J). A
brief summary of the current vision and purpose statements and excerpts from several of the
current policies applicable to redevelopment of SUb-district 1A are presented below, followed by
an evaluation of the consistency of the current Master Plan for Sub-district 1A with each
statemenVpolicy in bold italic.
• Vision Statement. The vision for redevelopment of the Urban Center -North is one of
dramatic change as existing low-rise industrial and mid-rise office buildings are
reconfigured into a dynamic new retail and office neighborhood. 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. Also part of the vision for
the UC-N is a dense employment center.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency AnalysiS
May, 2006
2-13
Redevelopment under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan would support this vision
for the UC-N. The Master Plan proposes that the property would be reconfigured
into a new mixed use development with a wide range of complementary uses. The
1
northwest and south portions of the property are proposed to include retail, " .. '
cinema and a small amount of office development, consistent with the destination .1
retail shopping district pattern of development from the vision statement A mix
of larger, destination retail stores, smaller specialty retail stores, restaurants, and J
entertainment uses are proposed. The northeast portion of the property is·
proposed to be developed to a multi-family neighborhood with supporting retail
uses, consistent with the more diverse mixed use urban scale of development I
from the vision statement The Sub-clistrlct 1A development would contribute to
creating a dense employment center in the Urban Center North area.
• ~urp~se ~~tement Thepurpose of the UC-N is to redevelop the area at a larger sfcahle I
t an oun In Downtown Renton, with a wider range of uses, taking advantage 0 t e
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 Sub-district 1A Master Plan would contribute to redevelopment of the Boeing
Renton Plant site area at a larger scale that In Downtown Renton, and with a wider
range of uses. The uses proposed for this area Include retail, office end
multifamily uses. Industrial uses are currently being consolidated in the west
portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site area.
• Policy LU-265. Support a more urban intensity of development (e.g. building height,
[etc.)) than with land uses in suburban areas of the City.
Redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1A would feature a more urban form and
scale of development Building heights are assumed to range from one-story to
ten stories, and would not exceed the heights allowed In the UC-N1 zone.
Proposed heights are within the range of heighfs evaluated in the 2003 E/S.
• Policy LU-278. Support creation of significant gateway feature within gateway nodes as
shown on Urban Center-North Gateway Map.
A gateway element In the proposed Master Plan, to potentially be located at the
Intersection of Parle Avenue N. and Logan Avenue N. is currently being discussed
with the City of Renton. The gateway element would serve as the primary
identifier of the South LakeINorth Renton neighborhood area when exiting 1-405.
The Fairfield residential neighborhood would also serve as a gateway and primary
entrance feature of the proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan development
Located In the northeast comer of the property, It would be the first element of the
larger development to be seen from 1-405 and the Parle Avenue exit During the
CIty's site plan and building review process, the Fairfield developers will propose
special design features and architectural elements to ensure that as a gateway,
the Fairfield residential neighborhood would be distinctive within the context of
the overall district, yet compatible and complimentary to the form and scale of
neighboring land uses.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-14
. ''J
j
t .1,
• Policy LU·301. Ensure that big-box [large-format] retail functions as an anchor to
larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments.
Redevelopment under the Sub·district 1A Master Plan would include destination
retail stores. Such stores are proposed to be located in anchor positions,
generally in the east and south portions of the property. A system of pedestrian
paths and connections and a coordinated design and landscaping theme would
. \ serve to Insure a cohesive urban neighborhood.
• Policy LlJ..303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development.
The Sub·district 1A Master Plan includes provisions for pedestrian connections
within the site and to surrounding areas (including to future Sub-district 1B
redevelopment). N. 1fi1' Street between Logan Avenue N. and Park Avenue, and
"Entertainment Boulevard" are intended to be pedestrian streets. Pedestrian
amenities would be provided along all pedestrian-oriented streets. The frontages
of retail shops would feature promenades with a series of pedestrian-oriented
inodes~ Pedestrian routes would also be provided through surface parking lots
(see Figure 1·3 in this Consistency Analysis).
• Policy LlJ..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.
Under the current Master Plan, landscaping would be provided throughout Sub-
district 1A to reinforce the design theme, guide pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, soften paved areas, create pocket garden spaces, and provide climatic
relief In parking lots and sidewalk zones. Street tree spacing would be
coordinated with the City of Renton roadway plans. Specific landscape plans
would be submitted with individual building permits and the residential site plan
application. The amount and placement of landscaping would meet or exceed the
City's minimum design guidelines.
Other urban forms of setback and buffering would also be provided. A large
central courtyard would span across the street and link with the adjacent retail
uses In "The Landing Place", an entertainment district proposed In the northwest
comer of the properly. Unique paving would be Incorporated into "Market Lane",
a marketplace zone proposed in the central portion of the property. Pedestrian-
oriented nodes featuring seating, landscape planting, lighting and hardscaping
would be featured in '7he Walk", a large-scale retail district proposed in the east
and south parts of the properly. Specialty frontage paving would also extend Into
the parking areas to expand the pedestrian character of this district. Street
furniture would be provided at appropriate locations throughout the development
• Policy LlJ..306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or
under-building parking is not market viable.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2·15
• Policy LV-30B. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of
blocks, screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers.
The proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan Includes structured and sumce parking
(some surface parking Is proposed by the applicant bas8cJ on their determination
of economic feasibility). A six-story parldng structure would be located In
Quadrant A, adjacent to Logan Avenue N. Structured parldng would also be
provided beneath the Fairfield residential buildings. Surface parldng would be
located in the central portion of Sub-district 1A, behind the proposed buildings
and screened from the adjacent roadways with landscaping. Some parallel
parking along streets would also be provided (see Figure 1-3 In this Consistency
Analysis).
• Policy LlJ.311. Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunities
for infill development, and provide for efficient use of land by setting maximum parking
standards.
Redevelopment under the proposed Sub-district fA Master Plan would represent
an urban rather than a suburban form of development. Surface parking areas
would provide opportunities for future Intill development. The parking ratio for
Sub-district fA would be consistent with maximum parlcing standards determined
by the City. New structured parlcing facilities would be Included In the
development
• Policy LU-3f3. Discourage ancillary retail pads.
Retail uses In Sub-distrlct 1A would generally be linked in various districts,
Including:
The Landing Place -The northwest comer of the property Is planned as a high
density entertainment zone with cinema. restaurants and specialty retail shops.
Market Lane -The center of the property Is planned as a "marketplace zone"
created out of a more densely landscaped pedestrian path and a portion of the
sumce parldng. This zone Is Intended to accommodate outdoor markets and
seasonal events.
The Walk -The east and south portions of the property would feature large-scale
retail anchors, Junior anchors and smaller retailers or restaurants.
The EIS concludes that amending the Comprehensive Plan, adopting related policies and
regulations, and developing under the range of EIS alternatives would be consistent with
existing (at that time) plans, policies and regulations. Redevelopment under the current Master
Plan for Sub-district 1A would be consistent with this conclusion.
Summary Matrix
The following matrix provides a comparative overview of the significant impacts that would
potentially result from the EIS altematives and the proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan. The
potential impacts that would result from the EIS alternatives are listed in the left <:alumn of the
table and the potential impacts from redevelopment under the proposed Sub-district 1A Master
Plan are compared to them. Significant unavoidable 'adverse impacts are also identified, as
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct 1A Environmental Consistency AnalysIs
May, 2006
2-16
1
J
I
J
I
.);
'.
~1
, .J
1
.1
I
J
.J
J
• Policy LU-301. Ensure that big·box [large-format) retail functions as an anchor to
larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments.
•
•
Redevelopment under the SUIJ-district 1A Master Plan would include destination
retail stores. Such stores are proposed to be located in anchor positions,
generally in the east and south portions of the property. A system of pedestrian
paths and connections and a coordinated design and landscaping theme would
serve to insure a cohesive urban neighborhood.
Policy LU-303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development.
The Sub·district 1A Master Plan includes provisions for pedestrian connections
within the site and to surrounding areas (including to future Sub·district 18
redevelopment). N. 1(fh Street between Logan Avenue N. and Park Avenue, and
"Entertainment Boulevard" are intended to be pedestrian streets. Pedestrian
amenities would be provided along all pedestrian-oriented streets. The frontages
of retail shops would feature promenades with a series of pedestrian-oriented
inodes~ Pedestrian routes would also be provided through suriace parking lots
(see Figure 1-3 in this Consistency Analysis).
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 fum~ure.
Under the current Master Plan, landscaping would be provided throughout Sub-
district 1A to reinforce the design theme, guide pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, soften paved areas, create pocket garden spaces, and provide climatic
relief In parking lots and sidewalk zones. Street tree spacing would be
coordinated with the City of Renton roadway plans. Specific landscape plans
would be submitted with individual building permits and the residential site plan
application. The amount and placement of landscaping would meet or exceed the
City's minimum design guidelines.
Other urban forms of setback and buffering would also be provided. A large
central courtyard would span across the street and link with the adjacent retail
uses in '7he Landing Place", an entertainment district proposed in the northwest
comer of the property. Unique paving would be incorporated into "Market Lane",
a marketplace zone proposed In the central portion of the property. Pedestrian-
oriented nodes featuring seating, landscape planting, lighting and hardscaplng
would be featured in '7he Walk", a large-scale retail district proposed In the east
and south parts of the property. Specialty frontage paving would also extend into
the parking areas to expand the pedestrian character of this district. Street
furniture would be provided at appropriate locations throughout the development.
• Policy LU·306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or
under-building parking is not market viable.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2·15
applicable. The matrix addresses those elements of the environment that were analyzed in the
EIS. It does not address Stormwater, Transportation and Land Use Patterns, because those
elements have already been covered in this chapter and in the technical consistency analyses
appended to this document (see Appendices A and 8).
Conclusion
Redevelopment under the current Master Plan for Sub-district 1A is considered to be within the
capacity of the range of development alternatives and associated impacts analyzed in the 2003
Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS. Sub-district 1A is, therefore, consistent
with the previously granted Planned Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
2·17
---
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment
EART ..
Impacts
• Redevelopment would require site preparation including: removal of some • Consistent with EIS analysis. No significant changes in the degree of site
of the existing structures and foundations, grading including provision of preparation from that assumed in the EIS are expected.
structural fill, and provision of foundation support including the likely use
of new and/or existing piles.
• Deep foundation systems, including the use of driven or drilled piles, • Foundation systems similar to those described in the EIS would be
! would likely be required for most structures. Some level of ground required for Sub-district lA redevelopment.
vibration would occur with pile driving (see the Noise section).
,
! • Significant erosion and landslide impacts after redevelopment would not • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing erosion and landslide
be anticipated; Impacts associated with seismic hazards (liquefaction) impacts would not be anticipated, and mitigation measures similar to
would not be anticipated with implementation of proposed mitigation those identified in the EIS would be implemented relative to seismic
measures. hazards.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Implementation of the redevelopment alternatives would alter the site area • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because mitigation measures similar to
through construction of new roads, utilities and structures. With those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts from the redevelopment alternatives would
be anticipated.
WATER RESOURCES
Impacts
Surface Water Quality
• Redevelopment would expose erodible soils to varying degrees; however, • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing site soil conditions are the
the increased erosion risk from redevelopment would be much less than same as described in the EIS and TESCP measures similar to those
for rnany other construction sites, because the site area is already identified in the EIS would be employed.
developed and covered in impervious surfaces. With proper
implementation of required TESCP measures, erosion impacts would not
be anticipated.
• During construction, unintended release of fuels, oil, or hydraulic fluid • Consistent with EIS analysis, because construction site control measures
could contaminate soils and ultimately migrate to groundwater or into and spill response planning similar to that identified in the EIS would be
nearby surface water resources. Such water quality impacts would implemented.
typically be· prevented with adequate construction site control measures
and spill response planning.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrict 1A Environmental Consistency AnalysiS
May, 2006
S-1 Summary Matrix
-----
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A RedevelOJl..ment
• Stormwater runoff during construction would ultimately be directed to the • Consistent with EIS analysis, because TESCP measures similar to those
Cedar River, John's Creek and Lake Washington, and could result in a Identified in the EIS would be implemented.
local rise in turbidity near the discharge locations. With proper
implementation of required TESCP measures, no significant water quality
impacts to these water bodies would occur.
• Impervious surfaces within the site area would be subject to water quality • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because water quality treatment similar
treatment under Altematives 2, 3 and 4, compared to no assumed water to that described in EIS would be implemented (see Appendix A for
quality facilities under the existing/baseline condition. Water quality more information on stormwater impacts from Sub-district 1A
parameters In the stormwater discharge to Lake Washington, the Cedar redevelopment).
River and John's Creek would improve relative to the existing/baseline
condition.
Groundwater
• Recharge to the aqUifer beneath the site area from direct precipitation is • Consistent with the EIS analysis, because the majority of groundwater
considered minimal with the majority of recharge originating from off-slte recharge would continue to originate from off-site areas.
areas. The potential for adverse impacts to groundwater recharge from
redevelopment is considered to be very low and not significanl
• Dewatering would likely be required for the placement of new utilities and • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing groundwater conditions
other excavation. If groundwater levels are significantly decreased, are the same as described In the EIS, and mitigation measures similar to
ground settlement could result that may impact existing fences, buildings, those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
bulkheads, or other nearby structures. Implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures would preclude these Impacts. Dewatering would
l'Iot be expected to produce silty or turbid water, with implementation of
the proposed mitigation measures.
Significant Unavoidable Advense Impacts
• Future redevelopment of the site area would result In the construction of • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because new water quality treatment
new water quality treatment facilities that would meet current applicable facilities would be constructed and conditions would improve relative to
standards. Compliance with such standards would result In an the existing/baseline condition.
improvement in water quality and localized drainage conditions, relative to
the exisling/basellnecondition. With implementation of mitigation
measures, no significant unavoidable adverse Impacts would be
expected.
--~"-------_. --_. -------.----
Boeing Renton Sub-district fA Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
..."., ~ .. , I!!w _ ........ --~ ~ . .
~<.:,:~,'li 1lII'.:.,.
S-2 Summary Matrix
-,~ -..--"'" .... .. --.....,;j
2003 EIS Alternatives
FISH ~ ..... "ILDLIFE HABITAT
Impacts
Shoreline Habitat and Fisheries
• Under Alternatives 3 and 4, construction could occur near Lake
Washington, and potential water quality and aquatic habitat impacts could
result. The potential for impacts to aquatic habitat in lake Washington,
Cedar River and John's Creek would be lower for Altematives 1 and 2
because construction work would occur at greater distances from these
water bodies. With implementation of TESC measures, Significant
Impacts would not be expected.
• No post-construction/operational impacts to aquatic habitat in Lake
Washington, the Cedar River and John's Creek would be expected due to
increased stormwater quality treatment associated with redevelopment,
relative to the existinglbaseline condition.
Upland Habitat and Wildlife
• Temporary, minor construction-related impacts to wildlife habitat could
occur. However, existing habitat is limited and of poor quality, and its
temporary loss (until re-Iandscaped) is not expected to have any
significant adverse affects on wildlife.
• At full buildout of Alternatives 3 and 4, open space is expected to increase
relative to the existing/baseline condition (less open space would be
provided under Altemative 2). This increase in open space would
increase wildlife habitat "
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to fish or wildlife resources
would be expected to occur from the redevelopment under any of the EIS
alternatives. (This is primarily due to the existing ~ck of any significant
fish or wildlife habitat or fisho~.wlldlife use of the site area; the lack of any
in-water work assumed for redevelopment; with implementation of typical
temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures (TESC) and other
best management practices (BMPs), construction could be completed
without adverselyattecting nearby watercourses; andimj:lrolled
stormwater quality treatment prior to discharge to"the Cedar River, lake
Washington, and John's Creek from all redeveloped areas.
-_.'-'
--
Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevel~ment
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub-district 1 A is located at a
distance from these water bodies and habitat, and TESC measures
similar to those described In the EIS would be implemented.
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because water quality treatment would be
Implemented and condit/ons "would Improve relative to the
existinglbasellne condition,
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing wildlife conditions
continue to be limited and of poor quality.
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because open space and landscaping
would increase relative to existing conditions with redevelopment
proposed for Sub-distrlct 1 A
• Consistent with EIS concfusion. because fish and wildlife habitat
continues to-be limited and ,of poor quality, TESC'measures and' other
BMPs.simiiarto those Identified'in theEIS WOUld' be implemented. and
improved stormwater quality would result
Boeing Renton Sul>dlstrict 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
S-3 Summary Matrix
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment I
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts
• Any need for further Investigations, associated with future redevelopment
in the site area, as well as any subsequent remedial actions, would be
• Consistent with EIS analysis.
determined as part of the Corrective Action process or slate Model Toxies
Control Act (MTCA) process.
• If proposals for redevelopment to different, non-industrial land uses are • Consistent with EIS analysis. Assumed redevelopment of Sub-distrlct 1A
submitted in the future, the MTCA process would address appropriate would Include non-industrial uses similar to those identified in the EIS,
cleanup levels at that time, based on the land use proposed for a specific and cleanup measures similar to those identified in the EIS would be
area. implemented, if necessary.
• There would be the potential for new areas of contamination to be • Consistent with EIS analysis, because, as necessary, investigations and I
Identified, In Subareas A through C, in addition to the one area of known cleanup similar to that identified in the EIS would be undertaken.
contamination at the southeast comer of the 10-50 complex (Subarea Bl,
as buildings are demolished and pavement Is removed for new
construction in the future. If such areas are identified they would be
Investigated, and if necessary, cleaned up, according to MTCA
regulations (!NAC 173-340) or the conditions of the Agreed Order.
Signmeant UnaVOidable Adverse Impacts
• No unavoidable adverse impacts from the future redevelopment under • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because remedial actions similar to
any of the altematives would be expected. those Identified in the EIS would be undertaken, as necessary.
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Impacts
• No population would be added 10 the site area under Altematlve 2. At full • Population generated in Sub-district 1A at full buildout would be
buildout of Altematives 3 and 4 in 2030, population capacity of the site approximately 1,620, based on a person per household ratio of 1.8 and a
area could be about 7,300 and 9,200 people, respectively; this population 100 percent occupancy rate. The population would be within the range
growth would represent between 37 and 47 percent of forecasted growth
in the Renton/Skyway FAZ Group between 2000 and 2030.
estimated In the EIS.
• New employment capacity and associated indirect employment would • Consistent with the EIS analysis, because the potential for new
likely generate increases in population 10 the City of Renton over Ihe 25-employment capacity and associated indirect employment 10 generate
year buildout period. Increases In population to the City of Renton would be within levels
identified in the EIS.
Employment
• In 2015 at full buildout of Altemative 2 total employment capacity In the • New employment callacity in Sub-dislrict 1A at full buildout would rang!!
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct 1A Environmental Cons/sfency Analysis
May, 2006
S-4 summary Matrix
!'7i:.:: .... -;"; r.':;!.~ -,'. ;J Mil ~ ~ ~ .....,. 6,,'; J-.'_, .. -~-~ .... .. ... .. .....,;J
---2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-distrlct 1A Redevelopment
entire Renton Plant site would be about 14,700; this would account for from approximately 1,350 to 1,850, based on Ull standards used in the
i
approximately 18 percent of total projected employment in the overall EIS. Employment capacity would be within the range estimated in the
Renton/Skyway FAZ. Group. In 2030, at full buildout of Alternatives 3 and EIS.
4, total employment capacitY would be about 23,700 and 41,400,
respectively; this would account for approximately 25 and 43 percent of
total prOjected employment in the Renton/Skyway FAZ. Group,
respectively. Without existing Boeing employees, total new employment
would be 3,500 under Alternative 2, 4,400 under Alternative 3 and 7,900
under Alternative 4.
• By 2030, redevelopment would result in a transition in the employment • ConSistent with EIS analysis, because Sub-district 1A is proposed to be
base within the site area from industrial/manufacturing to the services redeveloped as an urban mixed use development.
I sector (potentially including jobs in the retail, "finance, insurance, real
estate and services", and government/education employment sectors).
I The new mix of employment would reflect that of a mixed-use urban
district and Is assumed to include a range of jobs associated with
redevelopment in new retail, office, lab, hotel. and residential uses.
• Jobs created within the site area would generate secondary and induced • Consistent with EIS analysis, because jobs similar to those described in
(indirect) employment that could easily result in increased local and the EIS would be created, with the potential to generate secondary and
regional economic activity. induced employment.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
_.
• No Significant unavoidable adverse impacts to population, housing and • Consistent with the EIS conclusion.
employment would occur as a result of the redevelopment alternatives, as
analyzed.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Impacts
• Increase In demand on park and recreation facilities would result from • Consistent with EIS analysis.
future redevelopment. Mitigation would include capital facilities planning
by the City, proviSion of on-site open space and compliance with the City's
Park and Recreation Mitigation Fee POlicy for residential projects.
• It Is assumed that redevelopment would include new open space, a • Similar to EIS analysis, because it is proposed that open
portion of which would be available to the public, with a mix of active and spacellandscaping (landscaped area, plazas and courtyards and
passive recreational features. Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that residential open space/recreation), a portion of which would be available
approximately two acres of open space (conSisting of landscaped area) to the public, would be provided with redevelopment of Sub-district 1 A.
would be provided.
----_.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental ConSistency Analysis
May, 2006
S-5 Summary Matrix
.... ~
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment
• Construction-related impacts could include temporary increases in noise • Sub-dlstrict 1 A Is not located adjacent to these park and recreation
and dust levels at the Cedar River Trail, new Sam Chastain Waterfront facilities, and construction in Sub-district 1 A would not adversely affect
Trail, and Gene Coulon Park; however, these Increases would be them.
temporary in nature, likely of short duration and not significant.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• With Implementation of mitigation measures, no Significant unavoidable • Consistent with the EIS conclusion, because similar mitigation measures
I adverse impacts to park and recreation facilities from the redevelopment to those identified In the EIS would be implemented.
. scenarios, as analyzed, would be expected.
I AESTHETICSILIGHT AND GLARE
Impacts
• Views to the site area from adjacent areas would substantially change. • Similar to EIS analysis, views to Sub-district 1A would change with I
proposed redevelopment of that property.
• The visual character of the site area would be substantially changed. • Consistent with EIS analysis, the visual character of Sub-district 1A
Buildings could be located along the street edge, encouraging increased would be substantially changed. Proposed redevelopment would
pedestrian activity. Street-level retail spaces could be included in some represent an urban scale and character, and would include various
mixed use buildings, and parking areas could be hidden from street view, design features to encourage pedestrian activity.
representing an urban scale and character.
• New sources of light and glare would be primarily from vehicular traffic, • Similar to the EIS analysis, because redevelopment proposed for Sub-
parking areas and street lighting, and interior and exterior building lighting. district 1A would create new sources of light and glare similar to those
Light and glare would also likely Increase near the lake Washington described in the EIS. However, light and glare would not increase
shoreline. substantially near lake Washington, because of the distance between
Sub-dlstrict 1A and the shoreline.
Slgnfficant Unavoidable AdVerse Impacts
• No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to aesthetic, light and glare • ConSistent with EIS conclusion.
conditions would occur.
NOISE
Impacts
• Noise associated with the demolition of existing structures, parking area • Similar to EI S analysis. Noise would generally be limited to the Sub-
removal, building construction, truck traffic to and from building sties, and district 1A property and immediately surrounding area. Noise-sensitive
the operation of heavy equipment and support vehicles in the site area, receptors to the south would be located at least 1,200 feet from the Sub-
would increase noise levels adjacent to the site area over the duration of district 1 A property line. Construction mitigation measures similar to
the construction process. locations immediately adjacent to the site area those identified in the EIS would be implemented and no si~nlficant
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
S-8 Summary Matrix
~;ii( iiii~ , " litta.:~ il4:~";f. k<iiIIi ... 1;..;_ q". • .:~ -~ •• 0........-'--........... "" .. .. 11M .. ...,
--.. 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrict 1A Redevelopment
cou. _ _ .... erience brief sound levels exceeding 110 dBA during pile impacts would result
driving. The majority of noise-sensitive receptors (existing residences)
would experience substantially lower noise levels due to the distance from
the site area. Noise associated with demolition and construction traffic
would be of shorter duration under Alternative 2.
• Increases in the sound level from operation of building mechanical • Consistent with EIS analysis, because the level of development
I equipment .after redevelopment would be between 4 dBA and 6 dBA proposed for Sub-district 1A would fall within the range of development
above baseline levels at some analysis locations under Altematives 3 and assumed in the EIS. Also, standard noise reduction mitigation measures
4, respectively, representing a small to moderate increase. Under both similar to those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
baseline conditions (without redevelopment) and with redevelopment,
sound levels would exceed City of Renton allowable daytime noise limits
at some locations, and the nighttime noise limit at all analysis locations;
however, with implementation of standard noise reduction mifigation
measures, no significant impacts would be expected. Sound level
increases from operation of building mechanical equipment would be
slightly lower under Altemative 2.
• Increases in traffic noise levels above baseline conditions (generally • Consistent with EIS analysis, because vehicle trip generation would be
within 2 dBA) would be small or imperceptible at the more sensitive within the range estimated in the EIS for redevelopment of Sub-district
analysis locations. 1A (see the Transportation section and Appendix B to this Consistency
Analysis for details).
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• The predicted sound levels from the redevelopment alternatives would not • ConSistent with EIS conclusion.
result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
PUBUC SERVICES
Fire and Ememency Services
• Construction-related impacts would include the potential for Increases in • ConSistent with EIS analysis.
calls for service related to inspection of the construction sites and
potential construction-related injUries.
• In 2015, at full build out under Alternative 2 In 2015, an increase in annual • At full buildout of Sub-district 1A, an increase. in annual calls for fire
calls for service from the Renton Fire Department of two to three percent service of up to 3 percent over 2002 levels would be expected. The
over the 2002 district-wide call levels would be expected; at full buildout increase in calls for fire service would be within the range estimated in
under Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, an increase in annual calls for service the EIS.
from the Renton Fire Department of 19 and 30 percen~ respectively, over
2002 district-wide call levels would be expected.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
S-7 Summary Matrix
~
--
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-distrlct 1A Redevelopment
• At full buildoul. under Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, the projected increase • With only Sub-district 1 A redevelopment, expanded personnel levels and
In calls could require expanded personnel levels and fire and emergency equipment would nollikely be necessary.
response equipment to ensure consistent response levels to the site area
and overall service area.
Law Enforcement
• New commercial square footage identified under Alternative 2 would • At full buildout of Sub-district 1 A, an increase in annual calls for service
generate calls for police service; such call volumes are not anticipated to from the Renton Police Department of up to 2 percent over 2002 district-
be Significant At full bulldout under Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, an wide call levels would be expected, and would be within the range
increase in annual calls for service from the Renton Police Department of estimated from the EIS.
13 and 16 percent, respectively, over 2002 district-wide call levels would
be expected.
• At full buildout under Altematives 3 and 4 in 2030, an additional 4.1 to 5.3 • The potential for increases in calls and associated need for increased
patrol officers (over 2003 levels) would be needed to maintain the existing personnel levels and equipment at full buildou! of Sub-district 1A would
City of Renton level of service standard of 1.75 patrol offICers to 1,000 be within the range estimated in the EIS, and less than A1tematives 3 and
population. Long-term capital and operating needs would be addressed 4.
through incremental capital facilities planning over the bulldout period and
beyond.
Schools
• Increases In enrollment associated with Alternative 2 would not be • At full buildout of Sub-district 1A, an enrollment increase of up to 3
expected to be significant At full bulldout under Altematives 3 and 4 in percent over 2002 district-wide enrollment would be expected to be
2030, an enrollment increase of 7 and 9 percent, respectively, over 2002 generated and would be within the range estimated in the EIS. This
district-wide enrollment would be expected. This would represent about 5 increase In enrollment would represent about 2 percent of future
to 6 percent of future projected district-wide enrollment In 2025. projected district-wide enrollment in 2025.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• With implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because mitigation measures similar to
adverse impacts to public services from Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, as those Identified in the EIS would be Implemented.
analyzed, would be expected. It is anticipated that Incremental Increases
in population over the 25 year buildout period(s) would be planned for
through the capital facilities planning by the City of Renton and other
affected agencies.
UTILITIES
Impacts
• The capacity of the City of Renton's water system (based on annual water
ri!lhls callBCity) would be adequate to serve future redevelopment. Based
• Similar to EIS analysis, because the water demand generated by the
redevelopment pro~sed for Sub-district 1A would be within the range of
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct fA Environmental Conslstancy Analysis
May, 20011
5-8 Summary Matrix
Iii;:',," ~~~~.;.! .. "" ... ,c:_, •.• ,: ~ ...... ~ ~~~ ......" .. . ----' .. IiiiIII .. IIIIiiIII """""
I 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment -
. on water demand estimates related to future growth in the City (used in
the 1998 Water System Plan) at full buildout under Alternative 2 In 2015,
demand estimated in the EIS.
annual water demand would be approximately four percent of total City
water system capacity; at full buildout of Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030,
annual water demand would be 13 and 19 percent, respectively, of total
City water system capacity.
• New infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to new • Similar to EIS analysiS; infrastructure improvements would only be
transmission and distribution mains, domestiC meters, fire hydrants, required to serve the redevelopment proposed for Sub-dlstrict 1A.
pressure reducing stations, and storage, would be needed. The private
Boeing water system would not be used to provide water to any
redeveloped areas.
• At full buildout of Alternative 2 in 2015, annual wastewater flows from the • Annual wastewater flows from redevelopment in Sub-district 1 A would be
site area would be about 398 million gallons, including allowances for within the range estimated in the EIS.
infiltration/inflow. At full buildout of Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, annual
wastewater flows from the site area would be about 564 and 714 million
gallons, respectively, including allowances for infiltrationlinflow. These
flows would be less than 2 percent of the total King County Eastside
Interceptor sewer main capacity.
• New wastewater collection systems would be required. The existing • Consistent with EIS analysis.
Boeing-owned wastewater facilities would not be used to serve any future
redevelopment. New wastewater facilities would be constructed in
accordance with City of Renton standards.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• WIth ongoing utility systems and capital facilities planning by the City of • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because mitigation me'!sures similar to
Renton, utility infrastructure improvements would be made to ensure those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
adequate capacity to serve the demand associated with growth from the
redevelopment alternatives and on an overall basis in the City. No
significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated.
AIR QUALITY
Impacts
• Probable Significant adverse air quality impacts from redevelopment • Consistent with EIS analysis, because redevelopment proposed for Sub-
under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not be likely, because mixed-use district 1A would represent an urban mixed-use development.
urban redevelopment are generally neutral or beneficial to regional air
quality, as they allow development to occur close to employment Centers
and housing, thereby minimizing commute times and associated vehicle
emissions.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct 1A EnVironmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
S-9 Summary Matrix
-
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-distrlct 1A Redevelopment
• Under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, local air pollutant emissions from • Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub-district 1A local air pollutant
associated traffic would represent less than 0.5 percent of the regional emissions would be within the range estimated in the EIS.
transportation emission budget. Redevelopment in this location could
reduce local emissions in other parts of the Puget Sound region;
therefore, no significant impact to regional air quality would be expected
under any of the redevelopment aHermitives.
• Prior to future construction of new Signalized Intersections, a local • Consistent with EIS analysis. The City is currenUy preparing an air
intersection-level conformity analysis would be completed per WAC 173-quality conformity analysis related to the construction of new
420-120, which requires analysis of newly signalized intersections in air intersections in the site area.
quality maintenance areas.
Significant Unavoldabla Adverse Impacts
• With implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable • Consistent With EIS conclusion, because mitigation measures similar to
adverse impacts to regional or lOcal air quality would occur. those Identified in the EIS would be implemented.
~-. ---
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis 5-10 Summary Matrix
Mey, 2006
,,~: ;.;;; ~ .. .'. li. .. : .. ' .~,
Iii?>i:l/l .. oh ._<C "" ...... --..... .,. .
~>,~ ... ~~ "1.
iI.:. .... "", ... --...... ~ iIIi\Il\III iWN ---=-~
\
I '
Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for
Sub-District 1 A
May 2, 2006
Prepared By
KPFF Consulting Engineers
711 Court, Suite 202
Tacoma, WA 98402
(253) 396-0150
(253) 396-0162 FAX
I
Introduction
The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in October 2003. Harvest Partners is proceeding
with plans for redevelopment of Boeing Renton Plant Sub-districts lA. This sub-district
is part of the overall site that was evaluated in the 2003 EIS. Harvest Partners is seeking
Master Plan approval from the City and a detennination as to whether their current plan
is consistent with the City's previously granted Planned Action designation for this sub-
district. Preparation of an Environmental Consistency Analysis was requested by the
City for the Master Plan to be considered consistent with the previously granted Planned
Action designation. .
Following is the Surface/Stonnwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1 A. A
separate Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-district 1 B.
The Sub-district I A surface/stormwater analysis compares the stormwater conditions
associated with the current redevelopment plan for Sub-district lA to those associated
with the range of development alternatives for this sub-area analyzed in the 2003 EIS.
The analysis highlights any differences in probable significant impacts to surface or
stormwater conditions from the current redevelopment plan, and indicates whether the
impacts were adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. The goal of the analysis is to
determine whether the impacts of redevelopment of Sub-district IA are within the range
of development alternatives and associated impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS, and that the
Sub-district lA Master Plan is, therefore, considered by the City to be consistent with the
previously granted Planned Action designation.
Summary of Redevelopment Proposal
The Harvest Partners proposal for Sub-district IA is described in Chapter 1 of the Boeing
Renton Plant Sub-District lA Environmental Consistency Analysis. The Harvest
Partners proposal has been compared in this report to the range of Alternatives evaluated
in the EIS. The area of the Harvest Partners proposal, Sub-district lAo roughly covers the
area identified in the EIS Surface/Stonnwater Technical Report as Sub-Area A and Sub-
Area B (see Appendix B of the 2003 Draft EIS). The area of the Harvest Partners
proposal is 8.4% larger than the combined area of the assumed Sub Areas A and B. This
is because the area subject to redevelopment would be larger as a result of the reduction
in the roadway area, as described below.
The City of Renton intends to improve existing and develop new arterial roadways
defined as Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, 8th Street and 10 th Street. The area covered by
the currently planned arterials is 42% less than the area assumed to be covered by
arterials in the EIS. The reason for this difference is that the analysis contained in the
EIS assumes roadway development that would be sufficient to support redevelopment of
the entire EIS study area (including District 2 to the west of Logan Avenue N.), while the
City's current plan includes roadway development (i.e., roadway sections) that will
provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District I only (Sub-
2
district lA and lB redevelopment), but lesser than required to serve the entire EIS study
area.
Since the areas of redevelopment in Sub-District lA and the arterials do not precisely
match the 'assumed drainage sub areas identified for the redevelopment Alternatives in
the EIS, this report presents stormwater quantities in terms of totals as well as quantity
per acre. The purpose of this presentation is to identify the relative impacts of the EIS
Alternatives and the Harvest Partners proposal per acre of redevelopment area.
Harvest Partners Proposal Impervious Coverage
"Table 1, Impervious coverage associated with redevelopment alternatives" provides a
comparison of impervious areas that would cover Sub-Areas A and B, or Sub District lA,
within the EIS site area, dependent on the ~edevelopment plan. This table is similar to the
Draft EIS, Volume II, ''Table 3.1 -Impervious Coverage" .
•
Primary differences between Table 2, herein, and the Draft EIS, Volume n, "Table 3.1 -
Impervious Coverage" include the addition of the Harvest Partners redevelopment
proposal and, the omission of unaffected sub areas, as the Harvest Partners Proposal only
affects EIS Sub-Areas A and B.
~ieline EIS Redevelopment Sub-district 1A
·sting Alternatives !Harvest Partners Pronosai
Sub-Area (%) (%) (%)
Combined A and B 100 100 to 80.24 92.50
Table 1 -ImpervIOus coverage associated With redevelopment
alternatives
The impervious coverage of the Harvest Partners proposal would be within the range of
the EIS alternatives and would be lower than the present day, baseline (existing
condition).
Storm Water Quantity Analysis Method
For consistency, the analysis method and calculation assumptions used in this Report are
identical to those used in the DEIS. Storm water quantity analysis is performed
according to the 2001 Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual and specifically follows the
Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method. Reference Draft EIS Volume II, 3.1
to 3.3 for a more comprehensive explanation of the analysis methods and procedures.
3
I
1
]
)
11
I
1
.·.t i
I
i •
I
i
!
I
Harvest Partners Proposal Quantitative Peak Flow Data and Quantitative Comparison
Analysis
"Table 2 -Stonn event peak flows versus redevelopment alternatives for Sub District
IA" provides a quantitative comparison of peak stonnwater flows associated with the
baseline condition, EIS Alternatives and Harvest Partners proposal during five stonn
events.
EIS Sub Areas A and B EIS Redevelopment Scenarios Sub-district I A
Baseline (l xistin~) Sub Area A and B Harvest Partners Proposal
Total Flow Unit Flow Unit Flow Unit Flow
Stonn Event (cfs) (cfs/acre) Total Flow (efs) (cfs/acre) Total Flow (cfs) (cfslacre)
6mo Flow 14.00 0.329 13.98 to 13.16 0.33 to 0.31 14.29 0.3\
2yr Flow 20.05 0.471 20.03 to 18.97 0.47 to 0.45 20.73 0.45
IOyrFlow 29.99 0.705 29.95 to 28.57 0.70 to 0.67 31.41 0.68
25yrFIow 34.24 0.805 34.23 to 32.72 0.81 to 0.77 36.04 0.78
100yr Flow 40.84 0.960 40.78 to 39.07 0.96 to 0.92 43.15 0.93
Table 2 -Stonn event peak flows versus redevelopment alternatives for Sub
District IA.
Peak stonnwater flows are very closely linked to the level of impervious ground
coverage. In comparison to the baseline condition and the EIS Alternatives, total peak
floWs for the Harvest Partners scenarios would be higher, but the flow from each affected
acre (unit flow) would be in the low end of the range calculated for the EIS Alternatives.
The higher total flow of the Harvest Partners proposal is reflective of the fact that the
Harvest Partners proposal area (Sub District 1 A) does not precisely match the drainage
area included in the EIS for Sub Areas A and B. The lower peak flows per affected acre
is reflective of the lower levels of impervious coverage that would occur with the Harvest
Partners proposal.
The City of Renton intends to improve existing and develop new arterial roadways
defmed as Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, 8th Street and 101b Street. Tables 3 and 4 below
compare areas, impervious coverage and stonn event peak flows for five stonn frequency
events associated with the arterials assumed to serve the EIS Alternatives and the arterials
associated with Sub-districts lA and 1 B (as described above, the roadway sections of
these arterials will provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District
I, but lesser than required to serve the entire EIS study area).
4
Area (acres) Impervious Coverage (%)
EIS Arterials 29.11 100
Arterials Associated with 16.9 87.4 Sub-districts IA and IB
Table 3 -Areas and ImperviOUS Coverage for arterials serving Sub
District IA and IB
Note: The roadway sections of these arterials will provide capacity at a
level that is greater than required to serve District I.
EIS Arterials Arterials Proposed to Serve
Harvest Partners Proposal
Total Flow Unit Flow Total Flow Unit Flow
Storm Event (cfs) (cfslacre) (ciS) (cfiJlacre)
6rno Flow 9.57 0.329 5.55 .. 0.328
2yr Flow 13.70 0.471 7.95 0.470
10yr Flow 20.49 0.705 11.90 0.704
2Syr Flow 23.42 0.805 13.60 0.805
IOOyrFlow 27.90 0.960 16.20 0.959
Table 4 -Storm event peak flows versus redevelopment
alternatives for arterials serving Sub District IA.
From Table 4, a significant reduction in runoff from arterials under the City's current
plan is evident in comparison to the arterials proposed to serve the EIS Alternatives. This
reduction is attributable to two factors:
1. The currently planned arterials cover a smaller area than is assumed in the EIS, as
shown in Table 3. The analysis contained in the EIS assumes roadway
development that would be sufficient to support redevelopment of the entire EIS
Study area (including District 2 to the west of Logan Avenue N.), while the City's
current plans include roadway development (Le., roadway sections) that will
provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District 1 only
(Sub-district IA and IB redevelopment), but less than required to serve the entire
EIS study area.
2. The impervious coverage of the currently planned arterials is reduced in
comparison to the arterials assumed in the EIS, as shown in Table 3. As a result
of this reduced impervious coverage, the peak runoff per acre of arterial would be
lower for the currently planned arterials in comparison to the arterials assumed in
theEIS.
Storm Water Collection and Conveyance
5
I
I
'1
.,
! ,
',I"
I
1
"I .J.i
tJ ,01
In its existing condition, stormwater runoff from Sub-District 1 A is collected and
conveyed through a storm drainage system which discharges through outfalls located on
John's Creek. These outfalls are identified in the EIS as Outfall # 13 and # 14.
AIl assumed in the EIS, conveyance system components could be designed to divert water
away from existing overcapacity outfalls within the EIS study area to the extent possible.
There are 16 storm drain outfalls receiving stormwater runoff from the EIS study area.
AIl stated in the EIS, some of the outfalls and the John's Creek channel, which receives
flow from two outfalls in the EIS study area, appear to be over capacity during some
storm events, while others appear to have excess capacity. Since the alternatives
evaluated in the EIS, as well as the Harvest Partners proposal, involve redevelopment of
large areas of the EIS study area, it is assumed that stormwater runoff could be directed
to outfalls with excess capacity, and away from John's Creek and the outfalls in other
areas of the EIS study area that are overcapacity. This approach would benefit the area
surrounding the EIS study area by alleviating drainage issues that are currently present.
The degree to which this approach can be implemented in the EIS Alternatives, and in the
Harvest Partners proposal (when Boeing Company operations remain in the site area),
will be somewhat dependent on the extent to which existing Boeing owned and
maintained outfalls can be utilized to convey runoff from non-Boeing properties. Since
the possibility of implementing this approach was unknown at the time the EIS was
issued, two approaches for handling stormwater runoff are considered in the EIS, defined
as Case 1 and Case 2. To evaluate the consistency of the Harvest Partners proposal with
the EIS, the Harvest Partners proposal is considered in terms of both the Case. 1 and Case
2 approaches to handling stormwater. These approaches are defined as follows:
Case 1 -In Case 1, the general stormwater runoff patterns of the site area would be
maintained, the areas drained by each of the existing outfalls would be maintained in size
and configuration to the extent possible, within the constraints of the assumed
development in each redevelopment alternative; and in alternatives where Boeing
Company operations continue within the EIS site area, a separation would be maintained
. between systems carrying stormwater runoff from the areas used by the Boeing Company
and systems carrying stormwater runoff from areas used by others.
Case 2 -In Case 2, stormwater runoff directed to the outfalls in John's Creek and
overcapacity outfalls serving the EIS site area would be minimized to the extent possible
by directing stormwater runoff from areas currently draining to John's Creek into outfalls
with excess capacity on Lake Washington currently owned and maintained by the Boeing
Company, in particular to Outfall #1, which has a capacity of 437 cfs and a peak flow of
69.94 cfs during the 25-year design storm event.
6
Harvest Partners Proposal OutfaU Impacts Qualitanve Assessment
Stonnwater from Sub-District lA flows to multiple outfalls in the baseline condition and
under the EIS Redevelopment Alternatives. Additionally, these outfalls receive
stonnwater from areas other than Sub-District LA.
To provide a specific analysis of the impacts to outfalls associated with the Harvest
Partners proposal and a comparison of the impacts with those identified in the EIS, the
following calculations were prepared:
1. Peak flows at the outfalls receiving stormwater from the Harvest Partners
proposal area were calculated.
2. Calculations assume that the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials is
constructed and that the remainder of the EIS study area remains in its existing
condition.
3. Calculations were prepared for the Case 1 and Case 2 approaches to handling of
stormwater runoff, as defined previously in this report.
4. Calculations were prepared for the 25-year storm event, which is the basis of
design for new conveyance systems according to the 2001 DOE manual ..
These calculated peak flows are presented in comparison to the baseline condition and
the EIS Alternatives in Tables 5 and 6 below.
Baseline
(Existing) EIS Redevelopment Harvest Partners Proposal with
Outfall No. (cfs) Alternatives (efs) Associated Arterials (efs)
1 69.94 81.82 to 58.27 69.94
13 and 14 73.79 68.95 to 66.28 69.69
15 25.03 19.26 to 15.50 24.86
Table 5 -Case 1 : 25 Year Stonn Event Peak Flows at Outfalls Affected by Harvest
Partners proposal .
For Case 1, flows identified for Outfall #1 would be unchanged in comparison to the
baseline condition, since handling flows based on a Case 1 approach would not affect
Outfall #1. Flows identified for Outfall #1 would be within the calculated flow range for
the EIS Alternatives.
Flows identified for Outfalls #13 and #14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly
identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfalls, dependent on
the detailed design of any site development As indicated in Table 5, at Outfalls #13 and
# 14, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would decrease anticipated
flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows would increase relative to
the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. This difference is attributable to the
fact that the EIS Alternatives include, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B .
and C while the Harvest Partners proposal reflects only redevelopment of Sub Areas A
and B. Since Outfalls #13 and #14 receive a significant portion of their flow from Sub
7
I
1
I
Area C, the lower flows at these outfalls identified under the EIS Alternatives would not
occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future.
At Outfall #15, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would decrease
anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows would
increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. TIris difference is
again attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum,
redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal reflects
only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfall #15 receives the majority of its
flows from Sub Area C, the lower flows at this outfall identified under the EIS
Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future.
Baseline
(Existing) EIS Redevelopment Harvest Partners Proposal with
Outfall No. (cfs) Alternatives (cfs) Associated Arterials (cfs)
I 69.94 122.31 to 96.39 90.81
13 and 14 73.79 45.47 to 20.90 49.88
IS 25.03 16.45 to 12.51 24.86
Table 6 -Case 2 : 25 Year Slonn Event Peak Flows at Outfalls Affected by Harvest
Partners proposal
Flows identified for Outfalls #13 and #14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly
identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfal1s dependent on
the detailed design of any site development. As indicated in Table 6, for Case 2 at
Outfalls #13 and #14, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would
decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows
would increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. TIris
difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum,
redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal reflects
only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfalls #13 and #14 receive a
significant portion of their flow from Sub Area C, the lower flows at these outfalls
identified under the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in
the future ..
At Outfall # I, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would result in flows
that are lower than the calculated range for the EIS Alternatives. Similar to conditions at
Outfalls #13 and #14, this difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives
included, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest
Partners proposal reflects only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since the Case 2
Alternatives in the EIS sought to route runoff from 36% of Sub Area C toward the excess
capacity available at Outfall #1, the increase in flow at Outfall #1 does not occur until
Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future. The Harvest Partners proposal would increase
anticipated flows at Outfall # I in comparison to the baseline condition; however, the
capacity of Outfall #1 is 437 cfs. Therefore, the increased flow would be well within the
capacity of the outfall.
8
At Outfall #15, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would decrease
anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows would
increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. This difference is
attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum, redevelopment
of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal reflects only
redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfall #15 receives the majority of its
flows from Sub Area C, the level of reduction in flow at these outfalls identified under
the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future.
Summary of Consistency Analysis for Sub District L4
The findings of this Report conclude that specific conditions and calculated impacts
associated with the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials are consistent with
the conditions and calculated impacts associated with the range of redevelopment
Alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
Peak runoff flows from the study area to the applicable outfaIls would generally be
reduced in comparison to .the baseline condition. Except for Outfall #1, the outfalls
affected by the Harvest Partners proposal (Outfalls #13, #14 and #15) would see
reductions in peak flow in comparison to the baseline condition. Flows to Outfalls # 13,
# 14 and # 15 would increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS alternatives.
This difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a
minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal
reflects only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfalls #13, #14 and #15
receive a significant portion of their flow from Sub Area C, the lower flows at these
outfalls identified under the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is
redeveloped in the future. The peak flow at Outfall #1 would be increased in
comparison to the baseline condition; however, the increase results in a peak flow that is
well below the capacity of the outfall and within the range of the EIS alternatives.
Similar to the conclusion oftheEIS, there would be no significant impacts to the surface
or storm water environment as a result of the Harvest Partners proposal.
9
]
I
I
)
1
)
I
~
J
I
I
.~
DATE:
TO:
ce:
FROM:
RE:
Transportation Engineering NorthWest,
LLC
May 1, 2006
Alex Pietsch, Administrator,
Memorandum
Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
City of Renton
Mike Blumen, President
Blumen Consulting Group, Inc.
Michael]. Read, P.E.
Transportation Engineering Northwest, liC
The Landing (Sub-district 1A) -Transportation Consistency Analysis of Proposed Master
Plan with rhe Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS
The memorandum summarizes a detailed comparative trip generation analysis of. The Landing, a
proposed Master Plan calling for mixed use development within Sub-district lA 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). Sub-district 1A is noted as
Subarea A and B in the 2003 EIS. This analysis addresses consistency with the transportation element
of the EIS, and specifically with the land use and trip generation assumptions that were used to evaluate
the transportation impacts of redevelopment.
For this analysis, proposed uses at The Landing were assumed to comprise approximately 1,522,500
square-feet of development, and would include approximately 57,000 square-feet in office use, 58,000
square-feet in a multiplex cinema, 900 residential apartment units (assumes 900 square-feet per unit),
and the remaining 597,500 square-feet in a mixture of retail uses (refer to Chapter 1 of the Consistency
Analysis document for more information on the proposed Master Plan for Sub-district 1A).
Trip Generation Comparison
Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRCPA EIS were used to estimate a.m.
peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by The Landing, as part of Sub-district 1A
redevelopment. (It should be noted that Sub-district 1A excludes the Puget Sound Energy substation
portion of Subarea A located on the north side of realigned Park Avenue, as redevelopment of that
parcel is not included in the current redevelopment plans for Sub-district 1A). Table 1 provides a
summary of the estimated 2015 and 2030 a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation of The
Landing compared with those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportatibn impacts and outline
mitigation measures for Alternative 4 from the BRCPA EIS (i.e., the maximum redevelopment
scenario). Detailed trip generation comparisons to all EIS alternatives are provided as Attachment A
As shown, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels of The Landing are significantly less than those
estimated under Alternative 4 in the BRCP A EIS. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-
district 1A would range from approximately 448 p.m. peak hour trips in 2015 to just over 2,800 a.m.
www.tenw.com
po Box 65254. Seattle. WA 98155
Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333
The Landing Trip G.. .. "",fIon Comparison with 8RCPA fIS i
Moy1.2006 :ll
Poge2
peak hour trips in 2030, and the number of trips ale sUbstantiaJly less than those levels used to evaluate !
traffic impacts and develop mitigation for the EIS.
1 -By 2030, no increue m addiriofW development is usumed within Sub-diarict lAo HowCYel', due to future
additioDal <Cdevdopmcnt uOtNn i)ub.d;atrict lB between 2015 and 2030 more Yebicle ttipa wrtIUn Sub-
... trice IA would intemoliz, witlUn the ate..... ,.. ouch. •• light reduction in ""'" off .... trip gcnezation by
n:dev,lopmmt in Sub-<fiotrict 1A is expected by 2030 "'"'" thos, Jev.1s estimated in 2015. This chancteristic
is consistent with th, trip generation methodologies and """""lioN applied in the BRCPA ElS.
Although an increase in entering p.m. peak hour trips (2.72 p.m. peak hour trips) is estimated to result
by 2015 with The Lmding versus those levels evaluated in the BRCPA EIS, the sigiUficant reduction in
estimated exiting trips from the site (over 700 p.m. peak hour trips) would on an overall basis result in
less trip generation and improved intersection levels of service as compared to those reported in the
BRCPAEIS.
Therefore, based upon this comparative analysis: redevelopment according to the proposed Master
Plan for Sub-district lA 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 R=ton Plant site. As
such, there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from the
proposed Plan as compared to those disclosed in the BRCPA E1S; and redevelopment of up to
approximately 1,522,500 square-feet of mixed use development in Sub-district lA, as proposed by The
Landing Master Plan, is within the range of devdopment alternatives and associated impacts addressed
in the 2003 EIS.
Transporla1lon engineering Northwest, LlC
PO 80x 65254 • Seat!Ie. WA 98155
Office/fOx {2061 36 J.7333 • loI1 free {888J :00-7333
I
I
J
1
j
,£
'.J: "i
A ttachment A
Detailed Project Trip Generation Estimates
Ora eview
.-
Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment
2015 Comparative'Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation
Difference from Subarea
BRCPAEIS The A&
Peak Period
Note: 'I1H:s.! compaQeou. do DOt COtlIider additiooallllOde ip1it adjultmena made in me trip pcmtioo csbmatel enlu.red in me BRCPA IDS, and tbeteIme, .bould be considered
coo.cm.O ...
Transportation Englne.rlng Northwest 312812006
Attachment A
Page 1
.......
Draft for Review AHachmentA
Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment
2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off·Site Trip Generation
The
Peak Period Enter E.it Total
NOb!: 'l'bete ~IOQI do I'Iot coasider addilioaal mode .pIit adjaltmea.1I JUde 10 the trip geocn.doa. admatn
...Juoted;" .... BIlCPA HIS, .. d do_to... ohouId be..,.-_
Difference from Subarea
A&B
~C3T?'~~.3.w..
""'~" ~ f • --l r---~ ,--~ f:' ·"",;001 ~'-:...~_':~ ~ ~ _-_ --'J_,Ji~
By 2030. aD mc:reue Ju additional denlopa:tent is aaumed ..nth SI1buea • L However.. other mdeftlopmeat asnmpdoDI ia Stlbuea ] B iatteue ber.reaI 20t S and 2030 aad
~ '"ialcnWizeM more ..-etUde uip. within tbl!l Boeiag huton Put IftI. as a whole. As lOch. • slight reductiod in total ofMire tIip pacndoa by Sab.ma .. ;. U'peCted. by 2030
OTe( those lueIs estitDa.wl in 2015. 1'bis chancteri.bc. CODaIIeDI'Midi the trip geDeaboa' methodologies .... auumplioos applied. in the BB.CPA ms.
,
Transportation Engln •• rlng Northwest 3/28/2006
~ .... ~ ~ ~ ..., ... ... .... .u.,J ...... ... iiIIiIlIII IiiiiiiIII -.. Page 2
....
I,
..
DECISION DATE: May 12, 2006
Project Name: The LandinQ Master Plan
Applicant: Nicole Hernandez
W&H Pacific
3350 Monte Villa Pkwy
Bothell, WA 98021
Owner: Harvest Partners
8214 Westchester Dr, Ste 650
Dallas, TX 75225
Contact Person: Rob King
Harvest Partners
20503 88111 Ave W
Edmonds WA
File Number: LUA05-136, SA-A, SM
Project Manager: Keri Weaver
Project Description The applicant, Harvest Partners, has applied for Administrative Master Site Plan
approval for the development of an approximately 47 -acre site zoned Urban Center North - 1 (UCN-1)
located between Logan Ave N and Garden Ave N, north of N 8th SI. The proposal is for a mixed-use
development proposed to include retail, office, entertainment, restaurant, hotel and/or residential uses
with associated surface and garage parking. Site improvements would include landscaping, utilities,
roads, stormwater facilities, and special design standards for the UCN-1 zone.
Currently, the existing site consists of abandoned paved and gravel parking lots and remnants of
previous building foundations. The site is undergoing rough grading and building pads are being pre-
loaded with fill to accommodate future development. It is anticipated that approximately 673,312 sq ft
of residential development (approximately 900 apartments/condominiums) in four buildings and
635,500 sq ft of commercial/retail/office use in approximately 25 buildings will be developed. The
commercial portion of the site has been conceptually divided into several "themed" areas, including
"The Landing Place" (entertainment, restaurants and specialty shops), "Market Lane" (grocery and
retail marketplace), and "The Walk" (large box retail). Approximately 900 residential units will be
located in the northeast corner of the site, to be built by a separate developer.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed redevelopment uses and density
range was completed in October 2003. The site was analyzed in the EIS as Subdistrict 1A. The
project site and potential redevelopment were addressed in a Planned Action Ordinance dated
November 15, 2004 (Ordinance No. 5107). This determination addresses the Master Plan's
consistency with the Planned Action Ordinance, and its designation as a Planned Action. Detailed
Site Plans will be required for the commercial and residential components of the overall development.
Project Location: North of N 8111 St, between Logan Ave N and Garden Ave N
Site Area: Approximately 47 acres ,
Exhibits
1. Yellow File, The Landing Master Plan Application (LUA05-136, SA-A, SM)
2. Aerial Context Map, dated October 31, 2005
3. Site Plan, dated October 31,2005
4. Massing Model, dated October 31,2005
5. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis, prepared by Blumen
Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 8, 2006
6. Renton/Boeing Urban Center-North Development Agreement, dated December 1, 2003
Planned Action Review Criteria.
Per Section 11I.E. of the Planned Action Ordinance, the Director of Development Services, or the
Director's deSignee, is 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 is located on the subject site as described in Section
III.A., or is an off-site Improvement directly related to a proposed
development on the subject site; and,
. The development proposal in The Landing Master Plan application,
(LUA05-136, SA-A, SM). is located on the site described in Section III.A.
of the Planned Action Ordinance. This site is commonly referred to as
Subdistrict 1A of the site analyzed by the FEIS documents for The
Landing development proposal.
b) The project Is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan
adopted under RCW 36.70A; and,
The City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for
the subject site from Employment Area -Industrial (EA-I), Employment
Area -Transition (EA-T), and Employment Area -Office (EA-O) to
Urban Center North (UC-N), adopted by Ordinance No. 5026 on
November 14, 2003. The Landing Master Plan is consistent with the
UC-N Comprehensive Plan designation and policies.
c) 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,
The Landing Master Plan application is consistent with the development
ranges analyzed for the plan altematives under the FEIS documents for
The Landing Planned Action. Therefore, the significant environmental
impacts associated with The Landing Master Plan application have been
adequately addressed in the FEIS.
d) The project complies with the Planned Action Thresholds In the
EIS; and,
The Landing Master Plan application complies with the Planned Action
Thresholds listed in the FEIS. Exhibit 5 provides an analysis of the
Decision
proposed project's consistency with the FEIS/Planned Action
Thresholds.
e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts
have been mitigated through the application of the Development
Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation
fees and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation
for the significant environmental impacts associated with the
proposed project; and,
The Landing Master Plan application is consistent with the Development
Agreement, the Planned Action Thresholds, and the FEIS. Therefore,
standard mitigation fees and conditions, as well as other City
requirements and conditions constitute sufficient mitigation for the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.
f) The proposed project complies with a/l applicable local, state and
federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or
modification or other special permits have been requested; and,
The Landing Master Plan application complies with all applicable local,
state and federal regulations. The applicant has applied for Master Plan
and Site Plan approvals. No variances, modifications or other special
pennits are anticipated to be required.
g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility.
The Landing is not an essential public facility.
The Landing Master Plan application (LUA05-136, SA-A, SM) is designated as a Planned Action
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURES:
~Jlrlttfi
Neil Watts, Director date
Note: Exhibits 1, 5 and 6 of the Adminstrative Determination and Land Decision for the
The Landing Master Plan (Planned Action Determin!l1ion) are available for review at
the City of Renton Development Services Division, 6 Floor of City Hall, 1055 S. Grady
Way, Renton, WA
•
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
PHASE ONE
QUADRANT 'A'
RATIO
QUADRANT 'B'
RATIO: OFFICEs (171 ps)
RATIO: RETAIL (014 ps)
QUADRANT 'C'
RATIO
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL SCFT
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL PARKING
PHASE TWO
QUADRANT '0-1'
RATIO
QUADRANT '1)..2'
RATIO
QUADRANT '0-3'
RATIO
QUADRANT 'D' TOTAL SQFT
QUADRANT 'D' TDTAL PARKING
4.611,000
3.011.000
•• C¥'1.ODQ
•. 411,000
835.1 k
2802 p.
4.611,000
5,CW1,OOO
4.8(1,000
241 k
1154 p.
,-;.;-.
,..
. 'i':,~.~
e
CALLISON
RETAIL SHOPS
THEATRE
HOTEL
PARKING STRUCTURE
RESIDENTIAL
OFFICES
<
u
uo~-6S8
u;r.:.O$ -\~cO
'? 0 S -\q?.. -t>'\<:-s.~
\,,;;. -:-~ 1"'-' l.
City of Renton
LAND USE PERMIT ,
MA"STER APPLICATION
ADDRESS:
ZIP:
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: N I U> IE
coMPANY (if applicable):
ADDRESS:
r.??'1o
CITY:~LL
H
TELEPHONE NUMBER
NIT
NAME: ~D13" ~ N
COMPANY (if apprlC<ible):
ADDRESS:
ZIP:
PERSON
~b110? 62:l-l"\-\ AIttf N
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
C4'Z-~) ::r-ts-I q 21 f2C.c.r'nr@ Cofl"ltAST·
PROJECT INFORMAIION
PROJeCT OR DEVELOPMEriIT NAME:
--lit&" LAN1/I1-JC]
PROJECT/ADDru;:SS(s)lLOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
ND~ D~ fl· 0#\'2)1 ~EN
LDqPrN MlfS N -fiNO ~~N N.£" N
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): "
OtZe{P('OO/O oLf cmo&"CO?;D 00
o 08 (P (P 002,.0 0 -z.. O'OtOfJ; 00 1./-0
EXlsnNG LAND USE(S): "
Illm£I<c< I1't-
PROPOSEl;> LAND USE(S):
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION;
PROPOSED"COMPREHENSIVE pL.AN MAP DESIGNATION
(if apprlCllble): rJ
EXlsnNG tONING: tJr2I3tN ~ JJol'lffi-'
PROPOseD ZONING (if apPlicable):" ~
SITE AREA (in square feet): '2-OU
SQUARE fOOTAG"E F PUBUC ROAfYN AYS TO BE
DEDICATED: N
SQUARE FOOTA OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
II
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable): ,
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if app6cable):
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS [If apprlCllble): '---___ 000
PROJECT INFORMATION (l"nlntin .~~====~------------.
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWElUNG UNITS (if applicable):
rJ/lt
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if apprtcable): &9'? I'?rz-
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESID~~AL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if appncable): 11ft
PROJECT VALUE:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE [If applicable): j)/ A
[J AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
[J AQUIf'eR PROTECTION AREA TWO ·SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROP~.355cN'RESIDENnAL
BUILDINGS (if appDcable): It 00
SQUARE I=OOTAGEOF EXISTING NON.REjpENnAL
[] FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. It
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if appllqable): N It [J GEOLOQIC HAZARD sq. It
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDiNGS [If [J HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. It
appicable): {~.r::;ro SF . [J SHOREUNE STAEA~S AND LAKES sq. It
NUMBER OF E;MPLOYEESTO BE EMPLOYED BY ll-IE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable): [J WETLANDS sq. It
SIWATE IN THE.-::-c::~,"=-::-:-:-: QUARTER OF; SECTlON J2. TOWNSHIP ~ RANGE S. IN THE CITY
RENTON, KING WASHINGTON. ,-'
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
US! all land use applications being applied for:
1. M~PLAN' '-i\ ~~
2. !3111:f PlAN . .../ )
3. _____ _ •
4.
Staff will calc\llate applicable fees and, pqs~ge:' $:..,.-__ _
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (PItrt NQmeIs), , . decIani hit I am (please checIC 011!1) _ the cmant 0WIl8! .d .the ~,
irMlIYod In this application or __ the al,/lhol1zed repre<;ontatIve,1o act f« 11 CCIptlIBlio .. (please aJtach prWI dI il.Ah'''izalloo~ani:l1hal1he foreQoing
siatMlenls and answelll herBi/'I contained and the Irifomiation heAlWilh ora In, all'B!ipecIs I(ue and _10 Ihe best GI my knoWledge and bq/'tef.
(SignabJre of OWnerlRepresontatlve)
(SlgnabJre of OWnerIReprosentallve)
I C8<1Ify 1haI·IJcnow CI!' heve satisfa!:Iocy cIYidance that ---",....,...,:----:--:--:---:=
signed this ~ and ~ alo be hlslherJlhelrlraeand wIunIaIy aoIforthe
uses and pcJIJlO'!GS manllonGdln 1he Instnmanl
Notary Public In and for the Stale d WashkIgIon
Nolaty (Prht), __________ _
Myappoln1ment e>pires; _______ _
•
D~C-09-20B5 ~:38 CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7231 P.01
TO:
Gill 01 Renlon
Planning/Buildlng/Public Works
Development Services Division -6111 Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Kristina Cerise FROM:
Buck & Gordon
Phone: () Phone: -------------------
Date: 12/09/2005
Valerie Kinast
(425) 430-7289
Fax Phone: ( ) Fax Phone: (425) 430-7231
SUBJECT: The Landing -Narrative and
Design Report
REMARKS: 0 Original to
be mailed
D Urgent
I Number of pages including cover sheat
o Reply
ASAP
Please C For your
Comment review
Laureen is out on vacation until Monday and I was out yesterday, thus the late response.
Please find attached the recently submitted narrative and Uman Center Design Overlay report for The
Landing project.
9
L:II Y U-~ENTON 425430 7231 !.,';:::':"!"'.J ' ........ ~~~ ... ,_ ...... -...... ·r' --.::: .. , ...... 1"", .. 1' ........ "._ .••• _. ___ ~!. ::"'M~N' , " (
•
•
URBAN CENTER DESIGN OVERLAY STATEMENT
The landing in Rooton -MI x-d -Use Urban Neighborhood
Callison Pltlj,ct Munter: 204300.00
N overri:>er 23. 2005
CALLISON
This urban center detlgn overlay s1atJ!rrent as prepared by Calli son Arc:hltacture. Inc. and it's
consultlnts constitutes Item 9 of the subnitlal requlrermnls for thl Master SIte Plan 'MSA'
Application. The northeast residential parcel inforrrslion locetad east of Park Avenue N or1tt
was prepared by Fairfield Residential. LLC, Also mer to the project namtive s1atement dated
NovllllVW 16. 2005, foraddilionel project information.
This staterrent appll .. only 10 Phase One developlTlInt North of B II! street and dOIll notinclude
d8V.lop~uoulll of 8 III Street. Phase T\\!3 IssholM1 for refef1nce only for potential futufll
developrrent context II1d .t reetlpedeslrian connection.
General pMlgn Sbrterrent
Harvest Par1ners. Madison Marquette. Callison Arc:hil8clul'll, SO De$COn General Contacton.
and Fairfield Residential are I!annad to develop a nixed use uman neighborl1ood 8Ithl forrrel'
Boeing Corrpany's Rentlln 757 Plant site. A COrll' rehe nslve approach 1D redlVlloplng this area
springs from I colT1'l'ilrrent to creal! an expe rtence baml on a positive Interpretation of the
City of RenlDn, ifs indus1rial roots and g08111:> re-energlze the North Renton nalghborhood area
with a newvibrant nixed·use urb., village. At III e heart of the proposal III lIIe city lIB 48.5 acre
urban retail developl1l!llt bounded by North B I,street, Log.n Avenue, and Garden Avenu •. The
present designated site zoning 'UC·N 1" allows the proposad 835,600sf. nix of usn consisting
of retail, office, 8I118rta1nll1lll~ restaurants, notel with supporting e level parking structure and
surface paJklng located in QuadrantA. B & C. The 900 unit, 873 ,3125f resldentiaJ
condorrinium col1l>lex Is 1ocn.:J In the Northeas I Fairfield pamll. Th. projects approxlmal!
construction budge! is $90 mllion (nollnclud ing the Fairfield Residential parcel) with an
overall project fair marlcet valua of $333 nillion.
The devaloper/designer teams strategy is til crea to an overall pellonality that both honors the
area' 8 achievemmts; the Induetrla I heritage III at so rreny of the local residents have builtand
merge. with a fresh ,Interesting use of rrndem altitudes refllC!ing the dre..n. end aspll'lltions
III at will drive the future of Renll:>n.
Most successful retailing relies on signifiean tongoing invention IIld Innovation. Theprojecfs
peraonallty wililargel deliv,rlng exciting experi oncu While being mndful of the deslfll1D
reflect the area's heritage, an att itude preferred by the ctty and apprwc:latad by ilia residents. The
design approach will themol'll be sirru llaneously influenced by the sil1l>le industrial pastVdllIa
looking to lIle futul'll.
P.11J2
................ ~'" 0:..' ...... , ... __ ~ ............ -' ..... , I I ...,-I"'.~I'IIUI'I r !~:t:III:-2 ~~_o:..l1 -~ .......... , ........... , '"":"...:-..... , .......... t',;';., r ""_ ..
,
•
•
The L.l/1ding In Renton Urban Ce ntor Design Overlay StataIlllll\I
Noverri>er2S.2005
Page 2
The propOSeg personality 10'1111 be unique to Renton 11M. Design Ideas Ytill start Ytith 8 nod to lIIe
pasllndurbiallTllterials including steel, brick an d concrele, Ytill be uBld In the architBcbJre .. d
land scape environ men L These rret8rials 10'1111 be assentlled in an honest rranner, slrlllle, direct
and I'oithout unnecessary omamentetIon or frills. Mixed I'oith tirlllle, bold forms and shapes. this
attitude will be orchlltraltd to achieve a cl ean, fTDdem expression In execution rreking the
ordinary. extraordinary. While portions of the expe lienee Ytill ba faniliar, In the end fT1Jch will
provide vlsitlrs willi a sen81 of inbig"e and surprise.
The Landing Sj1B Duign stalem!nt
In1illduction
This narratiw is Intended to dua'ibe the overall landec:ape and lite <IeSIJ1 featu ... of the prapeod
Landing prujllCl The Landing ccnslsls or lewrai Iy pes of retail VIInues l'II1Iing from .. all "'cps In very
large naticnal chain anellOr slDres, resraurants, a hot el and enterlalnment 'MIile tI1a types of uses and
density of devalopment will wry 1hJ'oughout the sill! ,(J)tII1nOP elemenbl euell .. PI,,;ng accents. graphlCl
and signaII'. enhanced pedestrian crossings, plant rna lerial. and aile fumllllre will IIIIVB to link the
projld <IlhesIvelywlth a ccmmon idefltity.
"The LlI1dlng PlIO!" -EnIIlriainmG!ll Boulevard
The northwest corner of 1he iii. il planned .. an enlarlainmenl _ with a multipielC cinema. 11Ota1.
reotaUl'll1tl and ~dallY rerail shepG. TMe ~ojed'. hlghast density 10'1111 occur In this portion of the
dew!opmentwiih most of the porklng 100Ited In a $I x lew! garaga_ A low volume _1I1Ir .. 1
runs through the canter of the space. Para 101 pari< Ing end eMinC114 I1ardec:ape are uaod for traffic
calming. The _t i. doslgned to allow for dosure to ICD:Immodale ",""II or f .. UvaiL Site design is
wry pediltrian oriented wltn a large COI1tral CO'oJr tyard spaMing a<l'lllll the !!reel and linking the d nema.
hotoJ and other uses. Varying h.rdaca~e texlur ... qua lily .11 .. furniture and IIg hling. and wsW flature
will enliven the space .
• M.rkBt Lane" • Retail Marks! Place
Tho middle of the sile oont&lns I marketplace 2Dne with a grocer and ....... leIy of retail "&eG. A portion
of the GIIrface peridng servidng _ 1JS8. will be de!lgnod 11:> ICD:Immodate outdoor rnarI!8Ia featuring
~roduce. a-Ilts and 9O.'."181 ..... nts. Banner po I .. and unique paving will designate this ... e.
comforiable. _.trion JOules Ire provided thro ugll the liUlfaQ perking lola for intlliti .... way findirv
8nc11h1de tree. are pJOllided throughout the lots .. did IIId byoodo req.lrementa. TIle frontage of retail
mps will footure a promenade with • series of differing pedestrian ori,1ltId nod .. featuring seating.
ornamental landscape planting. loft Jl8dostrian SOlie lightirv. II1d enhanced ha rdIcape. The spedalty
frontage palling surfaces will extend Of.jj into the perking lot to 8lC!lOnd th. foeling of pedestrian dlaradar
and act as a mean. of traffic calming .
UC'-'-I0=r-~I0~ t:JOo.,)':I 1-11'( Ur I'<I::.NIUN 425 430 7231 P.04
f ~t;~~. V~e!l",,: Ur.ocU1 YVtU.Ii::ty ~i£J",I!~~I,n.o~ _.~,. --~,~,,~--~~~~~~,~~~.,-~~---~-,
,
•
The landing In Reo'lln U rill" Ce nter Design Overlay Slaternlnt
Noverriler 23, 2005
Page 3
"The WIIIk" • Large Box RoIIIlI
The east and ICUIhem por1s of The Landing will featuro I Target -. I horne irnpllMIIIIent .tore, and
oIhor ... "UII' retailers or restaul8llli. Decidu"",, IJ'eeS and pedastrlan staI. lisht poles wllll(:Qll1\ and
help break down the ltal. of the latge fronlages of 1I1ose buildings. PedeStrlilll routes ancIlfI.dI tr_1II!I
providod in the adjoining 5IIrface parkjng lob. A CXllT1blnatiOil of M'VH!1 II1d dedckJoUI trees and
slU'ubs will be UGed to ceen tho .. Nice. ospects of tIIese buildings.
Site Perirnetersand StraeIG
street IJ'eeS al>d sidewalks will be installed on b01h illllmal and ....... 01 project streW and whare
appropriate, existing IroN and perking 101 poles will be eI .... ted for _ Major IntenectiOlll will induele
podes1rian enhancements aJCh as apedal palling II CfOI&WIlk locations. Blank well fataClea will be
saeeNCI atId vtr1ical lroilla elemenl! will be added to the westside of the parking etru<:tu ....
11le r aMlng I ;gbt!ng N'ra"".
Lighting Inbonl
The intent ~ tho IIglltlng for Tile Landing will be to highlight arthllacturBI olomonls of Interes! 81 well
as to maln1aln ..... rall light levels ttlat allow for Dl mfortabla llisibility 01 nl;llt-~me hOllrl. Bo1I1 ... rgy
.fficient long lif. light "'uralS will be used thl'Q ughoul. WIlle 1OIIl. dlmrotl .... fh,lures may have
elements of "gloW', glare COftIrQI will be a priorily 10 r 011 !he exterior fixlllres. Care will ba takon to
rni~imiZll lilt numbar of lamp types used. All light lO~rcas will ba of similar color temperatures and of
high oolor rendering. The project will comply with tho WUlillQlon Energy Codec. We will mor to tho
City of Renton and tho LE.S. for rea>mmel1ded li;ht leveluM uniformity ",tios Ihrrughoul.
SUrf.co and Cownod Parking Loll
Surface lots will be lighted with Inorgy offident, full ClJI-off lumlnllres for maJejmum light c::ontroI and
minimum gllro. Luminai"", will be located SlJdlthet light will not directly projllCl off tile site. Coverec:J
parlcing loll will uIlll:ze gla .. IXInirolied fixturos. Ucing into cmsideration tile open-sided SIrU<:ture. Light
SOOII'CIS will ba \:dor CIlITIcted ma1aI halide.
I nterior Roadway and Podllllrtan Liglltlng
The ",,,,,,,II inIBn! is to provide oomfortsbl. light levels thaI allow for good vilibiHty without gla",-Car.
will be glwn to eeleci a pedestrian ae pooiligi1t 1Ila1 .. "", both as. doOltati .... lorrtem and asa
functiOl1llluminalre. W. visuall"" an element of glow within the poll fIlp in addition to aJI-off flatu,..
whldI direct most of tho light downward. to light sidewalks and roacIWays. Bclllarlls will ba Introduced
for lower level lighting to Identify d1 anges In graoe or highlight planti 1111 pockIt$. Bcllh tho podasIri ..
postllghl and the bollird will have similar design alem •• Is, or be of "tho1lllTl1 family". The o .... raJl
holght of pedestrian posIIiglrt.s will not ~ 14'.0 '. Th8l1gh1aoura!S will be color "",reeled motal
halide.
.............. v ..................... <-J ..... -........ ....." 1 1 .... , ......... ,"U"
t,J.. ... ~t''ty _n;I!...: ~"~""-"" "'''''''''~J .., ......... , ....... ,:";.t"' .... .r---.. ___ _ _ __ ~_~~_, .~-.-f..... N ...... I -+ • .: .. r~ '''''''''''-'' ', ___ I
The La~di~9 In Realon Urban Ce nler Design Ove~ay SlBlement
Noventer23,2005
Page 4
BIIilGln9 Facadet
WhIle many shop owne ... provtdo !heir awn storeffl)ll! display IighHng. our proposal will provide I
c:ommOf1 IhIead !hat ti .. ,a'" building togelher. wall moum.d dec:oI'IIIlve flldurel willbe P"'I of a family
of thelu .... thai allow fer _e Indilliduality while malntalnl~ similar tellur ... Highlighting of &peCtic
building cancpia. 'Ialdes. reof lines or _ers may be implornenllld 111 0'eIIe "markers" as a method of
way-Jlndlng and croaIing viel Inl8'esi. Elemerrts of col .... will be lreduced t! add drama and lileual
I""'rasl Lighl .... rces will be c:olor corrocid molal hal ide 01' campaa nuortlllCllni.
Cexnm..uly GatherIng Placa
lll ....... d !he project will haw !he highest light IMiI wllllapeclfic aa;ent of fea!ures such III
epec:imen \reels. public art or IrcIllll!c1ur. tilruo.ures thai will provide a"",rlele and hlerarcl1y rI impor1n:a.
AU aca.nt lights win be well .,ieJded and locatedlo ""'d glare. Elemems of doanti .... lighting may
Indude feeliYHlylalighUng 10 D'e8Ie IpIlrkie wllllin ce rIaIn areas of 1I1e project. AII ...... nces will be madl
for special o'IIII1t IIgI1IIng In term. of providing po war locations and possible mounting locatlOl1l for
portable fhdurN.
Fairfield Rp!ilantlal Plalrld
An appre)dmate 900 unit rnndominlum c:omplex In tw 0 pIIuN. c:onsisting of (4) fille"sID!y mld-rl ..
wildings. The sUe 1& Udilildsd Into two different ph ..... with. private aoas dri",ln beIwoon tho Iw!I
pa"",l. providIng podostrilll and \lehloular ao::ass to I>Ot "parcals. All buildings 01100 lop of e HtOry
co....-ed. private acx:eaG c:ontrolled parf<jng strucmr e. In addition. !he first ph." hu approldmataly
15.000 s.f. of rotall space with few assigned park ing $paOlI, Iliuu ~.500.00 d. Clubhouse and L"";ng
Office, Total residential Building F cotprint 1.1UI.OOOd. (53%). PIIYe dAm. I0Il119,000 d. (6%) and
Open Space area, (indueling on-gnlde green .rea. pi us land&eaped decks).11 140,860 .. 1. (41%)
TO The project is colfllriaed of 4·five story bu ildlng$OVer I!Ml separate 11M! slory parking
garages. Th,loWir lellel of the garage Is half buried and Is a baselTl!llL The upper lovel
of pll'klng will be belm'ld against on all sides except on the relail side. Th, buildings
each have one entry off afthe sidewalk and thuecond one from the deck.
1M Vellicular _,Illth. proJect Is off of th e private drive be\ween the Iw!I ph ... of the
project and also a direct"righHn. rl ght-out' acea. from GardllJ Avenue North.
1M Pedestrian circulation is rnllnmlned thr oughoulthesitll over the podium and b~n the
podium and buildings to the public sidewalks using the .IMIoIl and stairs from the
dack.
,. Thene is one clubhouse and swinning pool and epa per phll8 as a cOOTllin &p.ce. and
in JdclltiDn III thidthere ~courtyanis in eaeh building functioning as lIIe passille
coOTllin space •
.. There will b. 811111. landsceping on the deck.. \MOIl as the aeibacks to oreate the buffer
and add chal'llGter and lif. to the CO IflI lex.
•
•
•
l.llT U-~IUN
The Landing In RtIljgn Urban Ce nter Design Overtay Sta\emlnt
Noven'ller23,2005
Page 5
TIl The !TIIin design the!TII i.jg avoid the appearan ce of a large project and create 1IIe fill
and 1IIe Irrage of a nelghborflocd. Thus the mISS will eventually be bmken down III
I1lJre look like different buildi ngs creating the overalllTBSs •
•
•
PROJECT NARRATIVE
r '.
OEVaoPMENT PlANNING t::r;y OF REIIITON
NOV 222005
RECEIVED
The Landing in Renton -Mixed -Use Urban Neighborhood
Callison Project Number: 204300.00
November 16.2005
CALLISON
This sununary nanative as prepared by Callison Architecture, Inc. constitutes the Project
Narrative for Hem 6. Submittal Requirements for the Master Site Plan "MSA" application. The
Northeast residential parcel information located East of Park Avenue North was prepared by
Fairfield Residentiall.LC. Also refer to the separate Urban Center Design Overlay Statement,
for more detailed design description of the project..
MSA Disclailllet: The earlier submitted 11 x 17 Callison MSA Booklet daIcd October 31, 2005
and supplemental entenainment elevation and perspective sketch dated November 9. 2005 are
conceptual in nature and are subject to change due to Harvest Partners review, tenant fit and
review. and project cost analysis review. Also, any development references in the site plans.
landscape plans, and neighborhood gateway studies in public right..m-ways are included for
reference only and are not included in the MSA application.
The MSA Application is only for Phase One development North of North 8t~ Street and does not
include development South of North 8th Street. Phase Two is shown for reference only for
potential future development conteXt and street/pedestrian circulation connection .
Site Conditions Statement:
The existing site conditions are un-used paved and gravel parking lots with remnants of old
Boeing 757 plant foundations and their respective sub-surface supporting piles. Currently the
site is being rough graded (grinding asphalt and concrete paving) and building pads are being
pre-loaded with fill.
The final site grading and preparation will be a balanced cut and fill of existing ground asphalt
concrete and gravel sub-base that has been tested and approved for compacted foundation and
slab support. There will be a sub-surface drilled piles installed under several buildings and two
tower cranes are anticipated for the entenainment buildings, parking garage and hotel
construction. There will be several GC construction trailers located on-site with an Owner's
sales office.
Street trees and sidewalks will be installed on both internal and external project streets and
where appropriate existing street trees and parking lot light poles will be evaluated for re-use.
Major intersections will include special paving at crosswalk locations and large building blank
facades, including the west side of the six level parking structure, will be screened with
landscape and vertical trellis elements as deemed necessary and appropriate.
-+-----CALLa&DoII .. RO:HIT,I!!OTU'U. INC.
1.20 FIF'I'H AYEiNUIi -2400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9.8.1QI·U.43
-I' to. ,28 4'41, F 20' 823 4e.2S wW'w.c.allinn.com
•
•
,
The Landing in Renton r mil Design Statement
November 16, 200S
Page 2
General Des! gn Statement:
Harvest Partners, Madison Marquette, Callison Architecture, SD Deacon General Contactors,
and Fairfield Residential are teamed to develop a mixed use urban neighborhood at the fOIIller
Boeing Company's Renton 757 Plant site. A comprehensive approach to redeveloping tbis area
springs from a commitment to create an experience based on a positive interpretation of the
City of Renton, it's industrial roots and goal to re-energize the North Renton neighborhood area
with a new vibrant mixed-use urban village. At the heart of the proposal to the city is a 46.5 acre
urban retail development bounded by North 8th Street, Logan Avenue, and Garden Avenue. The
present designated site zoning "UC-NI" allows the proposed 63S,SOOsf. mix of uses consisting
of retail, office, entenainment, restaurants, hotel with supporting 6 level parking structure and
surface parking located in Quadrant A, B & C. The 900 unit, 673,312sf residential
condominium complex is located in tbe Northeast Fairfield parcel. The projects approximate
construction budget is $90 million (pot including the Fairfield Residential parcel) with an
overall project fair market value of$333 million.
The developer/designer team's strategy is to create an overall personality that both honors the
area's achievements; the industrial heritage that so many of the local residents have built and
merges wi th a fresh, interesting use of modern attitudes reflecting the dreams and aspirations
that will drive the furure of Renton.
Most successful retailing relies on significant ongoing invention and Innovation. The project's
personality wlll target delivering exciting experiences while being mindful of the desire to
reflect the area's heritage, an attitude preferred by the city and appreciated by the residents. The
design approach will therefore be simultaneously influenced by the simple industrial past while
looking to the future.
The proposed personality will be unique to Rentonites. Design ideas will start with a nod to the
past. Industrial m.atezials including steel, brick and concrete, will be used in the architecture and
landscape environment. These materials will be assembled in an honest manner; simple, direct
and without unnecessary ornamentation or frills. Mixed with simple, bold fol1DS and shapes, this
attitude will be orchestrated to achieve a clean, modern expression in execution making the
ordinary, extraordinary. While portions of the experience will be familiar, in the end much will
provide visitors with a sense of intrigue and surprise.
The Landing in Renton will drive a rebirth of the area, and bUild on the history of the Boeing
Plant site providing the City with a new energy to stimulate further growth and help initiate a
rebranding of the old image. The program includes six overlapping districts: (see page 8 in
MSA booklet dated October 31, 200S)
I. The Landiog Place - a high-energy entertainment district, vibrant and dramatic, ''the
place to be seen", urban stage/community room. This includes an entertainment venue,
Ut:.t--,o;7-.::;t:Jt:J..Jo ~e,,+t:I '-.11 T Ur-r::t:.NIUI'i 1-'.09/09
. ~ The Landing in Renton r ;ral Design Statement
November 16,2005
•
,
Page 3
up to 150 room hotel. restaurants, retail and a 6 level parking stmcture.
2. The Boulevard -Fashion and lifestyle, sophisticated through simplicity with retail,
restaurants, offices and hotel drop-off.
3. Market Lane -Community events, arts & crafts fairs, kiosks and carrs.
4. The Walk -Practical, convenient, neighborhood garden walk with large retail & mixed-
use small retail boutiques and restaurants.
5. The Avenue -Park Avenue tree-lined urban access corridor,"A prelude to the show".
6. Fairfield -Residential, charming urban living in tbe new downtown Renton
neighborhood.
The winning approach to mix induslrial building materials and shapes with a modem style and
attitude will attract a significant number of locals and visitors to fuel a rebirth of the area and
further enhance the city's overall image and deliver strong economic results .
TOTAL P.09
•
PROJECf NARRATIVE
DE\lELOPMENT PLANNING
r.:ITY OF RENTON
NOV 222005
RECEIVED
The Landing in Renton -Mixed -Use Urban Neighborhood
Callison Project Number: 204300.00
November 16, 2005
CALLISON
This summary narrative as prepared by Callison Architecture, Inc. constitutes the Project
Narrative for Item 6, Submittal Requirements for the Master Site Plan "MSA" application. The
Northeast residential parcel information located East of Park Avenue North was prepared by
Fairfield Residential LLC. Also refer to the separate Urban Center Design Overlay Statement,
for more detailed design description of the project.
MSA Disclaimer: The earlier submitted 11 x 17 Callison MSA BookIet dated October 31, 2005
and supplemental entertainment elevation and perspective sketch dated November 9, 2005 are
conceptual in nature and are subject to change due to Harvest Partners review, tenant fit and
review, and project cost analysis review. Also, any development references in the site plans,
landscape plans, and neighborhood gateway studies in public right-of-ways are included for
reference only and are not included in the MSA application.
The MSA Application is only for Phase. One development North of North 8 th Street and does not
include development South of North 81t' Street. Phase Two is shown for reference only for
potential future development context arld street/pedestrian circulation connection.
Site Conditions Statement:
The existing site conditions are un-used paved and gravel parking lots with remnants of old
Boeing 757 plant foundations and their respective sub-surface supporting piles. Currently the
site is being rough graded (grinding asphalt and concrete paving) and building pads are being
pre-loaded with fIll.
The final site grading and preparation will be a balanced cut and fill of existing ground asphalt
concrete and gravel sub-base that has been tested and approved for compacted foundation and
slab support. There will be a sub-surface drilled piles installed under several buildings and two
tower cranes are anticipated for the entertainment buildings, parking garage and hotel
construction. There will be several GC construction trailers located on-site with an Owner's
sales office.
Street trees and sidewalks will be installed on both internal and external project streets and
where appropriate existing street trees and parking lot light poles will be evaluated for re-use.
Major intersections will include special paving at crosswalk locations and large building blank
facades, induding the west side of the six level parking structure, will be screened with
landscape and vertical trellis elements as deemed necessary and appropriate.
-+ _____ CALLI$ON ARCHITECTURE. INC.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE '2400 SEATTLE, WASHING TO "I 98101-2343
-T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.catlison.com
•
The Landing in Renton ( :ral Design Statement
November 16, 2005
Page 2
General Design Statement:
Harvest Partners, Madison Marquette, Callison Architecture, SD Deacon General Contactors,
and Fairfield Residential are teamed to develop a mixed use urban neighborhood at the former
Boeing Company's Renton 757 Plant site. A comprehensive approach to redeveloping this area
springs from a commitment to create an experience based on a positive interpretation of the
City of Renton, it's industrial roots and goal to re-energize the North Renton neighborhood area
with a new vibrant mixed-use urban village. At the heart of the proposal to the city is a 46.5 acre
urban retail development bounded by North 8th Street, Logan Avenue, and Garden Avenue. The
present designated site zoning "UC-N 1" allows the proposed 635,500sf. mix of uses consisting
of retail, office, entertainment, restaurants, hotel with supporting 6 level parking structure and
surface parking located in Quadrant A, B & c. The 900 unit, 673,3l2sf residential
condominium complex is located in the Northeast Fairfield parcel. The projects approximate
construction budget is $90 million (not including the Fairfield Residential parcel) with an
overall project fair market value of $333 million.
The developer/designer team's strategy is to create an overall personality that both honors the
area's achievements; the industrial heritage that so many of the local residents have built and
merges with a fresh, interesting use of modem attitudes reflecting the dreams and aspirations
that will drive the future of Renton.
Most successful retailing relies on significant ongoing invention and innovation. The project's
personality will target delivering exciting experiences while being mindful of the desire to
reflect the area's heritage, an attitude preferred by the city and appreciated by the residents. The
design approach will therefore be simultaneously influenced by the simple industrial past while
looking to the future.
The proposed personality will be unique to Rentonites. Design ideas will start with a nod to the
past. Industrial materials including steel, brick and concrete, will be used in the architecture and
landscape environment. These materials will be assembled in an honest manner; simple, direct
and without unnecessary ornamentation or frills. Mixed with simple, bold forms and shapes, this
attitude will be orchestrated to achieve a clean, modem expression in execution making the
ordinary, extraordinary. While portions of the experience will be familiar, in the end much will
provide visitors with a sense of intrigue and surprise.
The Landing in Renton will drive a rebirth of the area, and build on the history of the Boeing
Plant site providing the City with a new energy to stimulate further growth and help initiate a
rebranding of the old image. The program includes six overlapping districts: (see page 8 in
MSA booklet dated October 31, 2(05)
I. The Landing Place -a high-energy entertainment district, vibrant and dramatic, "the
place to be seen", urban stage!community room. This includes an entertainment venue,
•
The Landing in Renton ( lral Design Statement
November 16,2005
Page 3
up to 150 room hotel, restaurants, retail and a 6 level parking structure.
. 2. The Boulevard -Fashion and lifestyle, sophisticated through simplicity with retail,
restaurants, offices and hotel drop-off.
3. Market Lane -Community events, arts & crafts fairs, kiosks and carts.
4. The Walk -Practical, convenient, neighborhood garden walk with large retail & mixed-
use small retail boutiques and restaurants.
5. The Avenue -Park Avenue tree-lined urban access corridor, "A prelude to the show".
6. Fairfield -Residential, charming urban living in the new downtown Renton
neighborhood.
The winning approach to mix industrial building materials and shapes with a modern style and
attitude will attract a significant number of locals and visitors to fuel a rebirth of the area and
further enhance the city's overall image and deliver strong economic results .
•
•
URBAN CENTER DESIGN OVERLAY STATEMENT
The Landing in RenfDn -Mi xed -Use Urban Neighborhood
Callison Project Number: 204300.00
November 23, 2005
CALLISON
This urban center design overlay stalsrrent as prepared by Calli son Architecture, Inc. and it's
consultants constitutes Item 9 01 the subrrittal requirerrents for the Master Site Plan "MSA"
Application. The northeast residential parcel inlorrretion located east of Pari< Avenue North
WdS prepared by Fairfield Residential, LLC. Also refer fD the project narrative statemenl dated
November 16, 2005, for additional pmject inlorrrntion.
This staterrenl applies only fD Phase One developrrenlNorth 01 B "Street and does not include
developrrenl south of B" Street Phase TV>\) is shown lor relerence only for potential luture
developrrenl context and st reet/pedestrian connection.
Generel Design Statennent
HarveslPartners, Madison Marquetta, Callison Architecture, SO Deacon General ContacfDrs,
and Fairfield Residential are teamed 10 develop a rrixed use urban neighborhood al the forrrer
Boeing Company's RenfDn 757 Plant sils. A eomprehe nsive approach fD redeveloping this area
springs from a comrritrrent fD create an expe rience based on a positive interpretation of the
City 01 RenfDn, ii's industrial roots and goal to re-energize the North RenfDn neighborhood area
with a new vibrant rrixed-use urban village. At th e heart 01 the proposal fD the city is a 46.5 acre
urban retail developrrnnt bounded by North B "Stree~ Logan Avenue, and Ganden Avenue. The
present designated site zoning ·UC -N 1" allows the proposed 635,500sl. rrix of uses consisting
01 retail, office, entertainrren~ restau rants, hotel with supporting 6 level parking structure and
surface parking located in Quadrant A, B & C. The 900 uni~ 673,312sf residential
condorrinium complex is located In the Northeas I Fairfieid parcel. The projects approxirrnte
construction budget is $90 rrillion (not inciuding the Fairfieid Residential parcel) with an
overall project fair marl<et value 01 $333 rrillion.
The developer/designer team's strategy is to crea te an overall personality that both honors the
area's achieverrents; the industria I heritage that so many 01 the local residents have built and
rrerges with a fresh, interesting use of ITOdem attitudes rellecting the dream; and aspirations
that will drive the luture of R enfDn.
Mostsuceesslul retailing relies on sig niliean t ongoing invention and Innovation. The projecfs
personality will target deiivering exciting experi ences while being rrindlul 01 the desire fD
reflect the area's heritage, an alt ilude oreferred by the city and appreciated by the residents. The
design approach will therefore be silTlJltaneously inlluenced by the simple industrial past while
looking fD the future.
-+-____ CALLISON ARctUTECTUII.E, INC.
1 <4 2 0 FIFTH AVENUE I2~OO SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9S1D1·2343
-T 20. G21 4D4$ F 206 aZ3 4~25 www.caUiloft.com
,
•
•
The Landing in Renton Urban Ce nter Design Overlay Staterrent
Noverrber 23,2005
Page 2
The proposed personality will be unique to Renton lies. Design ideas will start with a nod to the
past Industrial rmterials including steel, brick an d concrete, will be used in the architecture and
landscape environrmnl These materials will be asseniJled in an honest manner; sll1lJle, direct
and without unnecessary ornarrentation or frills. Mixed with sirrple, bold foms and shapes, this
attitude will be orchestrated to achieve a cl ean, modem expression in execution rmking the
ordinary, extraordinary. While portions of the expe rience will be famlisr, in the end rruch will
provide visitors with a sense of intrigue and ,urprise.
The Landing Site Design Staterrent
Introduction
This narrative i. intended to desaibe the overall landscape and site design features of the propsed
Landing project. The Landing consists of several ty pes of retail venues ranging from small shops to very
large natioral dlain anchor stores, restaurants, a hot el and entertainment. Wlile the types of uses and
density of development will ""ry throughout the ~te ,common elements surn as paving accents. graphics
and signage, enhanced pedestrian "o .. ing., plant ma !erials and site furniture will .. rve to link the
project cohesively with a common identity.
"The Landing Place" -Entertainment Boulevard
The northwest corner of the site is planned as an entertainment zone with a multiplex cinema, hotel,
restaurants and specialty retail shops. The project'. highest density will occur in this portior of the
development with most of the parking located in a si x level garage structure. A low vollR11e retail street
runs through the center of the space. Parallel park ing and enhanced hardscape are used for traffic
calming. The street Is designed to allow for dosure to accommodate events or festi""l.. Site design is
very pedestrian oriented with a larga central cour tyard !panning a"ass the street and linking the cinema,
hotel and other uses. Varying hardscape texture., qua lity site furniture and IIg hting, and water feature
will enliven the space.
"Market Lane" -Retail Market Place
The middle of the site contain. a marketplace zone with a grocer and a ""riety of retail u .... A portior
of the surface parking .. rvicing these uses will be designed to accommodate outdoor markets featuring
produce, "afts and seasoral events Banner po les and unique paving will designate this area
comfortable. Pedestrian routes are provided thro ugh the surface parking lots for intuitive way finding
and shade trees are provided throughout the lots as dict ated by code requirements. The frontaga of retail
shops will feature a promenade with a series of differing pedestrian oriented nodes featuring seating,
ornamental landscape planting, soft pedestrian scale lighting, and enhanced ha rdscape. The spedalty
frontage paving surfaces will extend out into the parking lot to expand the feeling of pedestrian character
and ad as a means of traffic calming .
!N~f!cy, well.~ !J!pan overlay statementfXIl.
•
The Landing in Renton Urban Ce nter Design Overlay StaletTent
Novermer 23,2005
Page 3
"The Walk" -Large Box Retail
The easl and southern parts of The Landing will feature a Target store, a home improvement store, and
other smaller relailers or restaurants. Dedduous trees and pedestrian scale light poles will a=ot and
help break down the scale of the large fronlages of these bullding~ Pedestrian routes and shade trees are
provided in !he adjoining surface parking lots. A combination of evergreen and dedduous trees and
shrubs will be used to screen the services aspects of these building~
Site Perimeters and Streets
Street trees and sidewalks will be installed on both internal and external project streets and where
appropriate, existing trees and parking lot poles will be el evoted for use. Major intersections will indude
pedestrian enhancements suell as spedal pa-.ing at aosswalk locations. Blank wall facades will be
screened and vertical trellis elements will be added to the west side of !he parl<ing structure.
The I anding I ightjng Narrative
Lighting Intent
The intent of the lighting for The Landing will be to highlight arellitectural elements of interesl as well
as tD mainlain overall light levels that allow for co mfortsble visibility at night-time hours. Both energy
effiaent long life light sources will be used thro ughoul While .,me deOlrative fixtures may have
elements of "glow", glare control will be a priority fo r all the exterior fixtures. Care will be laken tD
minimize !he number of lamp types used. All light sources will be of similar color temperatures and of
high color rendering. The project will romply with the Washington Energy Cod~ We will refer tD !he
City of RentDn and the I.ES. for reOlmmended light levels and uniformity ratios throughouL
Surface and Covered Parking Lots
Surface lots will be lighted with energy effiaent, full art-off luminaires for maximum light control and
minimum glare. Luminaires will be located sudl that light will not directiy project off !he site. Covered
parl<ing lots will utilize glare controlled fixtures, tOOng into consideration the open-sided structure. light
sources will be color corrected metal halide.
I nterior Roadway and Pedestrian L ighti ng
The overall intent is to pro\ide romfortable light levels that allow for good -.isibility without glare. Care
will be given tD select a pedeslrlan scale postlight that serves both as a decorative lantern and as a
functionalluminair •. W. -.isualize an element of glow within the post tDp In addition to art-off features
whidl direct most of the light downwards to light sidewalks and roadwa~ Bollards will be introduced
for lower level lighting to identify dl anges in grade or highlight planti ng pocI<ets. Both !he pedestrian
postight and the bollard will have similar design elem ents. or be of "the same famil)". The overall
height of pedestrian posllights will not exmed 14'-0 ". The light sources will be color corrected metal
halide.
The Landing in Renton Urban Ce nter Design Overlay Staterrent
Noverrber23,2005
Page 4
Building Facades
\NIlile many shop owners provide their CfWn storefront display lighting, our proposal will provide a
common thread that ties each building together. Wall mounted decorative fixtures willbe part of a family
of fixtures that allCfW for ""me individuality while maintaining similar feature~ Highlighling of specific
building canopies. facades. roof lines Dr towers may be Implemented 10 create "markers" as a method of
way-finding and aeating visual int..-est. Elements of color will be i.-oduced to add drama and visual
interest. light ",,"rcas will be color corred>d metal halide or compact f1uorescant.
Community Gathering Placas
These areas of the project will have tle highest light levels with specific aCalnt of features such as
specimen trees, public art or architedure structures that will provide a "",rI<Ie and hierarchy of importance.
All accant lights will be well shielded and locatedto avoid glare. Elements of decoraHve lighting may
indude festive-style lighting to aeate sparkle within cartain areas of the project. Allowances will be mada
for special event lighting in terms of providing po wer locations and possible mounting locations for
portable fixtures.
Fairfield Residential District
An approximate 900 unit condominium OJmplex in tw 0 pha .... consisting of (4) five-story mid-rise
buildi~ The site is subdivided into two different pha ... with a private access drive in between the two
parcals providing pedestrian and vehiOJlar aCalss to bol h parcels. All buildings sit on top of a 2-story
covered. private aCalSS controlled parki"il strudur e. In addition, the first phase has apprOximately
15.000 s.f. of retail space with few assigned park ing spaces. plus a 4,500.00 s.l. Clubhouse and Leasi"il
Office. Total residential Building Footprint is IBI.OOOd. (53%), Pave d Areas total 19.000 s.t. (6%) and
Open Space areas (induding on-grade green areas pi us landscaped decks) are 14O.B60 s.f. (41%)
111 The project is cOrlllrised of 4-five story bu ildings over two separate two story parking
garages. The lo""r level of the garage is half buried and is a baserrenl The upper level
of parking will be benTlOd against on all sides except on the retail side. The buildings
each have one entry off of the sidewalk and the second one from the deck.
111 Vehicular access to the projecl is off of th e private drive between the two phases of the
project and also a direct "righi-in. ri ght-our access from Garden Avenue North.
TIl Pedestrian cireu lation is mlin tained thr oughout the site over the podium and between the
podium and buildings to the public sidewalks using the elevators and stairs from the
deck.
111 There is one clubhouse and swimTing pool and spa per phase as a comron space, and
in addition to that there are cou rtyards in each building functioning as the passive
commn space.
111 There will be arlllie landscaping on the deck as well as the setbacks to create the buffer
and add character and life to the cOf11llex.
The Landing in Renton U rnan Ce nter Design Overlay Staterrent
Noverrber 23,2005
Page 5
'2'*W
'" The rmin design therre is to avoid the appearan ce of a large project an d create the feel
and the irmge of a neighborhood. Thus the rress will eventually be broken down to
rrore look like different buildi ngs creating the overall rress.
•
Koo,lke.·, WI,cclt",. Mayor
December 6, 2005
Rob King
Harvest Partners
20503 aa'" Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 9a026
Subject:
Dear Mr. King:
The Landing Master Plan
LUA05-136, SA-M, SA-A
CITY I F RENTON
PlanninglBuildinglPublicWorks Department
GreggZlmmermao P.E.,Administrator
The subject project was placed "on hold" November 10, 2005 due to deficiencies in the
application submittal package. Those items were as listed below.
•. Original application with authorized signature, notarized and 11 copies.
• Complete project narrative for both the Master Ptan Review and Site Plan
Review.
• Urban Center Design Overlay District Report
• Planting description for the conceptual landscape plan
Additionally, a consistency analysis of the FinalEnvironmentallrnpact Statement dated
October 2003 (EIS) is required as related to the proposed project.
Over the course of the past few weeks, this information has been provided to the
Development Planning Section of the City of Renton. Staff has reviewed this information
for completeness in order to assess whether the project may proceed with staff review.
Staff has determined the Urban Center Design Overlay District Report provided
November 23rd is not sufficient for either the Master Plan or the Site Plan Reviews.
The level of specific detail as related to the Design Overlay criteria arid the proposed
project must be el.aborated on. Please reference RMC4-3-100 (see attached) and
provide a greater comparison to the minimum standards for "District C· .
The Consistency Analysis for the EIS has not been received for review however that
analysis may reference in a general sense the future phase to the south of N a'" Street.
Additionally, a Consistency Analysis should cover the Planned Action Ordinance
adopted November 15, 2004. Please include in this analysis the impact of additional
square footage and number of units of proposal.
Finally, concerns have been raised regarding the inclusion of Phase II, conceptual
proposal for future development south of N a'" Street. The applicant may reference this
Phase II in a general sense for disclosure purposes in the Project Narrative and
Consistency Analysis. However, any reference this potential Phase II shall be removed
from this submittal for The Landing. Also, remove from any reqLiired. submittal
-------;I~05;-;5:-;S:;-o-u-:-:th-;G:;-r-ad:;-y-;V{;:;;a-y-.-;R:-e-Dt:-o-n-;, W:;-;-as:;-h""in-g:-to-n-;9~8~05;-;5:--------R E N T ~ * This paperoontains 5(1% recycled material, 30"10 pos1 COI1Sumar
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
information all notes "For Reference Only" and Marketing/Leasing information as these
are documents necessary for the official city review for compliance with code.
Therefore, please be advised that this project continues to be "on-hold" until such
time as the above-required information is received and deemed accepted.
I regret to inform you that I will be leaving the City of R!'3nton December 15, 2005. This
project will be transferred to Keri Weaver, Senior Planner. If you have any.questions
prior to the 15th , you may contact me at (425) 430-7270. . .
Sincerely,
G\~~
NancyWeil
Senior Planner
.. "'.<-'
cc: Harvest Partners I Owner"*"" .... """1:,;""
Nicol.e Hernandez, W&HJ?acjlk:l Applicant '''"' •..
Sidney F Hunt, Callis9JiCOmaCI ''',,, .
Derinis J. O'Neill, KI,mfeld~ .' , . . i .~"
Brent Carson, LalT)"Reyman'lJ;Lisa Kraft I Party(ill,S1iSf RecOl:p
.' ~;tf:'>_' ~,
I!c"'-. ~;,
.~
MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
QUADRANT 'A'
RETAIL SHOPS
CINEMA (Second Floor 12 Screen)
TOTALSQFT
PARKING (Surface)
PARKING (Structured)
RATIO (Retail + Cinema 991 ps 1171,S k)
PARKING (Structured, OffIces)
RATIO (OffIces -171 ps 157 k)
QUADRANT '8'
ANCHOR
JUNIOR ANCHORS
RETAIL SHOPS
FITNESS
TOTAL SQFT (Not including Offices)
113,5k
58 k
171,5 k
24ps
967 ps
5.711,000
171 ps
3,011,000
110 k
53k
74 k
42,5k
279,5 k
TOTAL PARKING 1085 ps
RATIO (lOBS ps 1224,S k Retail) 3,Bll,OOO
OFFICES (Parking Included in Quadrant'/>:) 57 k
QUADRANT 'C'
ANCHOR
JUNIOR ANCHORS
RETAIL SHOPS
TOTAL SQFT
126 k
26 k
37,S k
189,5 k
TOTAL PARKING 841 ps
RATIO (841 ps 1189,S k Retaill 4,411,000
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL SQFT 697,5 k
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL PARKING 3088 ps
FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL QUADRANT
RETAIL SHOPS
RESIDENTIAL (approx, 900 units)
TOTALSQFT
PARKING (Surface)
PARKING (Structured, approx,)
15 k
673 k
666 k
30 ps
141B ps
MINIMUM
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
'A'~
--.."
74 k
51 k
125 k
24 ps
670 ps
5,311,000
o
o
1t:
55 k
51k
70k
42,5 k
21B k
1151 ps
5,211,000
o
'C'
126 k
35 k
20 k
181 k
829 ps
45/1 000
524k
2674 ps
l'
PHASE ON_ -------------------~ PHASETWO-'
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
-J.,
/
""
~. ~,-'!r: ~,. 1-';,.~~~;a,', -~-~ri..-t:~~-
'" ., ! ") "lr' r" ! 'li' ~ '\1 ;'ii,_ '~" , __ '" ~'t ~ -., ~1 :1 lr ---" --" ~'" 'r-~ ."".,
,it tQ)' ~,~ ~~. r" ,~ '. -:,-,-~_.-' " ", ~. ~ ~ 0 J. ~ ;",\ f Q,,;} )~ '~l. rR'\ ," , :',' t ~, ~ L3' -~ " "'~~ ,,~,:'l)
'.'. ~,' '. "',,,' ,',' l"', '_"", ... ,""'='.,',~' ' .. ~ ~ (Ntl) '~'(--N;',I'!;CJ)," _,'f~,* ',' ~'";,,t:,~; I-"/~ ~'~ -y , "',l ", .. ,,"' "" • • • ,i;tJ.0, J'It, fl ,J :.:.'.1 I S L~an~i~ii-..
• .> ~ II '!fl" "$"" ''',. " ' ,
"
,""", [, \$" "'!t,' ",J,': , ' ,,,,,,,,''z.-L-. 'L' " " i.':,' ," "t . ' "~ " c __ ,~ , $ , I I ' , , I *, ~ 'IHI"'·P-'-~ '!)., U".-• .---..-.~,it ~ ~,~" """ · 1ff1-~tt~ . ~ .eJII: ""AI !04.f
CALLISON
)~ ~~~f't ... ,
Jh •. , >Vr~~
""'fIY , 9 ~ .9Sc.~"~D
• RETAIL ANCHORS
• RETAIL SHOPS
• THEATRE
• PARKING STRUCTURE
• RESIDENTIAL
II' OFFICES
z
o
VI
...I
...I
<C
~ ~ I I II •••••
m ~ I I II •••••
•
}
z
o
(J;
«
u
~ e I I II •••••
•
REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION
RECEIVED
MAR 172006
BUCK & GORDON
A REVIseD Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of
Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: The Landing Master Development Plan I LUA05-136, SA~M
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Harvest Partners, is requesting Adminstrative Review of a Master
Development Plan for an approximately 47-acre site located between Logan and Garden Avenues N, to the north of N 8th
Street. The projed. Is for a mixed-use development induding potential commercial retail/office, hotel and residential
components covering approximately 635,500 square feet. The site is within the Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1) zoning
designation. Proposed site improvements would consist of on-slte structured and surface parking. iandscaping, utjljties
and storm water and special design standards for the zoning. The structures are proposed to range in height from
opp:'Oxim3tely 30 to 75 feet; the maximllm p~rmits n'.lmber of stories for the UC-N zone is 10. A Planned Action
Agreement for the site was entered into by the City on November 15. 2004, and a Development Agreement was entered
into by the City on December I, 2003. The Environmental Impac1 S1a1ement (EIS) was completed in October 2003.
Administrative Site Development Plan review will also be required. and will be conducted subsequent to re~ew of the
Master Developmen1 Plan application.
PROJECT LOCATION: 1002 Park Avenue N
PUBLIC APPROVALS: Master Development Plan Review and Approval
APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Rob King, Harvest Partners; Tel: (425) 778-1921;
Eml: rccmi@comcast.net
\
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Kerl Weaver. Senior Planner, Development
Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055. by 5:00 PM on March 30, 2006. If you have questions
about this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mall. contact the Project
\
Manager at (425) 430-7270. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will
be notified of any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAlLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
DATE OF REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION:
November 1, 2005
November 4, 2005
March 16, 2006
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98055.
File Name J No.: The Landing Master Oevelopment Plan I LUA05-136. SA-M
NAME: ___________________________________________________________ ___
MAILING ADDRESS: _______________________________________ _
TELEPHONE NO.: ____________ ___
Sidney Hunt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sidney Hunt
Thursday, March 09, 200612:00 PM
Neil Watts; 'kweaver@cLrenton.wa.us'
'Jerry Hillis'; 'rob king'; 'Blaine Lee'; Jenny Li; Darryl Custer
MSA Re-submittal Package
Attachments: 06022Clala_MSP.PDF; 06022B_UrbanCenterDesignOve~ayReport _5_.pdf;
06022B_CodeDiscussion_ParkingStaIISizes .pdf
Dear Neil and Keri,
rctgt:: 1 Ul 1
See attached the updated Urban Center Overlay Report and Master SHe Plan documents wHh the minor revisions
we discussed at this past Tuesday afternoon meeting. Also attached is the parking stall size modification request
letter that we reviewed as well.
The required MSA re-submittal copies of the attachments are being couriered to your office today.
We understand that with this submittal we should be satisfying your requested additional and revised items
outlined in your December 06, 2005 letter and the City of Renton processing of the MSA can continue.
Please call me for any clarifications.
Regards,
Sidney F. Hunt, AlA, MRAIC
Associate
sidney.hunt@callison.com
CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE #2400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2343
T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625
3/9/2006
TRANSMITTAL
Date: March 9, 2006 J
To: Neil Watts
Development Services Division -Development & Planning
Re:
Renton City Hall -6th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
The Landing
Ph 0 n. 425.430.7270
Project The Landing
Fax
We ar. sending you the following:
[J Attached 0 Under separate cover
o Prints 0 Originals
o Submittal 0 Samples 0 Other
DUrgent CRoutine
Mr. Watts,
For your:
o Information and use
o Review and comment
o As requesled
Find enclosed supplements for the Master Land Use application:
• 12 copies of Urban Center Design Overlay Report
• 12 color 11 x 17 copies ofMSA documents.
• Letter requesting parking stall size modification.
Please contact me for further clarification.
c: Hillis Clark Marting & Peterson: Jerome L. Hillis
Callison: File
CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE 12400 SEATTlf:, WASHINGTON 98101-23"3
--T 206 6234648 F 206 623 4625 www.cBllison.com
CALLISON
P 8 9 8 s (Including cover)
ProJect, 204300.00
Action Required:
[J As indicated
D For signature and return
o No action rSQuired
THE LANDING
February 28 th
, 2006
Neil Watts, Director
Renton City Hall,
1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, Wa, 98055
Re: The Landing:
Parking Stall Sizes-Requested Modification
Dear Neil Watts,
(I
CALLISON
According to the Renton Municipal Code, standard, structured parking spaces are required to be
a minimum of 15' x 8'-4" and compact spaces for structured parking are required to be a minimum of
12' x 7'-6," with the maximum number of compact spaces not to exceed 50%. The Landing's proposed
standard, structured parking size is 18' x 9' stalls with 18' x 8' stalls provided at approximately 10% of
the total. Standard, surface parking stalls, per the Renton Municipal Code, are reqnired to be 19' x 9'
and compact spaces are reqnired to be 16' x 8'-6." The Landing proposes the use of the nationally
accepted standard, surface parking stall size of 18' x 9' with less than 7% compact stalls sized at 16' x
9'.
Although The Landing's proposed standard, surface stalls are 18' rather than 19' in length, the
quality of total, on-site parking would exce'ed the standards allowed in the code. Increasing the proposed
surface parking stall size to 19' would cause the reduction of significantly more stalls to compact, 16'x
8'-6" size as well and negatively impact the aesthetics of the project's parking areas. We request
~~~J1\-~--"~
Sidney Hunt, Associat
Callison Architecture, Inc
Cc:File Correspondance
-+-----CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE #2400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101·2343
-T 206 623 4646 ,F 208 623 4625 www.cailison.com
•
The Landing, Master Plan
LUA05 -136, SA-M, SA-A
CALLISON
This report constitutes the Urban Center Design Overlay Report required by the Renton Municipal Code,
item 22, Submittal Requirements for the Master Site Plan ("MSA'~ application. 1ms project, The Ltmcling,
is located in the ''Urban Center North, District 'C' (UC-NI)." This report applies only to Phase One
development north of S"' Street and does not include development south of S"' Street. Phase Two is shown
for reference only for potential future development context and street! pedestrian connection.
See attached 11 x 17 Callison MSA Booklet dated February 28, 2006. Page two shows an updated, master
site plan accompanied by a maximum development summary, which corresponds to the plan, and a
minimum development summary, the numbers of which reflect the minimum benchmark of possible
changes to the project. Both maximum and minimum summaries represent the potential range of
development that is being submitted rather than one, specific set of numbers. The following three pages of
the booklet contain updated images of a three dimensional model of the project and the final page shows the
individual "districts" which ate described on the following page of this report.
MSA Disclaimer: The previously submitted 11 x 17 Callison MSA Booklet dated October 31, 2005 and
supplemental entertainment elevation and perspective sketch dated November 9, 2005 are conceptual in
nature and are subject to change due to Harvest Partners review, tenant fit and review, and project cost
analysis review. Also, any development references in the site plans, landscape plans, and neighborhood
gateway studies in public right-of-ways are included for reference only and ate not included in the MSA
application.
The Ltmding will be developed on a 46.5 acre development site bounded by North S"' Street, Logan
Avenue, and Garden Avenue. The designated site zoning, ''UC-Nl,'' allows the proposed development
range (697,500 sqft. maximum to 524,000 sqft. minimum) of mised uses consisting of retail, office,
entertainment, restaurants, six-level parking structure and surface parking. The approximately 900 unit, (an
average of 900SF per unit size) residential complex, including 15,000 sqft of street level retail space, is
located in the Northeast Fairfield parcel.
CALLISON AaCHITl!cTURE, INC.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE 12400 SEATTlE, WASHINGTON 98101-2343
-T 206 623 .6.6 F 206 623 4625 www.ceUllon.com
The Landing in Renton General Design Statement
February 28th. 2006
Page 2
General Design Statement:
Most successful retailing relies on significant ongoing invention and innovation. The project's personality
will target the delivery of exciting experiences while being mindful of the desire to reflect the area's heritage;
an attitude preferred by the city and appreciated by the residents. The proposed personality will be unique
to Renton. Design ideas will begin with a nod to the past, drawing from industrial materials like sted,
concrete and brick that will be assembled in an honest manner; simple, direct and without superfluous
ornamentarion and frills. Mixed with simple, bold forms and shapes, the resultant orchestration will be a
clean, modem expression of both style and warmth. While some pottions of the experience will be fiuniliar,
there will be much to provide visitors with a sense of both intrigue and surprise. The Landing in Renton
will drive a rebirth of the South Lake Neighborhood, provide the city with new energy to further stimulate
growth and help initiate a re-branding of the old Renton image. The Landing has been divided into various
districts that will each possess a slightly different character that is reflective of both the master design and
their own, individual roles within the project. They are as follows:
"The Landing Place"
The northwest corner of the site along Entertainment Boulevard is planned as an entertainment zone with a
multiplex cinema, restaurants and specialty retail shops. The project's highest density will occur in this
portion of the development with most of the parking located in a multi-brei garage structure. A low-
volume automotive/high-volume pedestrian retail street will run through the center of the space. Parallel
parking and enhanced hardscape will be employed to calm traffic. The street will be designed to allow for
closure to accommodate events or festivals in a large, plaza space.
"Market Lane" -
In the middle of the site there is a 'marketplace zone.' This space will be designed to accommodate outdoor
markets featuring produce, crafts and seasonal events. Banner poles with lighting and unique paving will
designate this area as something unique and comfortable.
''The Walk"
The east and southern parts of The Landing will feature large-scale retail anchors, junior anchors and smaller
retailers or restaurants. The frontage of retail shops will feature a promenade with a series of differing,
pedestrian-oriented nodes featuring some seating, ornamental landscape planting, soft, pedestrian scale
lighting, and enhanced hardscape. Deciduous trees and pedestrian scale light poles will accent, and help
break down, the scale of the large building frontages. The specialty frontage paving surfaces will extend out
into the parking lot to expand the feeling of pedestrian character and act as a means of calming traffic.
2
The Landing in Renton Genem! Design Statement
February 28th, 2006
Page 3
Pedestrian routes and shade trees are provided in the adjoining surface parking lots. A combination of
evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs will be used to screen the services aspects of these buildings.
"The Avenue"
Park Avenue will be a tree-lined, urban access corridor -"A prelude to the show."
"The Boulevard"
Fashion and lifestyle; sophistication through simplicity. 11)d> Street will contain retail, restaurants and offices.
"Fairfield"
Channing urban living in the new downtown Renton neighborhood.
4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS:
Note: All headings reference the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations as expressed in section 4-3-100
'Url>an Design >'/mWns' of the Renton Municipal Code
E. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION
1. Sire Design and Street Pattet1J:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
The Landing will contain a hierarchy of streets and paths. Logan Avenue is the main arterial road that
feeds to the high visibility streets of Park Avenue North, Garden and North 8"' Street. "Entertainment
Boulevard" and North 10"' Street between Logan and Park are more intimate, pedestrian streets. The design
will respond to these different conditions by applying appropriate scale and signage, as well as the placement
of buildings on the site. Pedestrian paths that interlace the site, connecting major elements and districts, will
minimize the reliance on automobiles to move from one area to another, thereby alleviating congestion.
Major intersections will include special paving at crosswalk locations. Parking areas will be accessible from
multiple points, reducing potential "bottle necking" and allowing greater mobility. Sidewalk widths will vary
but are normally 12'-0" ot greatet, thereby creating pedestrian friendly uses including outdoor seating and
dining, entry canopies, signage, and building mounted weather protection to provide multiple amenities.
Landscaping is valued as a significant tool to achieve the project's design goals (see above) and will be used
extensively to promote warmth and beauty.
2. Building Location and Orientation
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
3. Building Entries:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
3
•
The Landing in Renton General Design Statement
February 28th, 2006
Page 4
Builcling entry locations will be positioned for clear, visual identification and for ease of pedestrian access
from the street. The residential component of the project will be oriented to, and be accessed from, the
proposed private road connecting Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue. The buildings themselves will
be street-oriented and contain varying depths and widths to create interest throughout the project (see plan
and model views). Plant sdections will take into consideration the mature size (height and spread) of trees
and shrubs and located to best emphasize points of entry and builcling features. Large, blank, building
facades, including the weSt side of the multi-level parking structure and cinema, will be screened with
landscape and vertical trellis elements. Each side of the proposed Fairfield Residential complex will engage
the pedestrian environment through large windows, balconies and various architectural elements. The
numerous "Eyes on the Street" that this will create will enhance the urban character of the district. The proposed
entries for Ibe Fairfield residential neighborhood will provide transition space between Ibe public street and Ibe
private residence through Ibe use of a resident drop-off and lobby design. The proposed pedestrian aod vehicular
circulation pattern forms a semi-commoD area, or access plaza~ between the lobbies of each residential cluster.
4. Transition to SurroUl1ding Development:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard .
The Landing will serve as a focal point for the South Lake neighborhood as well as an attractive portal
from the freeway to the North Renton area. The existing, industrial, neighborhood sections of the c1istrict
will remain fully and easily accessible and will be enhanced by the "on-site" services that The Landing will
provide, like restaurants, coffee, shopping and entertainment
5. Service Element £oest/on and Design:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
All service elements will be attractively concealed with either screens and landscaping or being located inside
a building envelope, in order to promote a more appealing aesthetic appearance to visitors and residents.
6. Gateways:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
7. mustrlltions:
The project will meet or exceed the intent of this section.
F. PARKlNGAND VEmCULARACCESS
1. Loestion and Design .
The project will meet or exceed this code standard with the following exception:
4
•
•
The Landing in Renton General Design Statement
February 28th, 2006
Page 5
• Two, small parking areas between buildings along 10" street will be necessary to both create an
appropriate ratio of retail to parking for the project and to allow a viable access to the adjacent
buildings they selVe.
2. Design of Surface Parking:
The project will meet or exceed this ende standard.
Surfaee parking will include extensive landscaping to provide visual breaks and physical buffers io and
around parking lots to iocrease the aesthetic appeal of the overall project. Well designed and landscaped
pedestrian paths will be celebrated throughout the site (see master site plan) .
.1. Structured Parking Garages:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
The structured commercial parking is surrounded by retail on three sides on the ground level and
Iandscapiog on the fourth, non-pedestrian side. The commercial garage will be a steel or concrete structure
with mioimal, if any, exterior wall surfaces so that it will not appear bulky or overbearing. The Fair£ieJd
residential component also utilizes structured parking beneath five levels of residential development.
Approximately 15,000 sqft. of retail space is proposed along Park Avenue north ar the ground level. The
remaining portions of the structured parking will be either iotegrated ioto the residential character of the
building through architectural design or screened from public view with vegetation such as raised landscaping
beds or vine-covered trellises.
4. Vehicular Access:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard with the following exceptions:
• The needs of the theater require access from the commercial garage to both Logan and
''Entertainment Blvd." Restricting access to Logan alone would create unacceptable traffic
congestion and difficult access.
• On the high visibility streets of Park Avenue and Garden there are two entty/exits from surface
parking lots within 500' of each other. These access poiots have been deemed necessary for the
proper flow of traffic to and from the site.
S. mustrations:
The project will meet or exceed the iotent of this section.
G. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
1. Pathways Througb Parking Lots:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard with the following exception:
5
The Landing in Renton General Design Statement
February 28th, 2006
Page 6
• Pedestrian pathways have been provided throughout the site where they are the most natural and
effective in allowing pedestrians to easily make their way from one feature of the project to another
(see master site plan). These paths are not always provided at 150' and to require them spaced in
such a manner would cause said pathways to be misaligned with the natural pedestrian flow to and
from the building layout.
2. PedestDaJl Circu/.don:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
Raised and visually differentiated pedestrian paths will interlace the site, oonnecting major elements and
di5tricts~ minimizing the reliance on automobiles to move from one area to another, thereby alleviating
congestion. Major intersections will include special paving at crosswalk locations to alert vehicular traffic
and to be visually pleasing. Sidewalk widths will vary but are normally 12'-0" or gteater, both
accommodating the amount of foot traffic and creating pedestrian friendly uses including outdoor seating
and dining, entry canopies, signage, and building mounted weather protection to provide multiple amenities.
The design/ development team is also committed to the safety of the visitors and on-site residents of The
Landing and will make every effort to eliminate any possiblehazatds by selecting appropriate materials and
providing well designed crossings and intersections.
J. Pedestrian AmtDides:
On designated, pedestrian-oriented streets, overhead weather protection has been prmcided in the form of
canopies, awnings and building overhangs in an amount meeting or exceeding the design guidelines (see
master site plan). Durable and well designed site furniture, kiosks, trash receptacles and other street
furniture is essential to cteate a successful retail experience and will be provided in every appropriate area.
The main plaza, called "The Landing Place," contains an optional fountain, beauriful canopies, planting pots,
landscaping and outdoor seating that will help to make it the heart of this project.
H. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
1. Landscaping:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
The landscaping serves as a tie to the natural surroundings and native landscapes of the Pacific Northwest.
The landscaping creates an inviting and dynamic character for the center through the use of native and
drought tolerant plantings intermixed with ornamental plantings that change with the seasons and provide
interest throughout the year. It reinforces the architecture and helps frame entries, guides pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, softens paved areas, creates pocket garden spaces, and provides climatic relief in
6
•
•
The Landing in Renton General Design Statement
February 28th, 2006
Page 7
parking lots, and sidewalk zones. Street tree sizes and spaeing will be coordinated with the City of Renton
roadway plans. Specific landscape plans will be submitted with individual building permits and the
residential site plan application
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
The Fairfield residential neighbothood will provide approximately 45,000 sq ft of eommon space/recreation
area in a combination of courtyards, plazas, or multipnrposc open spaces. The applicant proposes to
construct community buildings, pool! spa areas (1 per each of the 2 phases of the development) and shared
courtyards in each of the four buildings. The four courtyards and the associated walkways will serve as
pedestrian oriented passive recreation spaces to be shared by the residents. The pool/spa areas and the
community buildings will provide active recreational opportunities for the residents. For the non-residential
area, 1 % of the site area + 1 % of the building area = 23,330 sf. This area is distributed amongst the main
plaza and various locations that adhere to guideline section H.2.a.xi below. The pedestrian plaza at the heart
of The Landing will serve as the foeal point for the project and as a neighborhood meeting place for the
on-site residents. The plaza is also intended to act as a community space for the greater area.. In addition to
the plaza, areas around important intersections have been opened up to encourage pedestrian activity to take
place as well as a "Market" area (see plan) that is to be used for temporary activities such as a Saturday
market or a community funf:tion.
L BUILDING ARCHlTECTVRALDESIGN
1. Building Character IUld Massing:
The projeet will meet or exceed this code standard.
2. Ground-Level Details:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
3. Building Roof Lines:
The projeet will meet or exceed this code standard.
4. Building Materials:
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
5. mustrations.
The projeet will meet or exceed the intent of this section:
J. SIGN AGE
7
•
The Landing in Renton General Design Statement
February 28th, 2006
Page 8
1. Minimum Standards for District 'C':
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
2. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C':
The project will meet or exceed this code standard.
3. mU8rratiolls.
The project will meet or exceed the intent of this section.
K.LIGHTING
The project will meet or exceed the intent of this section.
Lighting Intent
The intent of the lighting for The Landing, both its commercial as well as residential components, will be to
highlight architectural elements of interest as well as to maintain overall light levels that allow for
comfortable visibiliry at night-time hours. Both energy efficient long life light sources will be used
throughout. While some decorative fixtures may have elements of "glow", glare control will be a priority for
all the exterior fixrures. Care will be taken to minimize the number of lamp rypes used. All light sources will
be of similar color temperarures and of high color rendering. The project will comply with the Washington
Energy Codes. We. will refer to the City of Renton and the I.E.S. for recommended light levels and
unifonnity ranos throughout.
Surface and Covered Parking Lots
Surface lots will be lighted with energy efficient, full cut-off luminaires for maximum light control and
minimum glare. Luminaires will be located such that light will not directly project off the site. Covered
parking lots will utilize glare controlled fixtures, taking into consideration the open-sided strucrure. Light
sources will be color corrected metal halide.
Interior Roadway and Pede.trian Lighting
The overall intent is to provide comfortable light levels that allow for good visibiliry without glare. Care will
be given to select a pedestrian scale postlight that serves both as a decorative lantern and as a functional
luminaire. We visualize an element of glow within the post top in addition to cut-off features which direct
most of the light downwards to light sidewalks and roadways. Bollards will be introduced for lower level
lighting to identify changes in grade or highlight planting pockets. Both the pedestrian postlight and the
bollard will have similar design elements, or be of "the same family". The ovetall height of pedestrian
postlights will not exceed 14'-0". The light sources will be color corrected metal halide.
Building Facades
8
•
The Landing in Renton General Design Statement
February 28th, 2006
Page 9
While many shop owners provide their own storefront display lighting, our proposal will provide a common
thread that ties each building together. Wall mounted decorative fixtures will be part of a family of fixtures
that allow for some individuality while maintaining similar fearures. Highlighting of specific building
canopies, facades, roof lines or towers may be implemented to create "markers" as a method. of way-finding
and creating visual interest. Elements of color will be introduced to add drama and visual interest. Light
sources will be color corrected metal halide or compact fluorescent.
Community Gathering Places
These areas of the project will have the highest light levels with specific accent of features such as specimen
trees, public art or architecture structures that will provide a sparkle and hierarchy of importance. All accent
lights will be well shielded and located to avoid glare. Elements of decorative lighting may include festive-
style lighting to create sparkle within certain areas of the project. Allowances will be made for special event
lighting in tetmS of providing power locations and possible mounting locations for portable fixtures.
End of Section
9
REPORT
&
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
, l-"D:.....E=..::..C..:....:IS:...;./...;::O....:..Nc--L-A_D_M_IN_I_ST._RA_T._Iv'_'E_L_A_N_D_U_S_E_A_C_Tl_O_N ______ ---l
DA TE: May 19, 2006
Project Name:
Owner/Contact:
Fl1e Number:
Project Manager:
Project Description:
Project Location:
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
Site Area:
Project Location Map
The Landing -Master Site Plan
Rob KIng, Harvest Partners, 8214 Westchester Dr., Ste. £50, Dallas, TX
75225
WA-05-136, SA-M
Keri Weaver
The applicant is requesting Administrative Master'SIte Plan approval for the
development of an approximately 47-acre site zoned Urban Center North - 1
(UCN-1) located between Logan Ave N and Garden Ave N, north of N 8th St.
The proposal is for a mixed-use development that may include retail, offIce,
entertainment, restaurant, hotel andlor residential uses wlth associated
surface and garage parking, for approximately £73,312 sq ft of residential
development (approximately 900 apartments/condominiums) and 635,500 sq
ft of commerciaUretail/office In 25 buildings. Slte improvements would include
landscaping, utilities, roads, stormwater facilities, and special design
standards for the UCN-1 zone. Structures would range In height from 30-75 ft.
(contd. on next page)
1002 Park Ave. N
N/A
Approx. 47 acres
Proposed New Bldg. Area SF:
Total Building Area SF on site::
Approx.1.3
million sq ft
Approx. 1.3
million sq ft
ERG & MlUIUS/I< PI"" Rpl Th.LnRdiJlg OS-136.doc
,
•
l,.uy VJ .lu::,nl.lu I 'UI~ If '*"~Y'*' .11 ......
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN LUA-OS-I36, SA-M
R£PORT OF MA r 19. 2006 Page 2 0[14
'PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND !
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed redevelopment uses and density range
was completed in October 2003. The site was analyzed in the EIS as Sub-District 1A of the total
Boeing property area that was to be made available for redevelopment. The project site and
potential redevelopment was the subject of a Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004,
and a Development Agreement and Conceptual Plan dated December 1, 2003, entered into
between the City of Renton and The Boeing Company. A revised conceptual plan was adopted on
October 18, 2004. A consistency analysis was prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. , dated
May 8, 2006; which reviewed the project's consistency with the 1:IS, and concluded that it met the
conditions and calculated impacts associated with the range of development alternatives analyzed in
the EIS. A Planned Action detemnination was issued for the Master Plan on May 12, 2006. Further
environmental review is not required for The Landing Master Plan application unless development is
proposed that is inconsistent with the EIS, and/or additional environmental impacts are· Identified.
Per RMC 4-9-200, the purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased planning of
development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. The Master Plan is required to
demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at suffiCient detail
to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must Illustrate how the major
project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional
purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential Impacts that could result from large-
scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital Improvement planning.
Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale,
intensity and layout of a project are known. Projects are reviewed at a broad level for the Master
Plan. and with Increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site Plan
review.
A Master Plan may be approved without a public hearfng when (a) one or more public hearings were
held where public comment was solicited on the proposed Planned Action Ordinance, and (b) the
EIS ·for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans for the site which provided the
public and decision-makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of the proposed Improvements,
the quantity of the various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure will be put,
and the bulk and general fOIm of the improvements. A public hearfng for the EIS was held on July
3D, 2003. The Landing Master Plan complies with both of the above requirements, and therefore
qualifies for administrative approval. Subsequent Site Plans may also be submitted and approved'
administratively without a public hearing.
The UCN-1 zone requires Master Plan review for the proposed development. A Master Plan within
this zone must be consistent with the relevant conceptual plan and development agreement for the
location. The Landing Master Plan has been developed in accordance with these guidelines.
Requirements of the UCN-l zone are further addressed in the Development Standards and
Comprehensive Plan sections of this report.
Currently, the existing site consists of surplused Boeing Company property improved as paved and
gravel parking lots, with remnants of previous building foundations. 11 is anticipated that
approximately 673,312 sq ft of residential development (approximately 900
apartments/condominiums) and 635,500 sq ft of commercial/retail/office use will be developed in
approximately 25 buildings. The commercial portion of the site has been conceptually divided into
several 'themed" areas, including 'The Landing Place' (entertainment, restaurants and specialty
shops), 'Market Lane" (grocery and retail marketplace), and 'The Walk' (large box retail).
Approximately 900 apartment and/or condominium residential units will be located in the Fairfield
Masler Site Plan Rpt The landing 05-136.doc
,._ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... ~ ... -.. -City of Renton PIB/PW Department
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN LUA-OS-136 , SA-M
REPORT OF MAY 19.2006 Fogd 0114
complex at the northeast corner of the site. Full bulldout is expected to take apprciximately 1 to 3
years.
: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND ACTION -
A. Type of Land Use Action
XX Master Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit
Conditional Use Binding Site Plan
Special Permit for Grade & Fm Administrative Code Determination
B. Exhibits
The following exhibits are entered Into the record:
Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental
review and other pertinent documentation.
Exhibit No.2:
Exhibit No.3:
Exhibit No.4:
Exhibit No.5:
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis by Blumen
Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 8, 2006
Development Agre~ment and Conceptual Plan, dated December 1, 2003
Revised Concept\Jal Plan, dated October 18, 2004
.Planned Action determination, dated May 10, 2006
Staff and Consultant Review Comments
Representatives from various City departments and conSUltants contracted by the City have
reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues regarding the proposed
development. A consistency analysis was prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., to compare
The Landing Master Plan with the EIS, and its findings are referenced throughout this report. All of
these comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been
incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Decision at the end of the report.
Several staff and consultant review memoranda are also included as exhibits to this report.
D. Consistency with Master Site Plan Approval Criteria
The proposal has been reviewed in accordance with the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in
Section 4-31-33(D} of the Site Plan Ordinance, with broad applicability to the less-specific nature of
a Master Site Plan.
The Intent of the tiered site. development plan review process is to provide an opportunity to review
projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans
becomes refined to the level of Site Plan. The code provides intent statements to guide review of
plans within the UCN land use designation the plans, at a specificity appropriate to the level of
review.
Relevant intent statements and analysis for the Master Plan includes:
• Promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values
and minimize discordant and undesirable Impacts of development both on-and off-
site.
Master Site Plan Rpt The Landing 05-136.doc
•
•
City oj Renton PIB/PW Departl1lEllt
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
REPORT OF MAY 19. Z006
..,. .... ,,.,, ...... _ ...... ~.~-.. ........ _ .... --, •• '-y-"
LUA-OS-Hi, SA-M
Pnge4o/U
The master site plan requirements for the UCN-1 zone are intended to promote, among other
things, a cohesive, large -scale development plan for the area to ensure availability of public
facilities concurrently with anticipated impacts, provide mUltiple interconnected pedestrian
and vehicular access points, include a mix of residential, commercial and other uses at
urban density, and provide a focal point for further redevelopment of adjacent properties.
The Master Plan for The Landing is consistent with these requirements by providing a mixed-
use, pedestrian-friendly urban development that will interconnect to adjacent properties. The
development of a large, multi-use destination retail, entertainment and residential center will
enhance property values in the surrounding area and will be an asset to the community. The
proposed development is consistent with surrounding land uses and zoning as designated in
the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.
• Promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the City's Urban Center
Design Overlay, where applicable.
Detailed review of the project design will occur at the Site Plan level. Based on the general
layout and orientation of the site, proposed uses, density and square footage, and intended
development pattem as provided in the Master Plan, the development will be able to meet
the requirements of the Urban Design Regulations (RMC 4-3-100). The 25 proposed
buildings would be oriented along a public and private street system.
• Ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site
and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation
systems implement land use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs.
The Landing development will incorporate existing public streets with appropriate
improvements for traffic capacity, pedestrian safety and landscaping, and will include new
roads developed to City standards that will be located within the project to provide intemal
and extemal road connections. The general layout of site roadways as depicted on the
Master Plan is adequate to provide necessary vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the
proposed development New roads and road improvements (indudlng sidewalks and other
pedestrian pathways and crossings) will be further evaluated at the Site Plan level for
compliance with the land use objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the UCN designation,
. the City's road and development standards for the UCN-1 zone, and the Urban Design
Regulations.
• Promote coordination of public or· quasi-public elements, such as walkways,
driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments of larger developments and
between individual developments.
Detailed review of these elements will occur at the Site Plan level. Based on the general
layout and orientation of the site, proposed uses, density and square footage, and intended
development pattern as provided in the Master Plan, the development will be able to meet
these requirements .
• Minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed
zones.
Master SIte Plan Rpt The landing 05-136.doc
•
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PUN
'~-" .. '.-" -.-. -...
LUA-OS-136, SA-M
REPORT OF MA Y J 9. 2006 PngeJ 0/14
•
As indicated pr.eviously, The Landing is intended to provide a coordinated range of land uses
that complement each other and the surrounding area. The proposed range of residential
and commercial uses are anticipated to be mutually beneficial and will provide a full-service
shopping and living destination. Development proposals for individual buildings and facilities
will be further evaluated at the Site Plan level.
Provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the Impacts
of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and
recreational facilities.
The residential component of The Landing is anticipated to provide approximately 900 multi-
family dwelling units. The proposed ,development will require improvements and new
construction for public facilities and utilities serving the site, as indicated in the Development
Agreement The proposed amount of residential development is a signifICant but
proportional use within the Landing, and is not anticipated to create impacts beyond those
anticipated in the EIS. The residential component will undergo further review at the Site Plan
level for such requirements as urban design forms, compatibility with adjacent uses,
pedestrian and vehicular access, and recreational needs.
E. Additional Site Plan Review Criteria (RMC 4-9-200)
The following site plan review criteria provided in RMC 4-9-200 are applicable to The Landing Master
Plan:
• The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, If applicable.
As indicated in the Planned Action determination dated May 12, 2006 (Exhibit 5), the Master
Plan is consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15,2004.
• The plan creates a compact, urban development that Includes a compatible mix of
uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the
Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan
designations.
As indicated above in Section D, the Master Plan is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
requirements for the UCN land use.
• The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and
provides quality development.
As indicated above in Section D, the UCN-1 zone requires Master Plan and Site Plan review
for the overall and specific development proposals, as well as consistency with the City's
Urban Center Design requirements.
Master Site Plan Rp\ The landing 05-136.doc
City of Renton PlBfPW Department
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
REPORT OF ~y 19,2006
,nU.II"/I ........... r ...• ,~ .............. _ ..... _ ••• '-r _ ..
LUA·OS·136, SA·M
Poge 6 0/14
• The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for
passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect
existing natural systems; and
• The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent
architectural features, or other items.
The above items will be further evaluated at the Site Plan level. However, the proposed
design of The Landing appears adequate to provide sufficient private and public open space,
and for the future 10catio[1 of other public features and distinctive items.
• Public andlor private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access
to property and supports the land use envisioned; and
• The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative
modes of transportation.
As previously indicated, the proposed design appears to provide adequate vehicuiar and
pedestrian access points and routes via the proposed network of driveways and streets to
serve the anticipated level of development. These items will be further evaluated at the Site
Plan level.
• The plan conforms to the approved conceptual plan required by development
agreement for the subarea In question, if applicable.
The Master Plan is consistent with the Conceptual Plan dated December 3, 2003, in that the
overall development proposal Is within the parameters of development types. uses, locations
and density envisioned in the Conceptual Plan for the site.
• The Master Plan includes a sequencing element. that explains what phases of the
Master Plan will be built-out first, and in what order the phases will be built, and an
estimated time frame.
The overall development is expected to have an approximate construction time of 1 to 3
years. The project has not been divided into phases although individual buildings may be
constructed at different times within portions of the site depending on coordinated
infrastructure and road improvements, and development plans of future tenants andlor
owners. Construction timing will receive additional review at the Site Plan level. Although
future development south of N. 8th St (Subdistrict 18) has sometimes been referred to as
·Phase II of the Landing", that area is not part of The Landing Master Plan application for
Subdistrict 1·A which Is currently under review.
Master Site Plan Rpt The Landing 05-136.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
J'lU""'U.H· I.U. ~'" ... ~ ........... , .... ~ ..... _,. "-r-"
LUA-05-I36, SA-M
REPORT OF MAY 19,2006 Page 7 of 14
• Development proposed in the zones where design guidelines are in effect must show
how they comply with the intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines
located in RMC 4-3-100.
As previously indicated in Section D, the project's compliance with the Urban Design
Regulations will be determined during review at the Site Plan level.
(F) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
The consistency analysis prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May B, 2006, included
an assessment of the project's consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and found the
project to be consistent with the relevant Comprehensive Plan requirements.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Urban Center North. The
following Comprehensive Plan pOlicies are applicable to the Master Site Plan proposal:
Policy LU-200. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed-use developments.
Consider bonus incentives for hOUsing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density
residential that is adjacent to Centers.
Policy LU-201. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed-use developments;
for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and retail.
Policy LU-20B. Consolidate access to existing streets and provide intemal vehicular circulation that
•
supports shared access.
Policy LU-210, Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design features such
as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces.
Policy LU·214: Support developments that utilize Urban Center levels of capacity.
Where market conditions do not support Urban Center employment and residential levels, support
site planning and/or phasing altematives that demonstrate how, over time, infill or redevelopment
can meet Urban Center objectives.
Policy LU·215. Site and building design should be pedestrian/people oriented with provisions for
transit and automobiles where appropriate.
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·275. Support an expanded and extended public right-of-way in the vicinity of the present
Logan Avenue 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·2BO. 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. 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·285. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to
facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities over time.
Policy LU-293. Support a mix of activities within the Urban Center -North deSignation that support
populations in adjacent residential areas as well as new deveiopment 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.
Masier Site Plan Rpt The Landing 05-136.doc
,
City Gf Renton PIBIP W Deplll1.ment
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PUN
REPORT OF MAY /9.2006
n ..... 'u~,. ... ~ ..... ~·r_ .. A_._. _ .. _ .. _ .. "-r-
LUA-OS-136 , SA-M
PageS'IN
Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban-scale
retail developments.
The Master Plan is consistent with the above Comprehensive Plan policies. Additional infonnation is
provided in the preceding specific analysis sections. Further review will be required during Site Plan
review for individual development components. Additional Comprehensive Plan policies will also
pertain to Site Plan review.
(G) Conformance with existing land use regulations
The subject site is zoned Urban Center North - 1 (UCN-1). The UCN-1 zone was envisioned as an
area with a broad range of redevelopment uses in a denSe employment center, including but not
limited to retail uses integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban-
scale mixed-use residential, offICe, entertainment and commercial uses. A mix of both larger
destination-retail stores and small specialty retail stores are encouraged. Residential development
should be in low-to mid-rise buildings that incorporate upper-story office and/or ground-related retail
uses where appropriate. The proposal for residential development with ground-level retail, and
range of retail stores, entertainment and restaurants within the interlinked areas of the site complies
with these requirements.
Development Standards
At the level of Site Plan review for individual development proposals within The Landing site,
proposals will be reviewed for compliance with relevant development standards, such as lot
coverage, setbacks, landscaping, building height, and parking requirements, and compliance with
the Urban Design Regulations In RMC 4-3-100.
Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan
Among other issues, the EIS analyzed potential onsite and offsite impacts in the following
categories:
• Stomnwater
• Land use pattems
• Transportation
• Earth
• Water resources
• Groundwater
• Shoreline habitat and fisheries
• Upland habitat and wildlife
• Hazardous materials
• Population, employment and housing
• Parks and recreation
• Aesthetics (light and glare)
• Noise
• Public Services
• Utilities
• Air Quality
The Blumen Consulting Group's consistency analysis concluded that the Master Plan does not
propose any changes to the development scope addressed in the EIS that would create additional
adverse impacts. The proposed project will be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses
Master Site Plan Rpt The landing 05-136.doc
,
•
,
City of Renton PlBlPW lJepartment
mE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
REPORT OF MAY} 9, 2006
J'J.UffllfiWIIWU"C: 11'1U.UC::1 '-lUI;:" l 'U1~ J.~r;;.y,,,,, J
LUA-05-H6, SA-M
Pag<9 of14
as permitted in the UCN-1 zone. Additional analysis of the development regarding these
requirements will take place during Site Plan review.
The proposed development will not result in proposed structures or site layouts that would impair the
use or enjoyment to surrounding uses and structures in the neighboring community. Based on the
Master Plan proposal, none of the structures will exceed UCN-1 development standards for size,
bulk, height and intensity. Pedestrian and vehicular access design standards in the Urban Design
Regulations are applicable to the site and appear to be adequate tei serve the proposed
development and provide transitions to the adjacent neighborhood. The site will incorporate
landscaping, screening and other means to coordinate the development with the surrounding area
and provide an aesthetic benefit. Vehicular parking and pedestrian-oriented areas will be designed
to promote efficient, safe and integrated service throughout the site. The Urban Design Regulations,
as applied to specific layouts during Site Plan Review, will ensure visual compatibility with
surrounding uses, including design and location of lighting.
Within the site, building placement and spacing appear adequate to provide for privacy and noise
reduction (residential development), orientation to views and site amenities, sunlight and air, and
pedestrian and vehicle needs. Based on the Master Plan proposal, the placement and scale of
proposed structures will not result in an overconcentration of buildings or the impression of
oversized structures within the overall scale of development. Open spaca and street frontages
within the site will be landscaped, with additional recreational area and open space provided within
the residential component for use and enjoyment by the residents.
Construction activities would result in short-term noise and dust on the site which could also affect
surrounding properties, limited to the period of the project's construction. Street improvements will
result in both short-term and long-term changes in traffic routes. The applicant is required to submit
a construction mitigation plan with Site Plan Review for approval prior to issuance of any building or
construction permit to verify the truck/haul routes· and note any other provisions related to
construction activities (detour/road closure plan).
Conservation of area-wide property values
The proposal would redevelop an underutilized area of the City and is expected to increase property
values in the vicinity of the site. The new development would provide improvements to enhance the
existing site and attract additional residents and customers on a regional basis.
Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was provided with The Landing project submittal. As part of the
Blumen Company's consistency analysis, a separate transportation consistency analysis was
prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC, dated 3/2212006. This analysis addressed
consistency with the transportation element of the EIS, and specifically with the land use and trip
generation assumptions that were used to evaluate transportation impacts of the proposed
redevelopment. The transportation consistency analysis indicated that estimated overall trip
. generation rates of the Landing are substantially less than the traffic demand levels used to evaluate
traffic impacts and develop mitigation in the EIS. There would be no differences in probably
significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from the proposed Landing development beyond those
previously assumed in the EIS. The Landing Master plan proposal Is within the capacity of the
range of development alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the EIS.
The Transportation Planning Section will conduct additional review of potential construction-related
impacts during Site Plan review for The Landing development, and prior to issuing final construction
permits.
Master Site Plan Rpt The landing OS-136.doc
•
•
City of Renton f'lJJlt'Yr uepartmenc
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
.~-., .•... -.. _.. -----. -
LllA-OS-136 , SA-M
REPORT OF MA Y 19. 2006 Page 10 DfU
The EIS addressed pedestrian connections that would be provided between areas of Subdistrict 1A
(including The Landing site) and adjacent areas. Approximately 23,330 sq ft of pedestrian-oriented
space would be provided in the non-residential portions of the development, primarily located in a
plaza in the northwest portion of the property. This area is referenced in the Master Plan submittal
as "The Walk". Pedestrian routes will be established along a promenade with features such as
shade trees, benches, canopies and landscaping to make the area attractive to pedestrians.
Additionally, the project will be required to meet code standards for pedestrian pathways through
parking lots, and the requirements of the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations (RMC 4-3-100)
for pedestrian amenities .
. As proposed in the Master Plan, the overall site design provides efficien~ safe vehicular and
pedestrian access to and from intemal development areas and the surrounding neighborhood.
Street and sidewalk improvements will be coordinated with adjacent properties to provide
appropriate transitions and a uniform appearance. Pedestrian movements will be encouraged and
accommodated by building entrances on side streets and pedestrian-oriented streets that provide
access to the larger site and neighborhood.
The proposed Master Plan is consistent with requirements for vehicle and pedestrian circulation as
provided in City code, and as evaluated in the EIS. More detailed review will be required as part of
the Site Plan review process.
Provision of adequate light and air
The Master Plan development proposal for the Landing is not anticipated to create any conditions of
inadequate light and air for residential or commercial stru.ctures, tenants or customers. More
detailed review of the height, orientation, location, proximity and access of proposed buildings and
surrounding areas will be required as part of the Site Plan review process. Safety and security
provided by onsite lighting will also be considered at that time.
Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions
It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would
occur during the construction phase of the project. The development is expected to generate noise
from normal commercial and retail uses that will not exceed thresholds anticipated in the EIS or
impact surrounding properties. More detailed review will be required as part of the Site Plan review
process. The applicant is required to submit a Construction Mitigation Plan for approval prior to
obtaining construction permits.
Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use
The EIS evaluated potential impacts to public services (including fire, police, schools and emergency
services) and utilities (water, sewer, stormwater) and established mitigation measures. The Blumen
Consulting Group's consistency analysis concluded that no changes are proposed to the
development scope addressed in the EIS that would create additional adverse impacts to public
services and facilities as a result of the Landing development proposal.
Utilities are required to be installed and extended as necessary to the proposed development by the
applicant as required by City Code. Additional review of public services and facilities, including
sizing and placement of underground utilities, will be conducted as part of the Site Plan review
process for individual development components of The Landing.
Mastsr Site Plan Rpt The Landing 05-136.dOC
CiC' ufRenton f'llJIYW Ueparlmem
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
REPORT OF MAY 19,2006
Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight
LUA-OS-136, SA-M
Page Jla!14
The Landing will redevelop an area that has been surplused by the Boeing Company and is no
longer being used to support airplane manufacturing, The proposed development will bring a mix of
new retail, office, entertainment, restaurant and residential amenities into the Subdistrict 1 A area
and is anticipated to enhance property values in the surrounding area,
xx Copies of all Review Comments are con tained in the Official File.
Copies of a/l Review Comments are attached to this report.
H. Findings, Conclusions & Decision
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following:
1) Request: The applicant has requested Administrative Master Site Pian Approval for The
Landing development proposal located at 1002 Park Ave N in Renton.
2) Master Site Plan Review: The applicant's Master Site Plan Application complies with the
submittal requirements for information for Master Site Plan review. The applicant's Master
Site Plan and project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 1-5,
• 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Center North (UCN),
•
5) Zoning: The subject proposal complies with the zoning requirements and development
standards of the Urban Center North-1 (UCN-1) Zoning designation,
6) Site Plan Criteria: The proposal mitigates impacts to the site and surrounding uses in
conformance with RMC 4-31-33(0) and the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan
Amendment EIS dated October 2003,
7) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North and West
Boeing aircraft manufacturing and ancillary operations; East Large-scale retail (Fry's and
Lowe's); South: Surplused Boeing properly and parking facilities,
. B) Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreement: The subject proposal complies
with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004, the Development Agreement
and Conceptual Plan dated December 1, 2003, and the revised Conceptual Plan dated
October 18, 2004,
E. Conclusions
1) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton,
2)
3)
The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Center North
(UCN, and the Zoning designation of Urban Center North -1 (UCN-1) .
The proposal complies with the site plan evaluation criteria as analyzed in Sections 0
through G of this report,
Master Site Plan Rpt The landing 0S-136.doc
City of Renton PIBIP W Department
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
REPORT OF MA r 1 9. 2006
nullu ...... , ... ~ ..... u~_ .... , ..... ~ .. _ ... --r _. _
L VA-OS·Hi , SA·M
Png< 12 of14
4) The subject proposal complies with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15,
2004, the Development Agreement and Conceptual Plan dated December 1, 2003, and the
revised Conceptual Plan dated October 18, 2004.
F. Decision
The Master Site Plan for The Landing, File No. LUA-OS-136, Is approved.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURES:
Nail Watts, Development SaNlcas Director data
TRANSMITTED this 19th day of Mey, 2006 to tha applicant and contact:
Nicolo Hemandez, PE
W&H Pacific
3350 Monto Villa Parkway
TRANSMITTED this 1 l' day of May, 2006 to the Parties of Record:
Lany Reymann
1313 N 38111 Street
Renton, WA 98056
Brent Carson
Buck & Gordon LLJ>
2025 First Avenue sle: #500
Seelll., WA 98121·3140
Lisa Kraft
5221 Francis Court SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Dennis J. O'Nen, LEG. LHG
Kleinfelder
2405140111 Avenue SE sle: #A·101
Bellevue. WA 98005
Sidney F. Hun~ AlA, MRAlC
Callison Archllecture, Inc.
1420 5111 Avenuo ste: #2400
Sealllo, WA 98101·2343
Joe Mclaughlin
2323 Mldlane Street ole: #26
Houston,TXn027
Jeffrey Adelson
Jeffrey Adelson
Boel"g Roalty Corporation
Box 3707, MIC 7H-AH
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
na Brotherton-Helm
Perkins Colo LLP
1201 Third Avenue ole: #4800
Seattle. WA 98101
Master Sito Plan Rpt The Landing 05-136.doc
Rob King
Harvest Partne",
20503 88111 Avenue W
Edmonds. WA 98026
Stephanie Lorenze. Realtor. ABR
John L Scott
4735 NE 4111 Street
Renton. WA 98059
Thomas Gwllym
933 Edmonds Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98056
Dirk Degena""
Managing Director
Transwestom Harvest Lakeshore
150 Wackar Drtve sle: #800
Chicago, IL 8OBOS
Tod A. Ruble
Partner
Transwestem Harvest Lakeshore
6214 Westchesler Orive sto: #650
Dallas. TX 75225
Mitch Ssaman
1629 Harvard Avanue ste: #509
Seatlle, WA 96122
Sieve Marquardt
Laborers' Northwesl Regional Organizing Coalition
12201 Tukwila IntomaHonal Blvd sle: #135
8ealllo, WA 96166
Claudia Newman
Bncklin Newman Dold, LLP
1001 4111 Avenue sle: #3303
Sealllo, WA 98154
•
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
REPORT OF MAY 19.2006
Daniel lewis
Director of Construction & Corporate Setvlces
TRANSMITTED this 1if" day of May, 2006 to the following:
Larry Meckling. Building Official
Stan Engler, Fire Prevention
NeD Watts, Development SelVlces Director
Jennifer Henning. Principal Planner
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Soulh County Journal
PACCAR. Inc.
PO Box 151a
Bellevue, WA 98009
1lU.IIUfl~U "''''''e; JYJ.~'Go' uu~ ~ ........... y .... "
LUA-05-136 , SA-M
Page Ij 0[14
Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of the land use decision must be filed In writing on or
before 5:00 PM on June 5, 2006 (14 days from the date appeal period ends).
If no appaals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the
required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA9805S.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's OfFice, (425)-430-6510.
Master Sits Plan Rpt The Landing 05-136.cIoc
City of Remon PIBIPW Department
THE LANDING MASTER SITE PLAN
REPORT OF MAYI9, 2006
AClmmlStrallve MaSler iJue rLC,J,Il At;PVI t
LUA-OS-H6, SA-M
PageU·fU
I • Note: . Exhibits 1 thr~Ugh 4 of the Administrative Master Site Plan Report for The Landing
(In,UA05-1361 are available for review at the Citv of Renton Development Servic;es Division,
6 Floor of City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Ren(on, WA
•
Master Sits Plan Rpt The LandIng.05-136.doc
,
CALLISON
SITE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT NARRATIVE
THE LANDING
May 22'., 2006
LUA05 -136, SA-M, SA-A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Information
General Design Statement
UCN1 Consistency Report
Urban Center Design Overlay Report
Discussion of Project Identification Tower
APPENDIX
Page 1
Page 2
Page 5
Page 17
Page 42
o~
. CITY 01> RE~
JUN 07 2tK!
RECEIVED
"Sign" Images Sheet -Relating to the Discussion of Project Identification Tower
Current Construction Phasing Information (plan and Schedule)
PROJECT INFORMATION
Size and Location of Site:
The project encompasses 38.4 acres and is bounded by Logan Ave North, Park Avenue North,
North 10'" Street, Garden Ave North and North 8'" Street.
Zoning Designation of Site and Adjacent Properties:
The project site is zoned UC-N1 as are all adjacent areas. UC-N1 allows the proposed
development range (697,500 sqft. maximum to 524,000 sqft. minimum) of mixed uses consisting of retail,
entertainment, restaurants, four-level parking structure and surface parking.
Current Use of the Site:
The project site has been occupied by a parking lot and various industrial buildings. Currendy
the site is being rough graded (grinding asphalt and concrete paving) and building pads are being pre-
loaded with fill.
Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development:
Harvest Partners, Transwestern Investment Company, Madison Marquette, Callison
Architecture, and SD Deacon General Contactors have teamed to develop an urbao neighborhood at the
Boeing Company's former Renton 757 Plant site. The-project includes approximately 553,800 sqft of
d',"
both Iiiig" and smaii format retail, a 54,000 sqft, twelve screen cinema, 679 stalI, four level parking garage
1" ,,---'-c''''_,·r~,·,;· """'_"'""'·_'·',", .. c ___ " __ "'_' .-• -'._-"-",-_:.,"_.'--"" '-'~:)"
and 2,OOt sunace parking spaCes,: Occupancies, construction type and square footage of individual
buildings can be found on page 58 of the 11x17 color book. The overaii Landing project also includes a
CALLISON ARCHITECTURE, INC.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE u .. oo SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-2343
--T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.cBlllaon.com
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May IS"', 2006
northeast residential parcel located east of Park Avenue North, containing approximately 900 units and
15,000 sf of retail, which is being prepared and submitted separarely by Fairfield Residential LLC
Estimated quan~iti~,~ ,~~.mc; of materials involved if any fill or excavation'is proposed:
Thi'iiri"~:'~ii~ ''@calling '~d preparation will be a balaoced cut and fill of existing ground asphalt
concrete and grav4 ,"ub-bas;l:hat has been tested and approved for compacted foundation and slab support.
There will be sub-surfllc~ ~jned ,piles installed under several buildings. There will be several GC construction
~ ... _~ \: ~ •. :1.
trailers located on-'site' with an Owner's sales office. Street trees and sidewalks will be installed on both
internal and external project streets and where appropriate existing street trees and parking lot light poles will
be evaluated for re-use. Major intersections will include special paving at crosswalk locations and large
building blank facades, including the west side of the parking structure, will be screened with landscaping and
vertical trellis elements as deemed necessary and appropriate.
GENERAL DESIGN STATEMENT
A description of the city of Renton, Washington would be woefully incomplete without a great deal
of emphasis on what it has built. Renton is a place that 'makes;' locomotives, trucks, tanks, lumber, energy
and planes .. .lots of planes. But Renton is also a place that 'lives.' Many of those that produced so
energetically also chose to live in Renton. It is a place with its own identity among the communities
surrounding Seattle. The Landing, a mixed-use project of residential, retail and entertainment, was conceived
as an expression of this place that 'makes' and 'lives.' And Renton continues to live, and grow and change.
With the height of its manufacturing production behind it, Renton and its people are transitioning and its
image must change with it.
Land formerly used by industry is being remade into the progressive heart of an emerging
neighborhood on the southern tip of Lake Washington. The Landing will' be this heart and a symbol of this
transition for Renton and the surrounding Seattle communities. The project's personality will tuget the
delivery of exciting, ''live, shop, cline" experiences while being mindful of the desire to reflect the area's
heritage; an attitude preferred by the city and appreciated by the residents. The proposed personality will be
unique to Renton. Design ideas began with a nod to the past, drawing from the idea of 'making.' Industtial
materials like steel, concrete and brick will be assembled in an honest, simple, and direct manner without
superfluous ornamentation. 1bis industrial flavor, mixed with pure, bold forms and shapes, will result in a
clean, modem and unique orchestration of both style and warmth. It will be a place that 'lives.'
The design/development team of The Landing has spent significant time and effort to achieve high
standards of design for this project and feel confident that the results meet and or exceed the aesthetic goals
of the City of Renton. The design has been tailored specifically to Renton, based on concepts inspired by the
local context. These values have been encouraged in the design of each tenant space and building, in order to
meet the desires of the city and also to knit the project into a cohesive whole. The building exteriocs and
2
I
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May IS"', 2006
hardscape have been designed to contain a variety of materials, forms, features and colors. Facades are
modulated and articulate, heights and roof lines vary from building to building as well as within each building
in order to be sensitive to human scale and the greater context of the site. Building facades facing pedestrian
areas contain 75% or more of retail storefront. Service areas are deemphasized and more rigorously
landscaped. To further enhance the pedestrian experience, The Landing contains a major plaza, water
features, outdoor seating, interesting thematic elements and various districts, eac~ with its own character.
Each district responds to its own use and context, and therefore achieves its own unique character
while fitting together as a whole. Areas of the project are more pedestrian, and the design responds to that;
other areas border busy streets and they reflect that accordingly.
The 'prelude to the show' is called "The Avetlue." This district includes Park Avenue North and its
retail frontages. It is a tree-lined, urban access corridor that connects to every other district except for
"Market Lane." Builcling facades in this district will have the most exposure to passing traffic and th6r
designs 'brand' the project as something unique and worth experiencing. Light poles contain multiple fixtures
to respond to both vehicular and pedestrian needs. The southern half of ''The Avenue" is more heavily
landscaped in order to screen the adjacent parking. Park Avenue North is a public and well traveled street
but as it passes by and through multiple districts, the design intent is to give passer-bys the sense that they are
'in' a unique place the moment they turn onto Park Avenue, regardless of their choice to stop or continue on
-just like the sense a person gets as they are driving through an historic neighborhood or a downtown
business district.
The Landing's northeast quadrant, the ''Fairfield'' district (submitted under separate SPR
application), contains a development of charming urban living in the new downtown Renton neighborhood.
This development, in both materiality and density, is urban in character and will provide an on-site population
to continually activate the project space.
The project's main plaza and supporting areas, located on Entertainment Boulevard, is called "The
Landing Place." This district is planned as an entertainment zone with a multiplex cinema, restaurants and
specialty retail·shops. The project's highest density of both people and energy will occur in this portion of
the development, and is served by a four level parking garage. A low vehicular volume retail street runs
through the center of the plaza and is designed to allow for closure to accommodate events or festivals. This
district will have enhanced hardscape for defining the space and calming traffic, quality site fumiture, lighting
and a water feature to fuither enliven the space. With the cinema and garage located'in this district, it .
contains the greatest amount of scale, complexity and depth in the project. Smaller buildings are layered next
to larger o'hes for aesthetic balance and human scale. Bold architectural forms, exciting graphics, signage and
landscaping are used here to create interest and energy while outdoor seating, canopies, street level glazing
and plantings maintain the primary importance of the pedestrian environment.
3
The Landing: Site plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
Complementing the energy of "The Landing Place" is the sophisticated simplicity of "The
Boulevard." This district is mostly defined by North 1 0'" Street and contains fashion and lifestyle retail and
restaurants. Although North 10'" Street has a higher vehicular volume than Entertainment Boulevard, it is
still a dominantly pedestrian street. Crossings are more defined compared to Entertainment Boulevard
because of the presence of parallel parking. Buildings are a bit smaller in scale but just as unique in character.
Larger, bolder, architecrural moves have transitioned to a more subtle expression of materiality and form.
Both fabric and metal canopies abound, framed by warm materials like brick and richly painted stucco as well
as metal cladding and colored concrete panels. Signage and graphics in this area are stylish and clever rather
than loud.
The southem district has been named "The Walk." It contains both large and small format
neighborhood retail as well as restaurants in a convenient setting. The pedestrian route serving these retailers
contains both deciduous and shade trees, "resting pockets" of seating and landscaping and pedestrian scale
light poles. Buildings are characterized by their strong facades, larger scale and bolder forms. Extensive
storefronts underneath broad canopies have been encouraged to both balance the architecrural elements and
facilitate a positive, pedestrian experience. Articulation. and attention as well as effective landscaping have
been extended to every side in order to create 'complete' buildings.
Bridging the districts of 'The Boulevard" and 'The Walk" in the middle of the site is a marketplace
district known as "Msrket .Lane." Designed to accommodate small scale retail and outdoor markets with
community and seasonal events, a portion of the parking in this district is designed to serve these activities
when necessary and when not in use can be used as additional parking. "Market Lane" contains banner
poles, unique paving and accentuated pedestrian pathways to make this area comfortable and give it its own
identity.
4
· The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
UC-Nl CONSISTENCY REPORT
RMC 4-2-010.B -According to the map posted in the offices at the city of Renton, this project is located in
the VCNI zoning district "e."
RMC 4-2-010.E -For additional restrictions on land use, VCNI references RMC 4-3-100.
RMC 4-2-060 -Project Uses:
Big·Box Retail -Permitted, note 79 section 4·2-080.
a. Must fonction a! an anchor to larger retail devehpments thai are planned a! part of an integrated and
cohesive center.
The project meets this requirement. Anchors are planned as part of an integrated and cohesive center.
b. Big-box use must be connected to additional strud1lre.r within a shopping center with supporting retail or
service uses structures with common walls, or plaZa!, or other similar features, exc/udingposhcarts/ kiosks.
Big-boxes are connected to additional structures within the project by physical and aesthetic means.
c. Buildings oriented ahng Park Avenue must have one or more pedestrian entries on Park Avenue.
The large retail store close to Park Avenue, building 400, has been designed with an entry facing Park.
Eating and Drinking Establirhments-Permitted, note 81 section 4-2-080.
No stand-alDne structures smaller than jive thousand (5,000) square feet, except for pushcarts/kiosks,
unkss architecturallY and fonctionally integrated into a shopping center or mixed use deuelopment.
All structures on the project are architecturally and functionally integrated together.
Retail Sales -Permitted, note 82 section 4-2-080.
a. Multi-story, stand-ahn, mail buildings greater than seuen!] jive thousand (75,000) square feet are
aIle.,ed onlY with structured parking and a maximum btDldingfootprint of six!J jive thousand (65,000)
square feet.
Building 400 has a total square footage of 110,000 sf, structured parking is provided on-site, and the
building's footprint is 55,000 sf.
b. No freestanding structures smaller than jive thousand (5,000) square feet are permift8d, unless
anhitectural!J and fonctional!J integrated into overall sbopping center or mixed use develcpment.
All structures on the project are architecturally and functionally integrated together.
c. Buildings oriented along Park Avenue must have one or more pedestrian entries on Park Avenue.
Buildings oriented along Park Avenue have entries on Park Avenue and/or at the building comers.
Movie Them." -Permitted, note 83 section 4-2-080.
a. Movie facilities with more than four (4) screens must be architectural!J and fonctionallY integrated into
overall shopping center or mixed use devehpment.
The movie theater is architecturally and functionally integrated into the overall development.
5
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
h. Buildings oriented along Park Avenue must have one or more pedestrian entries on Park Avenue.
Not applicable.
RMC 4-2-120.E -Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations
Lot Dimensions
Minimum Lot Si'{!
25am.r
The individual lots tbat make up tbe project were preexisting.
Lot Coverage
Moximum Lot Coverall for Bllildings
90% 0/ total area or 100% if parking is provided JlJithin the building or within a parking garage.
The project's lot coverage is less tban 90% of tbe total lot are •.
Density
Not applicable.
Setbacks
Minim"", / Maxim"", Yardr
Not applicable.
Clear Vision Area
. " -:-; ....
C'
In no case shaH a structHre over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20ft. dear vision area defoted in RMC 4-
11-030.
No structure intrudes into the clear vision area.
Mini",,,,,, On-SiteL:md.rCDJ>e Width -Along the Street Frontage
AU tetbacks fro'" the publk right-of-III'!Y shaH be landscaped.
All setbacks from the public right-of-way are landscaped.
Mini",,,,,, On-Site Lzndscape Wideb &quiredAlong the Street Frontage When a Com",mia/ Lzt if A4/aant to
PropertY ZonedR-l, R-4, R-8, R-l0, R-14 or RM
Not applicable.
Height
Maxi",,,,,, Building Height
10 stories aIongprimary and secondary arnria/s. 6 storm along residential/ ",inor co/Mm.
The highest point on any structure in the project is less than ten stories. The highest point is 88'
(main project tower).
Screening
6
-----0-~~~ ... .L ..,AU H.CYJ'.:::W J'\oruoonaL .:::iubmittal
May 18'", 2006
Minimum Requiredjor Outdoor Loading, Repair, Maintenance, Storage or Work Arel1!,' Swface-Mounted Utility
and Mechankal Equipment,· Rooj Top Equipment (Except for Telerommunicatian Equipment)
See RMC 44-095. (Shown Below)
4-4-095 SCREENING AND STORAGE HEIGHT/LOCATION LIMITATIONS:
A.-C.
No response applicable.
D. SURFACE MOUNTED EQUIPMENT:
1. General Screening:
AD an·site surface mounted utility equipment shall be screened from public view. Screening shaD
contist if equipment cabinets enclosing the utility equipment, solid jencing or a waD if a height at
least as high as the equipment it screens, or a landscaped visual barrier aIlolvingfor reasonable
acuss to equipment. Equipment cabinetsJenting, and walls shall be motit if materials and/ or
colors rompatible 71Iith building materials.
All on-site utility equipment is screeded from public view. TIlls is accomplished either by equipment·
cabinets, solid fencing or walls, landscaped, visual barriers or any combination of these elements.
Screens used for are made of materials that are integrated into the overall design scheme of the
project.
E. ROOF-TOP EQUIPMENT:
All operating equipment located on the roif if a'!Y building shaD be enclosed so as to be screened
from public view, exduding telecommunications equipment. Shielding shaD consist if the foDolving:
1. New Construction: Rbif wells, clensfDries, or parapets, walls, solid fencing, or
other similar solid, nonreflective barriers or enclosures as determined /Jy the Reviewing
Official fD meet the intent if this requirement.
The screening of roof-top equipment is accomplished primarily through the use of raised parapets.
Where parapets are not sensible to use, the equipment is screened with barriers that are fully
integrated into the overall design scneme of the project.
F.-J.
No response applicable.
(End of Section)
&fuse or Rerycling
See RMC 44-090. (Shown Below)
4-4-090 REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES STANDARDS:
A.-B.
No response applicable.
7
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPU0BLE TO AIL USES:
1. Dimensions: Dim.n.rions of the refu" and ",yclables deposit areas shaD he of sufficient width and
depth to enclose mntainers for refuse and re"clables, and mallow eav access.
The project meets this requirement.
2. Location in Setback or Landscape Areas Prohibited: Outdoor refuse and re"clables deposit
areas and collection poina shaD not he located in a'!1 required setback or landscape areas.
The project meets this requirement.
4. Obstruction Prohibited: Collection poina shaD be located in a manner so that hauling truck.r do
not obstruct pedestrian or whicle trqffo on-site, or project into G'!J public right-oj-"'t9.
The project meets this requirement.
5_ CoUocation Encouraged: When possible, th, ""clables dtposit areas and collection points shaD be
located atfjacent to or near garboge collection areas to encouroge their us,.
The project meets this requirement.
6. Signage Required: Refuse or re"clables deposit areas shaD be identified I!f signs not exce,ding two
(2) square feet
The project meets this requirement.
7. Architectural Design of Deposit Areas to Be Consistent with Primary Structure:
Architectural design of Q'!1 structure enclosing an outdoor rifwe or ,."clables deposit area or any building
primarify used m contain a refuse or re"clables deposit area shaD be consident with the design of the primary
sfr1Icture(s) on the site as determined I!f the DCVt1lopment Strokes Division Diredor.
The project meets this requirement. Enclosures used are made of materials that are integrated into the
overall design scheme of the project.
8. Screening of Deposit Areas: Garbnge dumpsters, rifwe compactor areas, and re"ding m/kdion
• areas must be.fonad or screened. A six foot (6) wall or fence shaD enclose any outdoor refuse or re",lables
deposit area. In cases ",here Zoning Code ftncingprovisions conflict with the six fo.t (6) waO or ftnce
requirement, tbe Zoning Code provisiOn! shaD rule.
The project meets this requirement. Trash areas are screened from view by a 6' wall or fence.
9. Minimum Gate Opening and Minimum Vertical Oearance: Enclosuresf.routdo.r refuse
or ,."clables deposit areas! collection points and separate buildings used primarify m contain a refuse or
re"clables deposit area! collecti.n point shaD haw gate openings at least hvelve ftet (12' wide for haulers. In
addition, the gate optf1ingfor a'!1 separate building or other rooftd structure used primarify as a refuse or
re"dables deposit area! (ollection point sbaO have a vertical ckaran<tJ of at least fifteen ftet (15 ,.
The project meets this requirement. The trash areas provided are of required size.
8
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
10. Weather Protection: Weather protection of refuse and "ryelables shaU be ensured fry using weather-
proofed rontainers or fry providing a roof over the storl1f,e area.
The project meets this requirement.
D. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
Not applicable.
E COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS -ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSIT AND
COLLECTION AREAS:
The "juse and "ryclabkr deposit areas and colleeticn points for commercial, industrial and other
nonresidential developments shall be apportioned, IocaM and designed as foUows:
1. Location: Refuse and "ryclable! deposit areas and colkction points m'!J be aUocated fIJ a centralized
area, or dispersed throughout the site, in easify accessible areas jor both users and hauling fruch.
The project meets this requirement.
2. AcceSsibility M'!J Be Limited,· Access to refuse and ,.ryclables deposit areas and collection points m'!J
be limited, except during regnlar business hours and/or specific rolkction hours.
5. Retail Developments -Minimum Size: In ,.tail developments, a minimum of five (5) squa,.
feet per every one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross foor area shaU be provided for ,.ryclables
deposit areas and a minimum of len (10) square jeet per one thousand (1,000) sqUa11! feet of building gross
foor area shoU be provided for refuse deposit areas. A Mal minimum area of one hund,.d (100) squa,. jeet
shall be provided jor ,.rycling and rejuse deposit areas.
The project meets this requirement. The required square footage for refuse and recyclables has been
calculated for each space and reflected in the project design.
F.-G.
No response applicable.
(End of Section)
Parking and LoacWw
General
See RMC 44'{)80 (Shown Below) and 10-10-/3.
4-4-080 PARKING, LOADING AND DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS:
A.-E.
No response applicable.
F. PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Maneuvering Space/Use of Public Right-of. Way: Maneuvering space shaU be completelY ojJ
the right-ofw'!J of a'1Y public street except for parking spaces provided for single jamiIY dweUings and
duplexes. -1lfeys shall not be used jor offstreet parking and Ioadingpurposes, but may be used for
9
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
maneuvering tpace.· Parallel parking stalls shaU be de!igned so that doors of vehicle! do not open onto the
public right-of-w'!J.
The project meets this requirement.
2. Maximum Parking Lot and Parking Structure Slopes: Maximum slopes for parking lotr
shall not exceed eight percent (8%) smpe.)
The project meets this requirement.
3. Access Approval Required: The ingrw and egros of aH par!eing mtr and struct",>! shaH be
approved i!Y the Dev.mpment Service! Divinon. (Ord. 3988, 4-28-1986)
4. Linkages: The. Planning! Building/Public Work! Department shaD have the authority to utablish, or
calm to be established, bicycle, high o""/Jancy vehick and pedestrian Jinleagu tvithirr pMblic and private
dovempmerrtr. Erifomment shaH be admini!tered through the normal site detign revieIV and/or permitting
proce!s. Adjl<!tmenl! to the standard parking requirements of mbsedion F10 of thi.! S edion m'!J be mado i!Y
the Planning/ Building/Public Work! Department bated on the extent of these service! to be provitkd. (Ord.
4517,5-8-1995)
5. Lighting: A'!J lighting on a par!eing mt shaH il"'minate onlY the parking mt and shaH he dotigned and
mcated so a! to avoid IIndti. glare or refodion of light p"rmant to RMe 44'()75, Exterior On-site
Lighting. Light standordr shaH not be meated so as to inkrftre tvith parking stalls, stacking area! and
mgros and egress areas. (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
The project meets this requirement.
6. Fire Lane Standards:
The project meets the requirements of this section. Plans have been reviewed by the city of Renton ftte
department.
7. Landscape Requirements:
e. Ceneral &quiremenl! for AU Parking Lotr:
i. Sqfety Standards: Londscaping shaH not conflict tvith the sqfety of those using the
par!eing mt, adjacent .tidewalk!, or tvith tr4ftc sqfety. The ckar vision area shaH be k£pt
foe of plants that bltJck sight lines.
The project meets this requirement.
ii. &tention of Existing Landscaping Encollrag.d.· Wh".. passibk, existing mature trees
and shrubs !haH be premved and incorportthd in the landscape It!JOllt.
The project meets this requirement. Existing trees on the east side of the site have been leftin place in the
design.
v. Minimum Width: Arry landscaping area shaH be a minim"", of five Jut (5' ill tvidth.
The project meets this requirement.
10
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May IS"', 2006
vi. Minimum Amounts: S urjate parking lots with more than fourteen (14) stalls shaD be
landrcaped as folltiws:
(35 sf of landscaped area per parking staU)
The project meets this requirement. The amount of required landscaped space per parking stall has been
calculated and provided in the design.
f Minimum LAndrcaping Width Requirements Abutting Public Right-ofW'!J: Parking /t;ts shall
haJJe landrcaped areas as follows:
i. Right Angle and Ninety Degree (90? S taUs: A minimum width 0/ five feet (5 J for
right angle and nin,ty degree (90, parking staUs alting the abuttingpublit right-of""!Y
except for areas of Ingress and egrw.
The project meets this requirement.
ii. Angled Parking LAyouts, Forming a Sawtooth Pattern: Shall maintain a minimum
of five:fOot (5 J landrcaping strip in the narrowest part 0/ the sawftJoth pattern abutting a
public right-ofw'!J.
The project meets this requirement.
g. Special LAndrcape and Screening Standardrfor Storage LAts: See RMe 4-4-120, Storage
Lots, Outnde.
No Stornge lots are provided.
h. Planting Requirements for Parking Lots and Other Applicable Uses:
,: Where lots requinng landrcapingfront public rights-ofw'!J or sfreef.!, sfreet trees shall
be required as specified I!J the Ciry o/Renton.
The project meets this requirement. Street trees will be provided by the City of Renton. See city road plans
submitted with this document for reference.
ii. On sidewalks used I!J pedestrians (as determined I!J the Develtipment S e,"ices
Director), sfreet trees shall be instalkd with tree grates.
The project meets this requirement.
iii. Street frees shall be placed at the average minimum rate of one free every thirIJ (30)
lineal feet 0/ street frontage.
The project meets this requirement.
iv. Provide trees, shrubs, and groundeover in the required perimeter and int,rior lot
landrcape areas.
The project meets this requirement.
(a) In addition to street trees specified herein, plant at least on' tre, for every six
(6) parking spaces within the ltit intmor.
11
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18 m, 2006
(b) Plant shrubs at the rate offive (5) per one hundred (100) square feet of
lanthcape area. Shrubs shaU have a mature height hel/llten three (3) and four
(4) feet Up m fifty pernnt (50%) of shrubs m'!Y be deciduous.
The project meets this requirement.
The project meets this requirement.
The project meetS this requirement.
(c) Groundcover shaD he planted in stifftcient quantities to provide at least
ninety perrent (90%) (Overage of the planting area within three year.r of
installation.
(d) Do not have 1110rt than ft.ft.y feet (50 J hemen parking staU and a
lanthcape area.
i. Undet;ground Irrigation Sytem Required: Undet;ground irrigation ty.rte111s shaD be required m he
instalkd and maintained for aU lanthcaped areas. The irrigation tyston shaD provide fuU wain'
coverage of the planted areas as specified on the plan.
The project meets this requirement. Underground irrigation is provided.
8. Parking Stall Types, Sizes, ancl Percentage ADowecl/Requirecl:
(The following text has been previously submitted to the City of Renton for review and comment in a lettet
dated February 28 m, 2006.)
According to the Renton Municipal Code, standard, structured parking spaces are required to be a minimum
of 15' x 8'-4" and compact spaces for structured parking are required to be a minimum of 12' x 7'-6," with
the maximum number of compact spaces not to exceed 50%. The Landing's proposed standard, structured
parking size is 18' x 9' stalls with 18' x S' stalls provided at approximately 10% of the total. Standard, surface
parking stalls, per the Renton Municipal Code, are required to be 19' x 9' and compact spaces are required to
be 16' x S'-6." The Landing proposes the use of the nationally accepted standard, surface parking stall size of
lS' x 9' with less than 7% compact stalls sized at 16' x 9'. Although The Landing~ proposed standard, surface
stalls are 18' rather than 19' in length, the quality of total, on-site parking would far exceed the standards
allowed in the code. Increasing the proposed surface parking stall size to 19' would cause the reduction of
significantly more stalls to compact, 16'x S' -6" size as well and negatively impact the aesthetics of the
project's parking areas. We ask to be allowed the use of the aforementioned, proposed parking stall sizes.
g. Accessible Parking as Stipu/aied in the Am.ricans with Disabilities Ad (ADA): Accessible
parking shaD he provided per the requiremenlJ of th, Washington State Barrier Free Standarth as
adopteditJ the Dty ofRmmn.
The required number of accessible parking spaces has been calculated and provided. Spaces have been
located in proportion to the amount of square footage to be served.
9. Aisle WiclthStanclare/s:
12
'He L.anamg: "Ite I'lan Kevlew Additional Submittal
May 18"'. 2006
The project meets this requirement. Parlcing spaces and aisles have been provided based on the standards of
this code though modified per the discussion of section 8 above.
10. Number of Parking Spaces Required:
e. Parking Spaces &quired Based on LAnd Use:
SHOPPING CENTERS:
Shupping (entm (includes al!Y type 0/ business occupying a shopping center):
A minimum 0/0.4 per 100 squarefeet o/netfoor area and a maximum 0/
0.5 per 100 squarejeet 0/ netflooraretZ. In the UC-NI and UC-N2 Zones,
a maximum 0/0.4 per 100 square jeet o/n.t floor area is permitted unless
structured parking if provided, in which case 0.5 per 100 square feet 0/ net
floor ana is permitted. Drive-through retail or drive-through semce uses must
comp!y with the stacking space provisions listed above.
The parlcing ratio of the project is .44 per 100 sf of net £loor area. The project does contain structured
parlcing.
G. PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS:
L Surfacing Requirements for Parking Areas: AU ojJ-sm.t parking areas shaD be paved with
asphaltic conmte, cement or equivalent material 0/ a permanent nab", as approved /Jy the Public Works
Department.
The project meets this requirement.
2. Surfacing Requirements for Storage Lots: SkJrage kits m~ be surfaced with crushed rock or
similar material approved /Jy the Public Works Department.
The project meets this requirement.
3. Marking Requirements: AI! parking areas other than those for single familY residential and duplex
dwellings shaD have stalls marked and aCcess /anes &learb defined, including directional arrows kJ guide
internal cirtuiation.
a. AU en/.rances and exits shoO be designated as such /Jy markings on the parking lot pavement in
addition kJ al!Y sigus which m~ be used as entrance and exit guides.
The project meets this requirement.
h. All markings are kJ be 0/ commercia! traffic paint or .qual material and are to be maintained in
a legible condition.
The project meets this requirement.
c. AU accessible (Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA), compact and guest parking spaces
shaD be marked.
The project meets this requirement.
13
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
4. Wheel Stops Required: Wheel sfops shall be '"IJui"d on the periphery of the parkillg /of so the &ars
shall 1I0t protrude into the public righl-oj-w'!) of fhe parking /ot, or strike buildings. Wheel stops .rhall he fI/Jo
feet (2 ? from the elld of the .rtall for head·ill parkillg.
The project meets this requirement.
5. Drainage: Drainage shaD meet CiIY "quirements, including the location of fhe draills and the dUposal
of water.
The project meets this requirement.
H. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS:
No response applicable.
L D.RIv.EWAY DESIGN STANDARDS:
The project meets this requirement. All road work is being designed by the City of Renton.
J. LOADING SPACE STANDARDS:
1. Loading Space Required: For all building.r hena.fter mded, "conslnlded or enlarged, adequate
permanent off-street loading space shall be provided if fhe adiviIY camed on ill .ruch buildillg requires
deliveries to il or shipments from it of people or merchalldise. Loading space shall be in additioll 10 '"IJui"d
off-street parking spaces.
2. Plan Required: Loadillg space .rhaD be .rhol/Jll 011 a P/all and submitted for approval /Jy the
Development Services Divisioll .
.1. Projection into Streets or Alleys Prohibited: No portiOIl of a vehicle fakillgpart in loading or
ullfoading adivioo shall proJed into a public streel or~. IlIgnss and egnss points from public rights-of
I/J'!) at designated drivel/J'!)s shall be designed and located ill .ruth a manner a.r to ",chide off-site or on-street
maneuvering of vehicles.
The project meets this requirement.
4. Minimum Clear Area for Dock High Loading Doors: Buildings which IltiIi'(!l dock-high
Ioadillg doors shall PrtJlJide a minimum one hUlld"d feef (100? of clear maneuvering a"" in front of etu'h
door.
The project meets this requirement.
5. Minimum Clear Area for Ground Level Loading Doors: Buildings which utili'(!l groulld
level.rervice or loading doors shall provide a millimum of fortY five feet (45? of clear malleuvering a"a ill
fronl ofeach door. (Ord. 3988, 4-28-1986)
The project meets this requirement.
K-M.
No response applicable.
(End of Section)
14
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
Required Location for Attes.rory or Existing Parking
On a Pedestrian·Oriented Street: Parking may not be located belllleen proposed building assoriated with
parking and pedestrian.oriented public streets unless located within structured parking garage. On Other
Artenals, ucal Streets, and Internal Streets: Parking shaU be located connstmt with RMC 4·3·100EI,
Urban Center Dengn Overlay Regulations. Site planning must demonstrate jetUible future location of
structured parking It! accommodate iojill development.
No parking is located between the pedestrian paths and the building the parking serves. Please the
Urban Design Overlay Report contained in this document for a discussion regarding this section.
Pedestrian Access
General
Must coojim" It! pedeJtrian regulations located in Urban Center Design OtlCrlay regulations (RMC 4·3·
100).
Please the Urban Design Overlay Report contained in this document for a discussion regarding this
section.
Signs
General
Pole signs and roof signs are prohibited SIgns suo/ed It! Urban Center Design Overlay regulations (RMC 4·
3-100).
No pole signs exist in the project. Please reference the section of this document called "Discussion
of Project Identification Tower" for more information regarding project identifiers.
Loading Docks
ucation
Parking, docking and loading areas jor truck traffic shaU be oJfstreet and screened from view of abutting
public streets.
Parking, docking and loading areas for truck traffic are off-street and screened from view of abutting
public streets per the landscaping screening requirements found in sections 4-3-100 and 4-3-080.
Dumpster/Recycling CoUecdon Area
Si!(! and Location ofRefose or RecydingAreas
See RMC 44'{)90.
The project meets this requirement. Please see the response to this section previously stated In this
'document.
CridcaJ Areas
General
15
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"'. 2006
See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090.
Not applicable.
Special Development Standards
Design Guidelines
See RMC 4-3-100 for Urban Center Design Over,,:! "pom applitabk to UC-N1.
Please see the Urban Center Design Overlay Report as presented in this document_
16
· The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18'" 2006
URBAN CENTER DESIGN OVERLAY REPORT
Note: All italic headings reference the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations as expressed in section 4-3-
100 Vrban Design Regulations' of the Renton Municipal Code. Normal type represents comments made by
The Landing development team. Code sections that are not applicable (for example: standards required for
other districts) have been removed.
4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS:
A.-D.
No response applicable.
E. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City ojRenton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center DistridI;plan diItridI that
are organized for efficienry while maintainingflexibility for fulure tieve"'pmenl at high urban denlitie! and intensitie! oj
ute; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide
service to hllSintueJ.
h. Minimum Standards for District 'C':
i. Provide a network ofpNb/ic and! or private local streets in addition to public arterials.
ii. Maintain a hierard!y of streets to provide organi~d circulation that promotes use I!J multiple
transportation modes and 10 aVOId overburdening the roadw<;y !}stem ..
The project meets this standard. The Landing contains a hierarchy of streets and paths. Logan Avenue is
the high visibility street that feeds to the arterial streets of Park Avenue North, Garden and North 8'" Street.
and North 10'" Street between Logan and Park is a more intimate, pedestrian street, as well as the private
"Entertainment Boulevard" that winds through the heart of the project. The design responds to these
different conditions by applying appropriate scale and signage, as well as the placement of buildings on the
site. Pedestrian paths that interlace the site, connecting major elements and districts, minimize the reliance on
automobiles to move from one area to another, thereby alleviating congestion. Major intersections include
special paving at crosswalk locations. Parking areas are accessible from multiple points, reducing potential
"bottle necking" and allowing greater mobility.
2. Building Locarion tmd Orientarion:
b. Minimum Standards for District 'C':
i. Buildings on delignated pedestrian·oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian.oriented facades" and clear
connemons to the sidewalk (lee ilblStra!ion, RMC 4-3-1 OOE7 aJ. S Nch buildings shall be "'cokd a,yarent to
17
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
the sidewalk, exapt wher. pedestrian-oriented spaa is located between the building and the sidewalk.
Parking bell/leen the building and pedestrian-Qriented streetI is prohibited.
The project meets this standard. All buildings fronting on pedestrian oriented streets contain pedestrian-
oriented facades. The Landing is heavily oriented toward facilitating a· strong pedestrian environment by
activating the sidewalks and other pedestrian paths. Sidewalk widths vary but are normally 12'-0" or greater,
thereby creating pedestrian friendly uses including outdoor seating and dining, entry canopies, signage, and
building mounted weather protection to provide multiple amenities. Landscaping is valued as a significant
tool to achieve the project's design goals (see above) and is used extensively to promote warmth and beauty.
North 10", a pedestrian street, does contain some parallel parking as this has, in recent years, been proven to
activate the overall character of the street/pedestrian experience more than the lack of parking. "On-street
parking" is also used in these guidelines to characterize pedestrian oriented streets.
ii. Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streetI shaO contain pedestrian-Qriented uses.
The project meets this standard. All buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets contain pedestrian uses.
v. If buildings de not feature pedestrian-Qriented facades t~ shaD have substantial landscaping between the.
sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shaD be at kast ten feet (/ a? in IPidth as measured from the
sidewalk (see illustration, RMe 4-3-100E7c).
Condition does not occur.
c. Guidelines Applicable ID District 'C':
i. Siting r1 a sInIdure sbould taiM inlD ronsideration the rontinued availability r1 natura/light (both direct
and riflected) and direct sun exposure ID nearI!J buildings and qpen SPQ<f1 (exc<pt parleing areas).
The main plaza space is south facing and takes full advantage of the availability of narurallight.
3_ Building Entries:
h. Minimum Standards for DiJtrict 'C':
i. On pedestrian-Qriented streets, the primary entrana r1 each building shaO be located on the facade facing the
street.
The project meets this standard. The primary entrance of each building is located on the fas:ade facing the
street.
ii. On non-pedestrian-omnted streetI, entranm shaD be prominent, visible from surrounding streetI, ronnected
I?J a walkwfJY to the public sidewalk, and include human-scak elementI.
The project meets this standard The primary entrance of each building is prominent, visible and connected
to the public sidewalk.
iii. AU building entries a4jQ<f1n/ ID a street shaU be clear!:; marked with canopies, arrhitedural.lements,
omomentallighting, and/or landscaping. Entries from parking loti should be subordinate ID those related to
18
. The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
the strnt for buildings with frontage on designated pedestn'an-oriented street! (m illustration, RMC 4-3-
1Q.!!E7d).
The project meets this standard. All entries are accentuated with canopies, architectural elements, lighting
and/or landscaping.
iv. Weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2) wide and proportional ro the distance above
ground level shall be provided over the primary entry of aU buildings and over arry entry a4iacent to a street.
The project meets this standard. Weather protection is at least 4.5' wide and proportional to the distance
above ground level and is provided over the primary entry of all buildings and over any entry adjacent to a
street.
v. Pedestrian pathways from public sidewalks to primary entrances or from parking lots to primary entrances
shall be clearfy delineated.
The project meets this standard. Pedestrian paths lace the site, connecting parking to the primary entrances.
c. Guidelines Applicable to AU District!:
i. Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuOlls network of pedestrian paths and open
spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view ro building entries .
. The project meets this guideline.
ii. Ground jloor units should be directlY accessible from t.be street or an open space such as a courtYard or
garden that is accessible from the street.
The project meets this guideline.
iii S econdery access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least four and one-ha!f feet (4-
1/2') wide over t.be entrance or other similar indicator of acce.rs.
The project meets this guideline.
iv. Pedestrian acms should be provided to the buildingfrom propertY edges, a4iacent lots, abutting street
intersections, crosswaikI, and transit stops.
The project meets this guideline.
v. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windews should be oriented ro a street or pedestrian-oriented
space; otherwisel screening or decorative features such as trel/iseJ} artwork, murals, landsctrping, or
combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street-oriented facade.
The project meets this guideline.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
c. Minimum S tanderds for District 'C ':
i. For properties along North 6th Slreet and Logan Avenue North (between North 4th Street and North
6t.b Street), applicant! shall demonslrate how their p'lJiect provides an appropriate Iransition to the long
established, existing neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton Neighborhood.
19
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
Not applicable.
ii. For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicant.r must
demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions /() existing industrial um.
The project meets this standard. The Landing will serve as a focal point for the South Lake neighborhood
as wcll as an attractive portal from the freeway to the North Renton ":lea. The existing, industtial,
neighborhood sections of the disttict will remain fully and easily accessible and will be enhanced by the "on-
site" services that The Landing will provide, like restaurants, coffee, shopping and entertainment.
5. Service Element Location and Design:
a. Minimum Standards for AD Districts:
i. Se",ice e/ement.r shaU be located and designed to minimi,/,! the impacts on the pedestrian environment and
iUfiacent um. S mice ekment.r shaU be concentralBd and /octJIBd ",here th9 art tZ«e.!sibk /() s""ice vehicks
and <tJnvenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMe 4-3-100E7.).
The project meets this standard. No trash/recycling areas are located on pedesttian streets. Some small
service areas that do open to pedesttian streets are concealed behind doors. Loading docks are located in
out-of-the-way areas.
ii. Garbage, rerycling coDemon, and utility areas shaD be enclosed, consistent with RMe 4-4-090, RefilSe
and Reryc/ahl.s Standards, and RMe 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Umitations.
The project meets this standard. See detail provided on page 59 of the l1x17 color book for a preliminaty
trash enclosure design.
iii. In addition /() standard .nc/oJUre requirement.r, garbage, rerycling coPemon, and utility areas shall be
enclosed on aU sides, including the roof and screened around their perimetBrl!J a ",aU or fence and have sef-
closing doors (see illustration, RMe 4-3-IOOEij).
The project meets this standard. See detail provided on page 59 of the l1x17 color book for a preliminary
trash enclosure design. Utility dements are attractivdy concealed with either walls and/or landscaping and
with few exceptions, are located away from frequently used sidewalks.
iv. The use of chain link, plasti&, or wire fencing is probibiIBd.
The project meets this standard.
v. Jj the "",ice area is atfja&ent /() a street, path"'t;}, or pedestrian-orimted space, (J landscaped planting strip,
minimum thm feet (3') wide, shaU be located on three (3) sides of such facility.
Condition does not occur.
b. Guidelines Applicabk to AD Di,tricts: Service .nclo,= fences should be made of masonry, ornam.ntal m.tal or
1VOOd, or Mm' combination of th. three.
The project meets this guiddine.
20
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
. May 18"', 2006
6. Gateways:
a. Minimum S landards for Di!trict 'C':
,: Development! located at district gateway! shalj be marked with vi!ua/!y prominent features (see illustration,
subsection E7g of this Section).
The project meets this standard. The Landing is envisioned to be the identifiable heart of the north Renton
downtown and the design reflects this vision by employing unique architectural dements and district signage.
ii. Gateway elements shaU be oriented loward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicle.r (see iUustration,
subsection E7h of this Section).
The project meets this standard. Refer to the main project tower that is oriented to both pedestrians, the
"energy ball" at the base, and to vehicles because of the scale and uniqueness of its form.
iii. Visual prominence shaU be distinguished I!J two (2) or more of the joUowing:
(a) Public art;
(b) Monuments;
. (c) Special landscape treatment;
The project contains this element.
(d) Open space/plaza;
The project contains this element.
(e) Identi.bing buildingform;
The project contains this element.
(/) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards;
The project contains this element.
(g) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or ga'(!bo);
The project contains this element
(h) S ignage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not
allowed).
The project contains this element (main project tower).
F. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
1. Location of Parking:
b. Minimum Standards for Di!trict 'C':
i. On Designated Pedestrian-Onented Slreets:
(a) Parking shaU be at the side and/ or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street paralkl
parking. No more than sixty feet (60) of the street frontage measured paralkl to the curb shaD be
occupied I!J off-street parking and vehicular acceSS.
21
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18'h, 2006
The project meets this standard. Off-street parking and vehicular access between buildings 105 and 106 and
103 and 107 measures no more than 60' parallel to the curb.
(b) On'!lreet paraUe! parking space! located atjiacent to the rik can he inclNded in calculation oj
required parking. For parking ratiO! ba!ed on ure and zone, tee RMC 44-080, Parieing,.
Loading and Drillew'!) &gulations.
On street parallel parking is included in the calculations.
(c) On·street, parallel parking shaff he required on both .ride! oj the street.
The project meets this standard. Parallel parking is provided on both sides of North 10'" unless otherwise
restricted by traffic requirements.
ii. AU parking lots located he_ a building and slreet or visible from a street shao.ftature landrcaping
between the ritkwa!k and building,' seeRMC 44-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards.
The project meets this standard. The appropriate amount of landscaping is provided to screen parking lots
and large, building faces from public streets.
iii. Surface Parking Lots: The applicant mllSt SIIccessfof!y demon!trate that the silrface parking lot if
designed to facilitate juf1lre sfr1lt:t1lred parking and/or other inftU development. For example, an appropriate
surfiz" parking area would feature a one thollSand five hundred foot (1,500J l11aximum perim.kr area and
a minimum dimension on one ride oj two hundred feet (200 J, unless projed proponent can demonstrate juf1lre
a/tm,ative lISe oj the area would he po/ricalfy posrible. Exception: If there are riS(! .. nstraints inh.,.."t in the
original parre! (s .. i!lmlralion, subsection F5a oj thi.r Section).
The project meets this standard. All three parking lots are ideally suited for future development and contain
adequate space for additional parking garages with surrounding retail Appropriate sections of each parking
lot have less than a 1500' perimeter and more than one side longer than 200.'
c. Guideline Applitable to AJ! Districts: In area! oj l11ixed lIIe development, shared parking if re .. mmended.
d. Guideline! Applicable to Distrid 'C':
i. If a !itnikd n"",ber oj parking space, are made available in front of a buildingfor pa!senger drop-off and
Pick-lIjJ, thq ,hao be paral!e! to the buildingfacade.
The project meets this guideline.
ii. When fronting on street! not designated a! pedestrian-orienkd, parking lots should be located On the
interior portions oj blocks and screened from the surrounding roadtvtrJs 0/ buildings, landscaping and/or
gate",,!) features a! didated 0/ location.
The project meets this guideline.
2. Des4Jn ofSurfBce Parking:
a. MinitnU111 S tandardr for Districts :4' and 'C.
22
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
i. Parking lot lighting shaU not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection F5b of
this Sechon).
The project meets this standard. Parking lot lighting does not spill onto adjacent properties.
ii. All surfau parking lots shaU be lanmcaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 44"()80F7,
Lanmcape Requirements).
The project meets this standard. All surface parking lots are properly screened to reduce their visual impact.
b. Guidelines Applicable /() All District!:
i. Wherever possible, parking Ihould be configured into !mall unitI, ronnected I!Ji Ionmcaped a"'as to provide
on·site buif.nngfrom visual impacts.
All parking lots have been subdivided with landscaped, pedestrian pathways to break up their expanse.
ii. Acct!S to parking modules should be provided I!Ji public or private local streets with sidewalks on both
sidel whe,.. possible, rather than internal drive aisles.
Internal roads and access points from the pedestrian street have been provided with sidewalks on both sides.
iii. Where multiple drive",,!!s cannot be avoided, provide Ionmcaping to separate and minimi~ their impact
on the streetscape.
Landscaping has been heavily employed to minimize the impact of driveways.
3. Structured Parking Garages:
a. Minimum S tandarm for District 'C':
i. Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures shail provide space for ground-Jkior rommercial uses along street frontagu at
a minimum of seventyfoe percent (75%) of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection F5c of
this S eclion).
The project meets this standard. Of the sides that face a pedestrian street, the parking garage 100%
surrounded with commercial uses.
(b) The entire facade mUIt flature a pedestrian-oriented facade.
The project meets this standard. The design intent is that the appearance of the parking garage behlnd the
retail spaces will be very minimal. Retail spaces in front of the garage have been made taller to further screen
the upper floors of the garage.
ii. Parking Structures Fronting Non-Pedestrian-Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures fronting non-pedestrian-{}riented streets and not flaturing a pedestrian-
oriented facade shaU he set back at least six flet (6 J from the sidewalk and flatu,.. substantial
Ionmcaping. This includes a combination of evergroen and deciduous tree!, shrubs, and ground
cover. This setback shaU be inmased to ten jeet (10 J arljacent to high visibility streets.
The project meets this standard. There is at least to' between the face of the garage and Logan Avenue.
23
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18·h, 2006
(b) The Di"dor m'!Y al"'w a ",Juced setback wh", the ttpplicant can !/Ic(C!sfolIY demonIfrate that
the landscttped area and! or other d"ign malment meetl the intent of time Itandards and
guideline!. Po!!ible treatments /() "tiNce the fetback mcu,de landscttping component I plu! one or
mo" of the following integrated with the architedllral design of the building:
Not applicable. Project meets previous standard.
(c) Facade! Ihail be articulated architedllra/fy, so Of /() maintain a human scale and /() avoid a
solid wall. Vehicular entrances /() nonrelidential or mixed use parking structu", shaH be
articulated I!J arche!, Iint,ls, mOfonry trim, or other architectural elements and! or materials (Set
illustration, !/Ilnedion F5d of this Sedion).
The project meets this standard. The garage fa<;ade contains no solid walls but instead' makes us of vertical
landscaping, screens, accentuated stair towers and attractive environmental graphic design.
b. Guidelines Applicable to AH Distri,ts: Parking garage .ntrie! Ihould be designed and siled /0 romplement, not
subordinate, the pede!trian entry. If possible, "'cate the parking entry aJI!'!Y from the primary street, to either the side or
rear of the building.
The project meets this guideline. The primary garage entry is located off of Logan.
c. Guideline! Applicable to Districts ~' and 'C':
i. Parking garage entries should not dominate the Itreetscttpe.
The project meets this guideline. Entry is located by means of an access drive.
ii. The delign of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimi'?} the apparent tvidth of
garage entries.
Not applicable.
iii. Parking tvithin the building should be endoIed or screened through a'!Y combination of ",ails, decorati",
grilles, or trellis 11JOrk with landscttping.
Not applicable.
iv. Parking garages should be de!igned to be complementary with ao/acmt buildings. Use similar forms,
materials, and! or details to enhance garage!.
The project meets this guideline. The garage is designed to reinforce the overall, project aesthetic.
v. Ruidential garage parleing should be JeatrlJd tvith electronic entries.
Not applicable.
vi. Parking service and storage fundionI Ihould be "'cated alP'!} from the Itreet ed,ge and generalfy not be
visible from the street or IidewaikI.
The project meets this guideline.
4. Vehicular Access:
b. Minimum Standards for Distrid 'C.
24
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18'", 2006
i. Parking garage! Ihall be accemd allhe rear of buildingI or fro'" non-pedeItrian.oriented Iireets when
available.
The project meets this standard. The garage is not accessed from North 10'" Street. The needs of the theater
require access from the garage to the private "Entertainment Boulevard." Restricting access to Logan alone
would create unacceptable traffic congestion.
h Surface parking t!riveW'!JI are prohibited on pedestrian.oriented Iireet!.
The project meets this standard. No pedestrian-oriented streets are used as parking driveways.
iii. Parking lot entrance!, drivewaJII, and other vehicular access points on high viIibililY Iireet! Ihall be
re!tricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear jeet aI meaIured horizontallY along the
Iireet.
Th~ project meets this standard.
G. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
a. Minimum Standards for Di!trid 'C':
i. ClearlY delinea.ted pedeItrian pnthwt1JI and/ or private sireet! Ihall be provided througOout parking area!.
The project meets this standard. Clearly delineated pedestrian paths and private streets are provided
throughout the parking areas.
ii. Within parking areas, pedestrian pathw'!JI shall be provided perpendicular '" the applicable building
facade, a.t a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty jeet (150? l1j>art (see illustration, IubI8ction G4a of
thi! Section).
The project meets the intent of this standard. Pedestrian pathways have been provided throughout the site
where they are the most natural and effective in allowing pedestrians to easily make their way from one
fearure of the project to another. Although these paths are not always provided at 150: to require them
spaced in such a manner would cause said pathways to be misaligned with the narural pedestrian flow to, and
from, the building layout.
2. Pedesttian Circulation:
a. Minimum Standards for Di!trids :4' and 'C:'
i. Development! Ihall inelude an integrated pedestrian circulation £Ystem that connect! buildings, open pace,
and parking area! with the atijacent sireet sidewalk !ysftm and adjacent propertie! (see iilllstration, subIection
G4b of this Section).
The project meets this standard. Raised and visually differentiated pedestrian paths interlace the site,
connecting major elements and districts, minimizing the reliance on automobiles to move from one area to
another, thereby alleviating congestion.
25
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006 .
ii Sidewalk.< locakd between buildings and streets shall be raised above the /evel of vehicular traveL
The project meets this standard. See prior comment.
iii. Pedestrian pathwt;Js lVithin parking lou or parking modtiks shaD b. dijfirentiated 0/ material or texture
from atfjaunt paving materials (su i//u.rtration, Sltbsection G4c of this Section).
The project meets this standard. Major intersections will include special paving at crosswalk locations to alert
vehicular traffic and to be visually pleasing.
iv. Sidetva/kJ and pathw'!!s along the facades of bHildings shaU be of sufficient lVidth It; accommodak
anticipakd nJlmben of usen. S pecijitaI!Y:
(a) S idewa/kJ and path""!Ys along the facades of mixed use and ,.tail bHildings one hllnd,.d (100)
or mo,. je.t in lVidth (meaJlt,.d along the facade) sbaU provide sidetvalk.< at kast twelve .feet (12;
in lVidth. The walkwqy shaD indude an eight foot (8') minimtmt lInobstruckd walleing stnjau and
street trees (sa i//u.rlration, subsection G4d of thiJ SeciWn).
The project meets this standard. Sidewalk widths will vary but are normally 12'-0" or greater, both
acconimodating the amount of foot traffic and creating pedestrian friendly uses including outdoor seating and
dining, entry canopies, signage, and building mounted weather protection to provide multiple amenities.
Noted.
(b) To increase business viJibilitl and amssibility, b,.a/e.r in the tree coverage atfjacent It; major
building entries shaD be aUowed.
(c) For aU other interior pathwt;Js, the proposed wallew'!J shaD be of sufficient lVidth It;
accommodak the anticipated number of usen. A fen It; twelvefoot (10' -12') patbwt;J,jor
",ampk, can accommodate grollj>J of penons wal.leingfollr (4) amast, or IItIo (2) colIJ!le.r passing
one another. An eight foot (8') patb""!Y l1IiU accommodate thm (3) individtials walleing ahr>ast,
wbmas a smalkr jive It; six joot (5' -6') path""!Y l1IiU accommodate ~ (2) individtia/s.
The project meets this standard. Interior pathways have been properly sized.
v. Locak pathwt;Js lVith ckar sight lines It; inmase safety. Landscaping shaU not obstruct visibility of
waIIewt;Y or sight lines It; building entries.
The project meets this standard. Landscaping does not create hazards.
vi. AU pedestrian wa/k""!Ys shaU provide an aU-weather walking surfau unkSf the applkant can
demonstrate that the proposed surface is approprit:tte for the anticipakd number of users and complementary It;
the design of the devekJpment.
The project meets this standard. Pedestrian walkways are all-weather.
b. Guidelines App/itabk to AU Districts:
i. Delineation of pathw'fYS m'!J be through the use of tmhitectural jeatm'os, SItch as trellises, railings, low seat
walls, or similar treatment.
A major pedestrian pathway is defined by the main project tower.
26
· The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18'", 2006
ii. Mid-block ronnectiom are desirable where a strollg linkage between uses can be established
iii. Fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be alt.wed .,hen appropriate to the situation.
c. Guidelines Applicable to Distria 'C' OnlY:
,: Through-block ronnections should be mad, between buildings, between streets, and to ronnea sidewalks
with public spaces. Preferred location for through-block connections is mid-block (see illustration, subsection
G4e of thi.< Section).
The project meets this guideline.
ii. Between buildings of up to and including two (2) stones in height, through-block ronnections should be at
least Jixfeet (6J in width.
The project meets this guideline.
Not applicable.
Noted.
iii. Between buildings thm (3) stories in height or greater, through-block connections should be at least twelve
fiet (12J in width.
iv. Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum of one-quarter (O.25) mile
apart.
v. As an alternative to some of the required street trees, devekipments may provide pedestrian-scaled light
fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than fourteen fiet (14 J in height. No les.r than one tree or light
fixture per six!) (60) lineal fiet of the required walkway should be proVided
J. Pedestrian Amenities:
a. Minimum S tonllards for District 'C':
z: On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of
awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum offour and one-ha!f
fiet (4-1/2, ",ide aking at least seventy jive percent (75%) of the length of the huildingfatatle facing the
designated pedestrian-oriented street, a maximum height of fifteen feet (IS J ahove the ground elevation, and
no lower than eight fiet (8 J above ground level
The project meets this standard. Along pedestrian-oriented streets, awnings, marquees, canopies and building
overhangs extend for at least 75% of the fa~ade and are a maximum height of 15' above the ground and no
lower than 8' above the ground.
i,: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal-and ""ather-resistant materials
that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonablY maintained over an extended period of time.
The project meets this standard. The site furniture provided in the public spaces is durable, resistant to
weather and vandalism, and can be reasonably maintained for an extended period of time.
27
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
iii. 5ile jurnitun: and amenities shaO not impedt or bwck pedtstrian access to publit spaces or building
entrann!.
The project meets this standard. Site furniture doesn't block or impede pedestrians.
b. Guidtlines Applicable to Distrid 'C':
i. T ransil shelters, birycle racks, benches, trash n:ceJ>lacle.r, and other streel jurnitun: should be providtd.
The project meets this guideline. Street furniture is provided.
ii. 5 ""et amenities !IIch as outdoor gro1l/> seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided.
The project meets this guideline. Group seating and fountains are provided.
iii. ArthitecturaJ elements thai incorporate plants, such as facadt-mollflted planting boxes or ""/lists or
ground.related or hanging containers an: encouraged, particularlY at bllilding entrances, in publiclY accessible
spaces, and at facadts a/ongpede.rtrian-tJrienled streets (see illuslr4tion, !IIbseaion G4f oj this 5 eaion).
The project meets this guideline.
H. L4.NDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
1. Landscaping:
a. Mini"",m 5 tandardr for AO Districts:
i. AU pervious areas shaD be /4ndscapeJ (see RMC 44-070. umdscapintJ.
The project meets this standard. All pervious areas of the site are designed and landscaped. The landscaping
serves as a tie to the natural surroundings and native landscapes of the Pacific Northwest. The landscaping
creates an inviting and dynamic character for the center through the use of native and drought tolerant
plantings intermixed with omamentalplantings that change with the seasons and provide interest throughout
the year. It reinforces the architecture and helps frame entries, guides pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
softens paved areas, creates pocket garden spaces, and provides climatic relief in parking lots, and sidewalk
zones. Street tree sizes and spacing will be coordinated with the City of Renton roadway plans.
ii. 5 treet trees are reqllireJ and shaD be wcateJ be"""n Ihe curb edge and bllilding, as determined I!J the City
oj&nfon.
The project meets this standard. Street trees are provided.
iii. On dtsignated pede.rtrian-tJrient,d streets, s"",t """ shaD be installed lvith tree grafts. For aD other
s""els, s""el ""e ""atment shaD be as dttermineJ I!J the CiIY ojRentoll (see illustration, !IIbseaion H3a oj
this 5ection).
The project meets this standard. Tree grates are provided.
iv. The proposed landscaping shaD be ",mislenl lvith the tIe.rign intent and program oj the bllilding, the site,
and use.
The project meets this standard. Landscaping design is consistent with the overall design scheme.
28
· The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18·h , 2006
v. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how th, proposed landscaping, through the use oj plant material and
non-vegetative ,Iements, minforres the arrhitecture or concept oj the development.
The project meets this standard. Landscaping design reinforces the overall design scheme.
v,: Surface parking amas shall be screened by landscaping in order to mdace view! ojparked eM! from st""'ls
(see RMC 4+080F7, undscaping Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at leasttenfe.t (10J in
width as measumd from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection H3 b oj this S eclion). Standards for
planting shall be as follows:
The project meets this standard There is at least 10' of landscaping between the public sidewalk and the
project's parking lots.
(a) Trns at an average minimum rate oj one tree per thirtY (30) lineal fee, oj street frontag •.
Permitted tree species am those that reach a malll,.. height oj at least thirtY five fe.t (35J.
Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight fee, (8 J or two inch (2 'J caliper (aJ measumd
four fe.t (4 J from the top oj the root balij "'p"tively.
The project meets this standard. Trees are provided at the required caliper, height and spacing.
(b) Shrub! at the minimum rate oj on, per twenty (20) !quare fe.t oj landscaped a1'llQ. Shrubs shall
be at least twelve inches (12 '') tall at planting and have a malllre height between Ime feet (3,) and
four feel (4 ').
The project meets this standard. Shrubs are provided at the required rate and height.
(c) Groundewer shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provi'" at least ninety pemnt (90%)
coverage oj the landscaped area within three (3) years oj installation.
The project meets this standard. Groundcover is provided to reach the required goal
(d) The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to ompanry,for a period oj
not less than tme (3)years and in sufficient amount k> ensum mquired landscape standards have
been met by the third year following installation.
The project meets this standard A maintenance assurance device will be in place prior to occupancy.
(e) Surface parking with more than fourteen (14) staiIJ !hall be landscaped as fo/lows:
(1) Requi,..dAmount: (Section not shown)
The project meets this standard. The required amount of landscaping is provided per the number of parking
spaces.
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the mqumd interior parking lot landscape
amaJ.
The project meets this standard. The required amount of landscaping is provided in the interior parking lot
landscape areas.
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six (6) parking spaces. Permitted tre, species a,.. those
that mach a mature height oj at least thirty jive feet (35). Minimum height or caliper at
29
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
planting shaD be eight ftet (8) or fIIIo inch (2') caliper (f1J mef1Jured four feet (4) fi'om
the top uf the root ba/~ respectively.
The project meets this standard. One tree has been provided for every six parking spaces.
(4) Plant shrubs at a rat, ufjive (5) per one hundred (100) squareftet uf landscape area.
Shrubs shaD be at lef1Jt sixteen inchs (16') taU at planting and have a mature height
befllloen three ftet (3) and four feet (4).
The project meets this standard. The required number of shrubs are provided per landscape area.
(5) Up to.ft.ft.y pemnt (50%) uf shrubs m'!J be deciduous.
The project meets this standard.
(6) Select and plant grottntkover so f1J to provide nine!! percent (90%) coverage within
three (3) yetJr.f uf planting; provided, that mukh ir applied until plant coverage is
complete.
The project meets this standard.
(7) Do not /ocate a parking stoU more than .ft.ft.y feet (50) fi'om a landscape area.
The project meets this standard. All parking stalls are located within 50' of a landscaped area.
vii. '&gular maintenance shaU be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healtJ:y and that dead or
tfyingplant material.t are replaced.
The project meets this standard.
viii. Underground, automatic irrigation sy.rle11ls are required in aU landscape areas.
The project meets this standard. Underground irrigation systems are provided in all landscaped areas.
b. Guidelinu Applicable to aU Dirtrict!:
i. Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the btdIe uf buildings.
The project meets this guideline.
ii. Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either smming uf unwanted vkrPs or focus" atfl!ntWn to
priferred views.
The project meets this guideline.
iii Use uf /ow maintenance, drought-resi.rtant landscape material is encouraged.
The project meets this guideline.
iv. Choice uf materials shou/J refoct the /evel uf maintenance that wiD be available.
The project meets this guideline.
v. S ef1Jond landscaping and container plantings are encouraged. particularly at bNiJding ",triu and in publiclY
tlCCwible tpa.ces.
The project meets this guideline.
vi. Window boxu, containers for plantings, hanging bf1Jleets, or other plantingftature ekment.r sholl/J be made uf
",eather-resirtant material.t that &t1n be reasonablY maintained.
30
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
The project meets this guideline.
llii. Landscaping should be llsed to smen parking loIs from adjacent or neighboring properties.
The project meets this guideline.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
a. Minimllm Standards for Districts ~'and 'C ';
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
i. Mixed lise residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or mOrr! dweUing lI~its shaU provide a
minimum arr!a of common space or rr!creation arr!a equal to fifty (50) squQrr! fiet per unit. Th. rommon space
arr!a shaU ·be aggregated to prollide usable area(s) for midents. The location, layout, and proposed tlP e of
rommon space or remation Qrr!a shall be S"/jetl to approval/;J the Director. The niquinid rommon open
space sha.ll be satisfied with one or more of the elements lUted below. The Director m'!Y niquini mOni than one
of the following elements for developments having mOni than one hundnid (100) units.
(Section "ii" missing from RMC)
iii. In mixed use midential and attached residential projects, niquinid landscaping, driveW'!Js, parking, or
other vehicular use arear shall not be counted toward the rommon space niquiniment or be located in dedicated
olltdoor recreation or (()1IJf1}on IISC oreas,
iv. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects reqllinid yard setback arear shall not cOllnt
toward outdoor nimation and rommon space unless stICh areas are developed ar private or s.mi-private (from
abutting or adjacent properties) rourtyards, plazas or passive use areas rontaining landscaping and findng
s«lftdent to mate a fof!y usable Qrr!a accessible to aU midents of the development (see ilIustralUJn, subsection
H3c of this Section).
v. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not rount toward the rommon
space/ nimation area niquirrment
iii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projeds, other requinid landscaping and sensitive area
buffirs without CfJmmon access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the niquired
nimation and rommon space niquirement.
vii. AU buildings and devewpmmts with over thirty thousand (30,000) squani fiet of nonresidentialustS
(excludes parking garage flootplate areas) shall providt pedestrian-oriented space (see illustration, sllbsection
H3d of this Section) acCfJrding to the followingfomtula:
1 % of the lot Qrr!a + 1 % of the building area = MinimllflJ amount of pedestrian-oriented space
31
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
The project meets this standard. 1% of the lot area is 16,727 sf + 1% of the building area is 6,078 sf =
22,805 sf. The amount of pedestrian-oriented space provided greatly exceeds this requirement.
viii. To qlla@ as pede.rtrian-orienfed space, the jo&wing mllSt be incIMded:
(a) Vuual and pedestrian access (incIMding barrierjree access) to the abutting structures from the
public right-of"''!! or a non",hicular courtYard,
The project meetS this standard. Access is provided.
(b) PallId ",alking surfaces of either ~onmte or "l'Pro..dunit paving,
The project meets this standard. Approved, paved, walking surfaces are provided.
(c) On-site or building-mounfed /ightingproviding at least jour (4) joot-candles (a_age) on the
ground, and
The project meetS this standard. On site lighting is provided.
(d) At least thm ftet (3' of seating ana (benrh, ledge, de') or one individual seat per sixty (60)
squan ftet of pia>:!, ana or open space.
The project meets this standard. The project's main plaza is approximately 16,636 sf./60sf = 278 individual
seats or 831 sf of seating area. Large quantities of individual seats will be provided by project tenants in the
main plaza space and throughout the project in the form of outdoor dining areas for restaurants and coffee
shops. Other forms of seating like benches and ledges are provided throughout the project. Together, the
seating options offered to pedestrians will meet or exceed this standard.
ix. The jo&wingftaturos aro encouraged in pedestrian-orienfed space (see illustration, subsectWn H3e of thu
Section) and m'!l be rtlquired 0/ the Director:
(a) Provide pedestrian-orienfed lISes on the buildingfacade facing the pedestrian-orienfld space.
The project meetS this standard.
(b) Spaces should be positioned in artlas with signifoant pedestrian trajJi& to provide interest and
security -such as a4Jacent to a building entry.
The project meets this standard.
(.;J Provide pede.rtrian-oriented facades on some or aU buildings facing the space.
The project meets this standard.
(d) Provide movable public seating.
The project meets this standard. The main plaza has been envisioned to accommodate public events.
x. The jo&lVing an prohibited IVithin pedestrian-orienfld space:
(a) At/jacent unsmened parking lots,'
The project meets this standard. No unscreened parking lots are adjacent to pedestrian-oriented space.
(b) AIljacent chain link ftnces,
The project meets this standard. No chain link fences are used.
(c) A<fjacenl blank waDs,
32
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18'·, 2006
The project meets this standard.
(d) Adjacent dumpster! or "roic, areas; and
The project meets this standard. All trash and service areas are located away from pedestrian-oriented space.
(e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags,jirellJlJod, etc.) that do not rontribute to the
pedestrian environment.
The project meets this standard. No such storage exists.
xi. The minimum required walkwl!J areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space. HolIICVer, where
walkwqys are widened or enhanced bryond minimum requirements, the area ml!J rount as pedestrian-oriented
space if the Direttor determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space.
The project meets this standard.
c. Minimum Standards for Distritt 'C': The location of public open space shall be ronsidered in relation to building
orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic rondition;.·
The project meets this standard. The major, public open space, ''The Landing Place," is oriented to the south
to take advantage of all available sunlight. In the morning and evening, the sun will be blocked by the
adjacent buildings.
d. Guidelines Applicable to DistricfJ :4' and 'C:
i. Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrallY located so
thry are near a majority of dwelling units, accwible and usable to residents, and visible from .f1I17T}unding
:lnitI.
Not applicable.
ii. Common space areas should be located to take aduantage of sUTTOundingjeoflmS such as building
entrances, significant landscaping, unique topograpfDi or ardJitedure, and solar exposure.
The project meets this guideline. The most significant architecture has been designed around the main plaza
space.
iii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projecfJ children's play space should he centrallY located,
visible from the dweUings, and aWl!J from hazardous areas /ike garbage dumpster!, drainage facilities, streets,
and parking areas.
Not applicable.
e. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C, Developments iocated at street intersection romer! on designated pedestrian-
oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian-oriented space adjacent to the street romer to emphasi,(! pedastrian
activity (see illustration, subsection H3f of this Section).
The project meets this guideline. There are widened sidewallcs, plazas or open spaces adjacent to major
intersections.
L BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
33
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18'". 2006
1. Building Character and Massing:
c. Minimum S tandardr for Distri<f 'C':
i. AD buildingfacades shaU include measHTeS to reduce the apparent scale oj the building and adeI visual
interest. Exampk.r include modulation, arnClilation, defined entrances, and displt!Y windows (s .. illustration,
subsection ISa oj this SectiJJn).
The project meets this standard. The design/ development team of The Lancling has spent significant time
and effort to achieve high standards of design for this project and feel confident that the results meet and or
exceed the aesthetic goals of the Oty of Renton. The building exteriors and hardscape have been designed to
contain a variety of materials, forms, features and colors. Facades are modulated and articulate, heights and
roof lines vary from building to building as well as within each building in order to be sensitive to human
scale and the greater context of the site. Display windows abound throughout the project.
ii. AU buildings shaU be arnClilafld with one or more oj the following:
(a) Defined entry features;
(b) Window treatment;
(c) B<;)I windows and/or bakonies;
(d) RDofline features; or
(e) Other features as appmved I!J the Director.
The project meets this standard. Buildings are articulated with defined entty features, window treatments
roofJine features and other dements.
g. Guidelines Applicabk to Distri<f 'C':
i. Although streetjront buildings ahng designated pedestrian streets should sm.. to mate a llniform street
edg8, buildingfacades should generaf!y be modulated and/or arnClilakd with architectural elements to reduco
the apparent si:::.! oj nelll buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character
oj the neighborhood.
The project meets this standard. Building facades fronting pedestrian streets are articulated with architecrural
dements to reduce or enhance the size of buildings where appropriate, break up ''blank'' areas, add visual
interest, and to further reinforce the overall project design.
ii. S !)k: Buildings should be uman in chara<fer.
The project meets this standard. Buildings are built close to the street and cater to pedestrians instead of cars.
iii. Buildings greater than one hNndred and sixtY feet (160, in kngth should pmvide a vane!) oj techniques
to reduce the apparent bulk and scat. oj the facade or provide an additional spedal design fenfllre s1ich as a
dock to,.,.,., courtJard,fountain, or public gatheringplace to adeI visual interest (see ilbntration, subsection
ISc oj this SectiJJn).
34
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18'", 2006
The project meets this standard. Buildings that are greater than 160' in length employ height modifications,
fa~ade articulation and accentuated corner elements like towers to break up the length and add visual interest
to the design.
2. Ground-Level Details:
a. Minimum S tandardr for AU Districts:
,: Untreated blank walls virible from public streets, sidewalks, or intenor pedestrian pathw'9s ar. prohibited.
A .,aU (including buildingflZCades and retaining walls) ir consider.d a blank wall if:
(a) It is agroundfloor waD or pornon of agroundj1oor waU over six feet (6? in heigh~ has a
horizontal length groater than fifteen feel (15?, and does not include a window, door, building
modulation or other arrhitectural detailing; or
(b) A'!J portion of agroundfloor wall having a surface area offour hundred (400) squlln feet or
greater and does nol include a window, door, building modulation or other arrhitectural detailing.
See response below.
ii Wh"" blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shaD be treated with one or more of the
foUowing (see illustration, SIIbsection 15d of this Section):
(a) A planting bed at least five feet (5? in width containing trees, shrubs, ",'W'en ground cover, or
vines adjlZCcnl to the blank wall;
(b) T relli.; or other vine s"Pparrs with ev'W'en climbing vines;
(c) Arrhitectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets
the intent of thi.; standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mura~ or similar; or
(e) Seating area .,ith special paving and seasonal planting.
See response below.
iii. Treatment of blank .,aIIs shaD be proportional 10 the wall.
See response below.
iv. Provide human-scaled elements JIIeh as a lightingjixture, trellir, or other landrcope feature along the
flZCade's ground floor.
The project meets this standard. Where ''blank'' walls occur that face pedestrian spaces or public streets and
sidewalks, an appropriate scheme of elements has been incorporated to treat the area in such a way as to keep
the area consistent with the overall project design character and quality. Ths is done either through a
minimum 5' planting bed with trees and ground cover, trellises, architectural detailing, contrasting materials
or a combination of each. All these features are designed in proportion to human scale and the building
mass.
35
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
v. Fatades on de.rigllated pedestritm-orient,d slreets shaD httllt at least seven!y-five perrent (75%) of th, linear
ftontage of the ground floor facade (as me""",d on a true elevation facing the de.rignat.d pedestrian-oriented
Slreet) romprised of transparent Windows and/or doors.
The project meets this standard. Facades facing pedestrian-oriented streets contain at least 75% tra':'sparent
windows and/or doors.
vi. Other fatade window requirements include the fa/lowing:
(a) Buildingfacade.r must have clear windows with visibility in/(} and out of the building. HotlletJer,
smening m'!} be applied to provide shade and energy effimnfY. The minimum amount of light
transmittan .. far windows shaD be fi.ft.y percent (50%).
The project meets this standard.
(b) Display windows shall be designed far frequent chang. of metrhandise, rather than permanent
disp1t!Ys.
The project meets this standard.
(<) Where windows or storeftont.r occur, th~ mll.ft prindpaf!y rontam c"ar gla'(jng.
The project meets this standard. GJa.zing is principally clear.
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highfy reflective (mirror-tfPe) glass and film are prohibited.
The project meets this standard. No such glass. is used.
b. Guidelines Applicable ItJ Districts ~' and 'C':
i. The primary building entrance should be made visibfy prominent i!Y inrorporating a minimllf11 of one of the
following architectural features ftom each category listed (see i//ll.ftration, subsection 15. of this Section):
(a) Facade Features:
(1) & .. ,,;
(2) Ovtrhang;
(3/Canapy;
(4) TnUis;
(5) Portico;
(6) Porch;
(7) ClensltJry.
The project meets this standard. Every building in the project contains one or more of the features listed at
its primary entrance.
(b) Doonw;y Features:
(1) Transom windows;
(2) Glass windows fIonking door;
(3) Large entry doors;
(4) Ornamental lightinl!;
36
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18"', 2006
(5) Ughted displayJ.
The project meets this standard. Every building in the project contains one or more of the features listed at
its primary entrance.
(c) Detail Featum:
(1) Decorative entry paving;
(2) Ornamental building name and addreJJ;
(3) Planted containers;
(4) Street forniture (benches, etc.).
The project meets this standard. Every building in the project contains one or more of the features listed at
the primary entrance.
ii. Artwork or building ornamentation (Jueh ClJ mOJaics, murau, grillwork, scu/ptures, reliif, eft.) Ihollid be
used to provide ground.lev.1 detail
The level of project detail has not yet reached the level that would incoIporate these sort of custom features.
iii. Elevated or temmd planting beds between the walu'!! and long building tva!I.r are encouraged.
Noted
J. Building Roof Lines:
a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and 'C': BuildingJ IhalluIe at least one of th, foUowing ,lements to create
varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection 15f of this Section):
i. Extended parapets;
The project incoIporates this element to create a varied and interesting roof profile.
ii. Feature elemma projecting ahove parapets;
iii. Projected cornices;
The project incorporates this element to create a varied and interesting roof profile.
iv. Pitched or sloped roofs.
The project incoIporates this element to create a varied and interesting roof profile.
(a) Locate and screen roofmounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment iI not visibk
within on, hundred fifty feet (150') of the structure when viewed.from ground kvel
The project meets this standard. All building heights, coupled with standard parapet heights, effectively block
the roof top mechanical equipment from the view of a pedestrian 150' away from the building face. Once
final equipment sizing has been settled, and the exposure of equipment does occur, it will be rendered not
visible by means of screens. Screen materials are similar to and architecturally integrated into the building
design.
(b) S creeningfeatures shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with
RMC 44·095E, Roof-Top Equipment.
37
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
The project meets this standard. If the use of screening features occurs they will blend with the architectural
character of the building.
(c) Match «Jlor of roofmounted mechanical.quipment to «Jlor of exposed portions of the roof to
minimi!{! virual impacts when equipment ir virible .fro'" higher elevations.
The project meets this standard. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be matched to the roof color
c. Guiddines Applicable to Dirtrict 'C': Building roof lines sbeuld be varied to add visual int4rest to the building.
The project meets this guideline. Building roof lines are varied and add visual interest.
4. Building Mater.isls:
a. Minim"", Standards for all Districts:
i. All sirk; of buildings visible.fro'" a s/re,t, pathway, parking area, or open sj>fKt! shall be finirhed on all
sides with th, s"",. bllilding materials, detailing, and «Jlor scheme, or if difftrent, with materials of the sam.
fjllaIi!y.
The project meets this standard. All side of buildings visible from a street are finished with complementary
materials, color schemes and overall design intent.
ii. Materials, individualfy or in «Jmbina/ion, shall have an allractive ttxltm, pattern, and quaJity of
detailingJor all visible facades.
The project meets this standard. Materials contain attractive pattern and detailing.
iii. Materials shall be durable, high quali!y, and reasonab& maintain.d.
The project meets this standard. Materia1s used are high-end concrete, metal, brick, and emu among others,
all of which have a long life span.
h. Minimum Standards for Dirtricts :A' and 'C': Bllildings shall.mpif?y material variations SIIch as «Jlors, brick. or
metal banding, patterns, or texttmzI changes.
The project meets this standard. Each building in the project contains material variations both in type, color
and use. In each building there is also a palette of materia1s employed so that they are visually appealing.
c. Guidelines Applicable to all Dirtricts:
i. Building materials sho"'" be allramve, durable, and «Jnsi.rtent with "'0" traJitiona/ urban development
Appropriate ext1J1JjJles woliid incIMde brick, integralfy «J1o,.d «Jnmte ",asomy, prt:ftnish.d metal, stone,
steel, glass, and cast-in-p14&e «Jnmte.
The project meets this standard. All of these examples are used with the exception of stone.
ii. Con<rete ",ails sbe"'" be enhanced i!J texturing, reveals, snap-tie pattmu, «Jloring with a «Jnmte coating
or admixture, or I!J! incorporating embossed or sCIIlpted SllrjfKt!S, mosaics, or artworle.
The project meets this standard. Colored concrete is used extensively in the hardscape and snap-tie patterns
and reveals are used on the buildings.
38
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
iiL Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral rolor, textured bloc/eJ and roliJred mortar,
decorative bond pattern and/ or inrolJ>orate other masonry materials.
The project meets this standard. eMU walls are enhanced in all of the aforementioned ways.
iv. Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more high!J Iexfllred finishes
or accents. They should not be used at the base oj buildings belllieen the finished floor elevation and four jeel
(4') above.
The project meets this standard. Stucco and similar finishes are rarely used, and when used, are not used at
the base of the buildings.
J. SIGN AGE:
(Note: Please see the "Discussion of Project Identification Tower'; on page 28 regarding the tower located in
the middle of the site.)
1. Minimum St3JJdards for District 'C':
a. S ignage shaJJ be an integral part oj the Mgn approach to the building.
The project meets this standard.
b. Corpon:te logos and signs shall be si'i!d appropriatelY jar their /{Kation.
The project meets this standard.
c. Prohibited signs include (see i/iustration, subsection]3a ojthis Searon):
i. Po" signs.
ii Rooj signs.
iii Back-lit signs with "11m or graphics on a pla.rtic sheet (can signs or ilbiminated cabinet signs).
Exceptions: Bl1I:k-lit logo signs less than len (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with on!! the
individNailetters back-lit.
The project meets this standard. The project contains no prohibited signs.
d. In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design.
The project meets this standard. Environmental graphic design has been a part of the overall design from the
beginnings of the process.
e. Freeslandingground-nlated monument signs, with tbe exception oj primary entry signs, shall be limited to five fot
(5') abave finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative /am#caping (groundcover
andl ar shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area sUrTOunding the sign. Alternate!!, signage m'!]l intolJ>orate stone,
britk, or other decorative materials as approved IJ the Director.
The project meets this standard.
f Entry signs shall be limited to th, name of the larger development
The project meets this standard.
2. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C':
39
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May lS"', 2006
a. Alteration qf tr""""ark.r notwilhtlanding, crnporate ngnage thou/d nol be garith in miDr nor overlY lif, although
matiue design, .rtrong menl wor;, and in/eruting nnface materia" and lighting lechniqu., an enmuragea.
The project meets this guideline.
b. Front·li~ ground·moll11leti mon"",enl tignt an lhe pnfemd !JPe qf jrmtanding tign.
The project meets this guideline.
c. Blade !:!pe sign!, proportional to lhe b"iJdingjacade on which Ihfy an mo"nted, an <nm"raged on podestrian·oriented
tlmt; .
.K. LIGHTING:
1. Minimum Standards for Distticts ~, and 'C':
a. Ughting thaD cotifonn to on-sile <XIerior lighting reg"lation! lo<tded;n RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-
Site.
The project meets this standard. Lighting conforms to on-site exterior lighting regulations.
b. Ughting shaD be provided on-site to inmate Itcuri!y, bul thaD nol be aIIow.d to dirutb project ojJ-tile.
The project meets this standard. Surface lots will be lighted with energy efficient, full cut-off luminaires for
msximum light control and minimum gIl1re. Luminaires will be located such that light will not directly project
off the site. Covered parking lots will utilize glare controlled fixtures, taking into consideration the open-sided
structure. Light sources will be color corrected metal halide.
c. Pedestrian-tcale lighting thaD be provided, for both safety llnd aesthetic!, along all tfreet;, at primary and Itcondory
building entranm, at buiJdingjacades, and at pedestrian-oriented spam.
The project meets this standard. Pedestrian scale lighting is provided throughout the site. The overall intent
is to provide comfortable light levels that allow for good visibility without gIl1re. Care will be given to select a
pedestrian scale postlight that serves both as a decorative lantern and as a functionalluminaite. We visualize
an element of glow within the post top in addition to cut-off features which direct most of the light
downwards to light sidewalks and roadways. Bollards will be introduced for lower level lighting to identify
changes in grade or highlight planting pockets. Both the pedestrian postlight and the bollard will have similar
design elements, or be of "the same family". The overall height of pedestrian postlights will not exceed 14'-0".
The light sources will be color corrected metal halide.
2. Guidelines AppJicablt! to District 'C':
a. Accenl lighting thOllld be provided at focal point.r filch at galewt!Js, p"blic art, and Jignificanllandtctrpt jealJlro
filch at tJ>8<imen trees.
The project meets this standard.
h. Additional lighting to provide inlentl in the pedestrian environmenl m'!Y include tCOflces on bui!di1lgfacadeJ,
awnings 711i!h down-lighting, demrative .rIm1 Iightill!J elc. (OrJ. 5029, 11-24.1)3; Ora. 5124, 2-7-2005)
40
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
The project meets this standatd. Additional lighting is provided to add interest.
L.-N.
No response applicable.
41
The Landing: Site Plan Review Additional Submittal
May 18,h, 2006
DISCUSSION OF PROJECT IDENTIFICATION TOWER
(Note: Please refer to the l1x17 sheet called "'Sign' Images" located in the appendix of this document for
examples pertinent to this discussion.)
The lAnding project tower, shown on page 61 of the SPR l1x17 color book, can be most accurately
described as an architecturally unique, district identification tower, and while there is a "sign" on it, the tower
as a whole element is greater in function. The tower is intended to fulfill multiple purposes: 1.) To respond
to the city of Renton's desire for a unique "heart" of North Renton; 2.) To mark the district's/project's
presence, and 3.) To meet design standards as expressed in section 4-3-100, the "Urban Design Regulations."
The lAnding is envisioned as the creation of a new "heart" of North Renton. It will function not only
as a retail and enrertainment core but also as a dominant feature that will establish a high mark of design and
development for the surrounding area. Although Southcenter, Factoria and Bellevue Square malls are names
of defined retail centers their respective, surrounding areas have also become known by those names, just as
the city of Seattle has a defined border and a larger, more undefined metro area. It's expected that The
unding will have a similar effect and therefore all the more reason to create strong design features such as the
tower to give the region a strong sense of its unique identity. Just as The unding will be the heart of North
Renton, the rower is the heart of the landing, both in terms of it's identification but also because it embodies
the design character of the project. Is it meant to attract attention? Yes, it's an icon. It will be the defming
element of this district.
The to:,",er also serves to meet standards required by the Renton Municipal Code. Section 4-3-100
E.6. addresses "Site Design and Building Location -Gateways." Since The unding is a district gateway it is
required to be "marked with visually prominent features." The tower is visually prominent and will mark the
district. The tower is also "oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles." The "energy ball"
at the base of the tower is located on a major foot path through the project and is meant to appeal to
pedestrians like a piece of public art. The tower is also designed to be visible from the adjacent highway, thus
incorporating both human and automotive scale. According to the code, "visual prominence shall be
distingulshed by" "identifying building form ... unique pedestrian scale lighting ... prominent architectural
features ... (and) signage, displaying district entry identification." The tower conrains all these elements and
serves to fulfill this section of the code standards.
The tower is an identifier; and it is a design expression of the city's goal; and it fulfills standards of
the code's design regulations. A pole sign is a corporate logo on a stick. Aspects of the tower's design, the
lighting in particular, are subservient to its greater role as a district icon and are certainly negotiable. What is
truly important is to uphold the expression of uniqueness, form, energy, and the industrial inspiration of the
tower itself.
42
• ....1. :.0. l ._ ~ _1... L ;:::... ..t.,L
......
POLE SIGN
LOGO ON A STICK
~X;l.L{ ~.:eL_j,. -A ".--r.
u' ' ~
t
I· 1 ,
:.~ ~ . . f i
,1
. t I r '
I
t
-< -" -Ii!
ICONIC ELEMENT
rDISTINCTIVE TOW~,R
~ /~. ARVEST :~~~ ART N E R S /:/ (I ~LANDING
CAL LIS 0 N Project # 204300 .03
E, INDUSTRIAL
"Sign" Images
C"'~.'
e \ '. -J-Yod. \
\ \>00 2.
'?o~~
I --}-\>od ~
I l-b1 ot~~\")
-.
I
~
~
~<::::::;,
~<::::::;,
c::::.
c:!::> c 'b
404
FITNESS
42K
<::::::;,
~<::::::;,
c!:) D
405
JUNIOR
#ICHOR
15.5K
!) n
402
JUNIOfl
ANCHOR
t6 .5K
===
===
===
401
JUNIOR
mCHOR
18.SK
----- --f>'-< • - -
-r --. -lon~~ ~
:,;
··I~
60
400
ANCHOR
S5K
RET All ' Q;-
IO _SK "-~
=
==
==
=, ,tA
.~. 10 -I' R£T~ -I 23K I f
"
\
?Jc;::::::J
• ?Jc? c:::? ~ c:::? c?c:::?
b c::::' -
c::::'c;::::::J
e:::-c? ~~ c:b C::)
c::::' .-v--:=---'"), ~-.~,
~
200
mCHOR
12S.5K
PI>RKINI
(£XISTIN
\
I
I
J '
CC:>I\(SiRV<:1l0t/ R",s'N G-R~~ -At-~Ih I~ I~, ~oo 6"
.,
~;...-
THE L ANDING
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCnON SCHEDULE
APRIL 18, 2006
CONSTRUCTION 2007
MOBILIZA liON
~----------
'AC "n".~v' , ""lNERS RELEASE S.D. DEACON TO_MOBILIZE 1d 250CT05 250CT05 ' : HARVEST PARTNERS RE LEASE S.D. DEACO N TO MOBILIZE
OFFICE CO.MPhEX ~STA~ING AREA 15d ~.~Q£I~2 .. 15N5>':'05 ": 'OFFICE COMPLEX & STAGING AREA
HARVEST PARTN~RS RELEASE S.p. DEACON TQ §T~RT 1d , 250CT05 250CT05 : HARVEST PARTNERS RELEASE S.D. DEACON TO START
PRE -LOAD BLDG . PADS ( EAST SIDE) POD # 2
GRINDING OF EXjSTlNG ASPHALT I SAlVAGE MATERIAL __ ~.!l~.i. 260CTI!.~ . _1)8NOV05
lil~EYING I BLDG. PAD~ LI~~T SIOI;.) POD 2 5d : 09NOV05
PRE-LOAD BLDG. PADS WITH EXISTING SITE MATERIAL 15d i 16NOV05 06DEC05
PRE-LOAD MATERIAlI DURATION ON BLDG . PADS ----'-'31dT o70ECos -'i8JAN06 -
GRAI?IN~ 'I'tECONSTRUCTION QF ,BUILDING PADS • -sd T 19JAN06 30JAN06
PRE -LOAD BLDG. PADS / NORTH OF 10TH
SURVEYING / BLDG. PADS (WEST SIDE) PODS 3 & 1 ' 5d I 19DEC05 23DEC05
PRE-LOAD BLDG. PADS wITH EXISTING SITE MATERIAL 3Dd I 2SDEC05 03fEBOS
PRE·LOAD MATERIAl! DURATION ON BLP'!. PADs -SOd [OSt:.EB06 ___ 2!lAPR.Q§.
PRE·LOAD MATERIAL I REMOVE & RELOCATE MATERIAL 15d i 01MAY06 19MAY06
GR~DING' RI§..CON ST ~UC.TION 9F BWlDINGF'AOS ---10dr 22MAYOS 02JUN06
PRE · LOAD BLDG . PADS I SOUT H OF 10TH
SURVEYING I BLDG. PADS...LWEST..§.lflE). POD 1 . 5d I 23JAN06 ~7JANOS ~
~RE-LOAD BLDG. PADS WITH EXISTING SITE MATERIAL 15d i 30JAN06 .• _EFEB.9.6 . ,
PRE.LOAD MAT!,RI,e.l , QURATtON ON BLDG. PADS .. _. SOd : 20FEB06~2MA'!'.QL
PRE·LOAD MATERIAL' REMOVE & RELOCATE MATERIAL _ . _ J§sl.1 1~M.~YQ§ Q;aNI-l,9~
GRADING I RE~0!lST~\.!...~TION O£ BUILDING PADS 10d : 05JUN06 16JUN06
PRE-LOAD BLDG . PADS I SOUTH OF 10TH
SURVEYING 'BLDG. PADS (weST siDE }-POD 4 . ____ ~:. 24APR06 :2aAPR06 _.i
!,RE-LOAD BL~G. PADS WITH EXISTING SITE MATERIA_", __ ! 15d j 01MAY06 : 19MAY06 .1
PRE.LOAD MATERIA~l'!?\!~JIO.~ O~J3L~~:I~t~.o.~ ___ .. _> ~Q..<!' ... 22M~~~_~ 14AUGOs...1
PRE·LOAD MATER~L...L!,ILL.!N. EXISTING EXCAVATION ' 20d 15AUG06 :. 11.s_~p'~6 I
GRADING I RECONSTRUCTION OF PADS & PARKING LOT 10d I 12SEP0625SEPOS I
UTILITIES I IMPROVEMENTS -EAST SIDE I POD # 2
22MAY06 05JUL06 I .. -_ .. _'-........ -.. -...• -I
06JULQ6 _. 1.!lAU~06 .
27 JUL06 27NOV06
WET UTlLlTIE~ I STORM, SEWER, WATER 32d
DRY UTILITIES / POWER, CABLE, PHONE, GAS 32d
SITE IMpROVgMENT~/ @R~§., A~PH~q,tA~DSCAPE S8d .
UTILITIES I IMPROVEMENTS -NORTH OF 10TH STREET
VlfETJ!TIH!!.S§J STORM, SEWER, WATE R .}~ 01AUG06 13SEP06
DRY UTilITIES/I>OWER, CAliILE , PHONE, GAS _._ ___ , 32d .
SIT'!: I~PROYJ:MENTSI ~IJ!!BS, ASPHALT, LANDSCAPE : Sad
14SEPOS 270CT06
04APR07 06AUG07
UTILITIES /IMPROVEMENTS-SOUTH OF 10TH STREET
WET UTILITIES 'STORM, SEWER, WATER
pRY ~TlLITIES i PQwEii;CABlE'," PHONe;GA!l '
SITE IMPROVEMENTS f CURBS, ASPHALT, LANDSCAPE
: GOd I 14SEPOS OSDEC06
GOd : ()7DECOS ---o2MARoi-
142d ! 05MAR07 19SEP07 '
':GRINOING OF EXISTING ASPHALT' SALVAG E MATERIAL , !
SURVEYING' BLDG . PADS ( EAST SIDE) POD 2
. PRE-LOAD BL~G. PADS WITH EXISTING SITE MATERIAL
_. PRE.LOAD MATERlAlI DURATION ON BLDG . PAD S '0:-, . GRADING I RECONSTRUCTION OF BUILDI NG PADS
-'~_r S:~~:~~~~ ~L~::' ~:DS l ~ESl SIDE) PODS 3 & 1
.~ -·PRE·LO AD BLDG. PADS WITH EXIS TING SITE MATERIAL
-;:-.. PRE-LOAD MATERIALI DURATION ON B LDG PADS
---' PRE-LOAD MATERIAL I REM OVE & RE:LO CATE MATE RIAL ... ,
... GRADING' RECONS1 RUC nON OF BUILDING PADS
r ~~~':i --
.~ ,. SURVEYING I BL~G. PADS (WEST SIDE I POD 1
;,. ..... PRE4.0AD B'LOG . PADS WITH EXIS TING SITE MATER IA L
;.: . , PRE-LOAD MATERIAL I DURATION ON BLDG . PADS
'-: '--.'.PRE-LOAD MATERIAL I REMOVE & RELOCA TE MA T ERIAL
. r .. J GRADING' I RECONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING PADS :'----l--r i: . -.--
+. r SUR'-':EYING I BLDG . PADS ( WEST SIDE) POD 4
'~ •• PRE·LOAD BLDG. PADS WITH EXISTING SITE MATERIAL
...... _r 5 F \. PRE-LOAD MATERIAL I DURATION ON BLDG. PADS
·j;.··J;.,.'-PRE-LOAD MATERIAL I FILL IN EXISTING EXCAVATION
. ---'. .;':' •. GRADING I RECONSTRUCTION OF PADS & PARKIN ~ LO T
--c--_-~ J WET UTILITIES I STORM , SEWER, WATER
;. .J---. DRY UTILITIES , POWER , CABLE, PHONE . GAS _. __ . f ' :' . 'S!TE IMPROVEMENT S I CURBS , ~PHALT, LANDSCAPE
I ~ l '~ET UTILI TIES I SiORM , SEWER , WATER
---. ~ . DRY UTILITIES I POWER , CABLE , PHONE, GAS
" . ! i ~ SITE IMPROVEMENTS I CUR BS, ASPHAtT, LANDSCAPE
!--·~·r ...... ----~.-. --.---------.. -.-... --..... ~.-
I
;
~ . 'W ET UTILITIES I STORM, SEWER , WATER
· ... 1 DRY UTILITIES ' POWER, CABLE, PHONE , GAS
. ~ r SITE IMPR OV EMENTS I CURes, ASPHALT, LANDSCAPE
<"'~
• r SUB.s:ONT~CTO~J SH01' pRAWINGS I FABRICATION
SUBCONTRACTOR I BID & AWARD PROCESS 5
•
•
SHOP DRAWINGS I SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL 1(
APPROVAL PROCESS I STRUCTURAL REVIEW I 5
FABRICATION I STEEL REINFORCED CAGES I 2(
.MOBILlZATION I EQUIPMENTSET·UP I 2
CaLMA! ',---' Mh 22 £ Z!L_c! a::za
-. -
# 100 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
. I RETAIL SHELL BLDG./2S.500 S.F.
. !l1Qg II~!,:!~~IJM~ROVEMENT J.~YOTH.I::R~ )
# 1011 RETAIL SHELL BLDG. 123.000 S.F .
. # 1011 TENANT JMPROVEMENTj~Y OTHERS)
# 1021 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
!! .1()~. ! ~!;J ~I!"SHELL BLDG. 117,000 l?.!F .... ..
# 1021 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS
# 1031 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES ________________ ._
# 1031 RETAIL ,SHELL . .. ---
.!#~3 J TEN~_~T 11'!'!!,ROyEME.liT ( BY OTHE~.§ .I .
# 1041
# 201 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES --_ .... __ ._--.. _ ..
# 2011 ANCHOR SHELL BLDG. 120 S.F .
!I 201 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT.( BY Q!.!'IERS..L) __
#.
21SJ:P06
05APR07
2()J.l,lL,Q7. L. ~7SEP~! .
13APR07 -_ ... ---..
27SEP07
• ______ ••.. ~._. -.. I BID & AWARD PROCESS
I.';:.' '~SHOP DRAWINGS I SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL ri7 .1 APPROVAL PROCESS I STRUCTURAL REVIEW L~:J' ('FABRiCATION I STEEL REINFORCED CAGES \1 , ,
, ,
I EQUIPMENT SET.UP
100 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
.':!II: -----# 100 I RETAIL SHELL BLDG. I 28,500 S.F •
.. # 100 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS) ij f ., # 1011 RETAIL SHELL BLDG . I 23,000 S.F.
.. # 1011 TENANT IMPROVEMENT (BY OTHERS)
102 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
# 1021 RETAIL SHELL BLDG. I 17,000 S.F .
.. _ # 1021 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
, 1''''1'
.. _:j. # 103 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES . I 'I f ·H # 1031 RETAIL SHELL BLDG . I 17,500 S.F. I ~' 'i .. -# 103 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT (BY OTHERS)
-.. J # 1041 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES .
I 'I; I' ' .. r # 1041 JUNIOR ANCHOR SHE LL BLDG. I 12,000 S.F.
, . .. _ # 104 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
"I:::.l
# 1051 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES ---I " # 1051 RETAIL SHELL BLDG . I 10,000 S.F .
I ,I i .. -# 1051 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
L":,:r # 1061 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
! : • .. # 1061 JUNIOR ANCHOR SHELL BLDG. I S,OOO S.F.
! . .. _. # 106 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS) I ; , .. # 107 I RETAIL SHELL BLDG . I 10,000 S.F.
I ' ... _ # 107 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
'ITi --
III; J .
-.. L . # 200 I TA RGET BUILDING PAD
I... '''' # 200 I TARGET (BLDG. CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS)
I :11 I .. # 200 I FIXTURI NG, MERCHANDISE, OPEN TO PUBLIC
."jj,j # 2011 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES l1 'f : # 2011 JUNIOR ANCHOR SHELL BLDG. I 20,000 S.F . : J ' ... # 201 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
.., # 2021 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES 11" .,;.. ____ _ 'I'. '-.. • # 2021 JUNIOR ANCHOR SHELL BLDG. 120,000 S.F. I i -;-~!!II!!!!I # 202 I TENANT IMPRO VEMENT ( BY OTHERS t ------i,+, 1-. --j--
." -# 300 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES I :~--' , # 300 I CI NEMA 151,200 S.F.
ii ' .. ·.r··· .. # 300 I PROJECTOR ROOM I (BY OTHERS) .. ~ 300 I FIXTURING, MERCHANDISE, OPEN r.~!'.~~!:!~ .. ------.. --..... --.-----. ..,
<"'-
(BY OTHERS)
# 303 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
,-~---.-.-.~--'.-.-. ~----.-.-.. _---
# 303 / RETAIL SHELL
!I 303 I TENANT IMPR()YEMEN!J
# 304 / CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
# ~04'-~ET~~~HEL,L E3L,I:!G; 1.5,000 ~.F :..,_ .
,# 304 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
# 305 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES -.-----_.----.-.
# 3051 RETAIL SHELL BLDG . I 8,000 S .F. "
# 305 I TENi\NT!NlPROVEMENT( BY OTHERS l
CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
29NOV06
19JUL07
30NOV06 : 01DEC06
" 76d , 09APR07 J _ ~~U_'=Qr. .
_ 32d ,15AUG07 . PSEP07 _
2d ! 04DEC06 05DEC06
27JUL07
2SJUL07 , .. "uu, RETAIL SHELL BLDG. I 3,000 S.F. ' 66d : 24APR07
'# ~~~f~NjN~ iM.!',RoveriiNT( By'OTHERS) ,. 32d ' 1-SAuG07
# 307 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES 3d 08DEC06
27SEP07
12DEC06
,!L~07 / RETAIL. SHELL BLDG. I 1,000 S.F. 22MA Y07 06AUG07
# 3071 TENANT IMPROVEMENT I BY OTHERS 29AUG07 27SEP07
JUNIOR ANCHOR , RETAIL BUILDINGS , BLDG . PADS
If: 400 I ANCHOR BUILDING PAD ( TURN OVER DATE) 10d OSDEC06 18DEC06
# 400 / ANCHOR ( BLDG. CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS) __ ,J1~. ~QEC06 24~~_Q.07
# 400 I F!X!I,lRING, MERCHANDlSe:! ()PEN!O.l'lJBLlC,_ _ _~~~,!_.~Q}ULO~ _ 27SEP07 _
.# 40~-' frr:t-4I:~.s BUILDING PAD (TURN OVER DATE I 10d : 01FEB07 14FEB07
,# 404 / FITNESS (BLDG. ~QJ!ST~~C~19~-'?Y OTHE~S) ,132d i 15FEB07 20AUG07 i
!F 404 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS) , 44d L 30JUL07 27SEP07 -l
.J! 401) C9t--1CRETE R!'lNFO~CED PILES., }d I ~~'2!,C~~ 15De:f06 .!
If: 401 I JUNIOR ANCHOR SHELL BLDG./iS,OOO S.F. 98d 02JAN07 17MAY07
# 401 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT! BY OTHERS) '44d 30JUL07 27SEP07
# 402 I CONCRETE--RiINFORCED PILES " . 3d I 18DEC06 i 20DEC06 i
'# 402 i':;UNIOR ANCHOR-SHELL-BLoG~T17,500S-:-F , 98d ! 30JAN07 L14jUN~7 1
# 402 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS I ' 44d ! 30JUL07 27SEP07 1
# 403 1 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES 2d 21 DEC06 22DEC06
# 403 i RETAIL SHELL BL.DGJs,ooo's.F. 66d 27FEB07 29MAY07 'I
,Ii 403tTENANT IMPROVEMENT (BY OTHERSJ.u_ h, i.~2d,. 15A~C;.07 27SEP07
# ~!!5-',~ONCRETE REINFORCED PILES 3d 26DEC0628DEC:~~_.
!!. 405 I JUNIOR.ANC~OR !;HELL BLp~./15,0~0 S.F. . S8d 27~AR07 ~l~~I,.!lZ..,
# 4051 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS) , 44d . 30JUL07 27SEP07
# 406 1 CONCRETE REINFO~CEQ f'!'=~.S 2d 27DEC06 28DEC06
# 4061 Re:I.AILSHe:LL BLi)G, 16,5~0 S:F.
# 4061 TENANT IMPROVEMENT I BY n.TU""
TH E LAN DING
301 I CONCRETE REINFORCED
# 3011 PARKI NG STRUCTURE ( GROUND + 3 LEVELS)
302 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
~ # 302 1 RETAIL SHELL BLDG. I 13,000 S.F.
.. _ # 302 I TENANT IMPROVEMEN T ( BY OTHERS)
'0-]:# 303 I CONCRETE REINFORCED P ILES
.. # 303 1 RETAIL SHELL BLDG . / 6,5000 S.F.
~ _ # 303 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
... ~# 30 41 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
, ~ # 304/ RETAIL SHELL BLDG . I 5,000 S.F .
I
1 .. _ # 304 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
'~T # 305 1 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
.. # 3051 RETAIL SHELL BLDG. I S,OOO S.F.
, ~ # 305 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
.. £# 3061 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
.. # 3061 RETAIL SHELL BLDG. I 3,000 S.F.
~ _ # 3061 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
' .. ': # 307 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
.. # 307 I RETAIL SHELL BLDG. I 1,000 S.F.
.. _ # 307/ TEN~NT IMPROVE~e:NT ( BY OTHER~) .
-., # 400 1 ANCHOR BU ILDING PAD (TURN OVER DATE )
... ~ 400 I AN CHOR ( BLDG . CO NSTRUCTION BY OTHERS)
.. _ Ii 400 I FIXTURING , MERCHANDISE, OPEN TO PUBLIC
... # 404 I FITNESS BUILDING PAD (TURN OVER DATE I
~ # 404 I FITNESS ( BLDG. CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS)
~ _ # 404 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS I
0-,:;# 401 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
0-# 401 I JUNIOR ANCHOR SHELL BLDG. 1 1S,000 S.F.
, ' ~ _ # 401 1 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
, 0---:::r 402 1 CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
-~ # 402 I JUNIOR ANCHOR SHELL BLDG. 1 17,500 S.F,
~ _ # 402 I TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS)
.. r; # 403 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
.. # 403 I RETAIL SHELL BLDG . 16,000 S.F.
~ _ # 403 1 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS I
' ... # 405 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
.. # 405 1 JUNIOR ANCHOR SHELL BLDG. 1 15,000 S.F .
.. _ # 405 1 TENANT IMPROVEMENT ( BY OTHERS I
# 406 I CONCRETE REINFORCED PILES
.. , # 406 I RETAIL SHELL BLDG.16,SOO S.F.
___ . ~ _ Ii 406 / TENANT IMPR OVEMENT ( BY OT,H""E:.:.R.:.,:S'---') ___ _
.... _-_.. ._--I· Early bar I
1':'" Early start poin t i :' Eat1y fin;,h poin' 1
I _Progress bar i
_ Critical bllf I
1
_-Summ.ary b~[
Start milestone po rnt
t'{u n o a l e V.:::IVl ..... TU0 "1
S.D. DEACON CORP . OF WASHINGTON ~~----O' ----.. ·1 ~ E~L~avera _~~stems . Inc. I -------_. . Finish ~ilest~ne point
•
• •
, .
-<;It--<>. / -1-0:-1-~f-~
~<"'<~.\
100
RET AIL V r====>.i
30K
... '~
nn'~ti 7' "·'-'··-·_··--·.k???·0-n -'~p ~'LlnlL -"-"--.--'.".. Ii / 17 ___ ----------I ! . I ' " ............ -
'-"--'-"-"-"-"-.
D~~~II ~'l
c
<t
'0
~~ :Q . -·i «. -"'5 ..
=h! . ~i:". i:~H .~ .... '"
C)
Z~
-~ Q~
Z~
C~
-'z
0
W~
:z:~ ....
"
I~
--L -""-
::::.~:::,""'"
.. u ...... 'n ..
• 'U PLAN
"'::i:' ':t,
! ;-~ .
i . _,1.'-:0_ ~~::j_
I II ,/'Sl -"C\-'=~r ~~ ... 'J .. ; 'I ~£T i I I, '~TH~L··'f ,, __ ,_u_,~ ~~~·t·::-r::·-..
107
AIL
"M.',:~a I I I':: " ! ;'-".: , . I . :~p;;;~-i :~.:7 _~~ [-":-~:-+~--.:.
'b,I_LL: I.. ,~t~ L.J LOj .. -"<01rJ ±-
.....
p______ _.,., __ ,_,.". _ .,-.m. _" .... _"'_" __ . ___ ,._ . '_', ,~. __ . __ .. ___ ,." --'-.," .' _ i __ ~ .
I ! '\ !.-..... --I j . :,,-,.:1 i
, 405 1 402 401 400 ' ~!
404 j 11 JUNIOR 40 ~ 403 JUNIOR JUNIOR ANCHOR 3:
FITNESS ANCHOR RET AI RET AI ANCHOR ANCHOR TWO-LEVELS c:J:
42K 15.5K 7K.~ 6K 16.5K 18.5K 55K/LEVEL ~,"~(
! r jl .. -r-1TTLlfIUl.IIIT-=-. . =. c.-.. ·.-•.. ·.i.! , Io:iI I -~ ~ ~ -,i '. _ _ _ ---:--... ----... 1".
". -.-u_ .. _ .. _._, ._._u_ .. _ .. _. "'J.JJUU.LlJl.k}!L.,.· :~J:11~J.~.,L!~LlLLlJ)J'~LUI!~·~.r· .. _ .. _._>!;:}
Ii
I I, NORTH 8TH STREET
(J
:~ •• 10:; .. . ;; :::
;:.:! :
~ ; .. ~ :~:.
i"S ~i~ o z .. .,
" Z~
_0
Q~
Z~
C~
..I Z o
W~
:z:~
I-
ill'-
.,1'1..", •• .-"
.. ' .... n ...
NOTE-qUADIUIII,.. rll' •• U. 1~,~,~.""'I.IllS5IiU111111IIIU'_UIilIG.E'li":r4' .. -...I ...... ,r ...... ~A-002
MI. 111---_=
• •
'j'
>-
~
~
<r
'" 0:
~
~~\-"'.
\. .....
." ". \.
". \ .
\'\, _ .i;\_
.", "\" .
.. ~::., \. ".
ea\"'
:::~, \ \ ., . ~~~ Ix-,~c '",\~) 'Y '.~ -:).\~\\ ~ ~t~tJ~~e'~~~~~'-'~ . ;~~~\
.-:\ \\ . ~ "
'. \\.', t; ,
\
~:/\. "," \ .. ·~ .. r.'\ \ . , -
; .
, ' ~ ]tS~-r= '~~~j rC \"rl '" I'
i~ ~. . 201
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
20.4K
200
ANCHOR
126.8K
~ ip ~
JiL; ~I ~ -?~ !~ it i b 1'llTmTItJ --. =~iTl: r ! r::::: . r---" .-. J !
fl\>~lqJJjjJ~l,~~m~!LL.:)j;.ci'\'C:;;;;Y ................... ) t:tt at :::::;r e
"
NOTE·
a-t.t~fl~~."d'1IUU IIRIlI
JlL ...... l*/( G.£5 « J4".:JE __
., ." w' o· S! E .. .: .. : ;,.: ...... ",>J."~
; •... ~.! l=:n
• $~ .
"
Cl
z~
-~ a~
z;:;
~. ....
Z o
w~
:C~
I-
.. , ......... ....-"".,""
.u •••• '"' .. "To ... IUII
""-
-,.~ ~IA-003 _ a.... .==== ...... ,"'_ ...
•
f ~ "U
0'0 Cd I~
--i
t U)
Ii 11111 Iii' I Iii!!!! II!I r !I", I, r II ~I.i! '11"1' I~ • m~iil~!il: fl~l ~!!I I!iilil ! !m!l)i hi!l! lC ,r
l ('
r IIIUIII!I lint II!!I 111,lli i ~1I1 I q i" I I, I 111111 1
,'
I I II
n~~.~~~~~n ~~~~~ ~~;u auu. ~~~i~~~~ ~~~~t~ I n~~~ ;s.~~" ","ill .JliII", "".IIi11I111 PIl~~'~I1~ """ ~
;UlIIIIUJ mm "In uum muu. lUlU a ","""" I.'!!I 1,;11 1111111 IIIlIm 111111 mmmii mm mu 1111111 IIIlIm mill ~~i~~;~~~;~ ~;;;;; ;e;~~
0 -. 0 I
1!Ii II!! I!I 1III111 lIP. 111111 i !1I1111 ~"!III Im l,!, I l'ihi I hllij! II!lUhll!jHI ;U'dmt dHi~ ;
! '1'1 11'11 ~I! l!l:hl l ll l jli; In lilll I
I I I I Ii II I I I
• -.-----, .~F;~;F;;Fji;jiji ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~i~= l ~lIn 11~ II JJ", ...... , ,Ji, "J
i!;, i!;, "-~. "',.It t:,
, • I(lI!!ltIlI;It~~I(I(I(~I(" 1111111111 111111 ~
r:: r:: ~:: ~ ~ ; ! , f:r::r::r:r::,::,nn:r:r:r::U ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~.I(
r:r:r:r::r:r:r:r::r:~ r:r:r:r:r:,::
---,------,-._---.. ---_._._-_ .. --". -"---,----_ ..
-~,-,-"---.... -------,._----,-----_." ----.. _--_._--
I
~" g 8· ;rf:'
i~ ~ .' ~ ~~ I ~~ 0< .-ie;;, . ... ·2 ~~ !?
l , ' :. . ,
". •
•
~--------------------_I
! :; I
. Iii
I !!! I ,U)
: UJ I :~
--
-. -
------
~---SEE SHEET L1.4 & L1.5
> .""',
LANDSCAPE PLAN
i
. I
I
I
I ,
L 1.2
'WEB' '" , ru-Lr---1 ! !!tAl: I·.~_O"
'LLJ.: '
-I· [;f~f:;Jil~JTj:,;~;r~\?~"
I<EYPLAtf
IIrumbaugl\ 8. ASSIHla1~s
Lon ds C op a At c hi lee \ ur 8
aoo KortI> elh 5" •••• SUlI. 102
5.ao"1o, WA 'ltO)-llH
, ... "" .... HIlI IB2 l5~ r......... lOll 1a2 )SI~
•
,
):
z o
~ m
~
SEE SHEET L1.4
.". ,:
.-, .
ttl
(J)
t
-c&iQ'/,
• •
LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.4
, ~ ~ ~ ,-~EB
11":'i"""T';i+i::;'·'-"ii'i.-:': . 1··"·······[,., ... j-.,, ___ .
,"I ~ f.:::t_~:~;~.-:. )1;: ,"
KEY PlAN
II r umbaugh &-Ass oqa te ~
La n d 5 C op ~ Ar t I\il e c lur e
&00 N_ e5.h SIt_I. $o,oM. 102
5."", .. , WA n'Ol-l.O:l6
, .. """.... 206?D2:lUO F"'-"'. l06 7.~ ~J~
•
•
I
c .•• '
• .... ff1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I", :
m
I::: :t
1m
!!l
IE
I
I
I
•
-SEE SHEETL 1.7
~ • ~
"
;::i!
0 >
*l;;~ ~ Jr; 0
0 • p · .1 ~ • o:~;;. ! •• ,! · ~!;t · , , ·
• • '" ~ , ." m
" > z
it
E9 ~
'"
•
---------------
•
i-
::;
Ii:;
W
:t:
'" W
W
VJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
202
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
20K
201
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
21K
200
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
126.8K
-
SEE SHEEfLl,4 & Ll.S
\\
-
LANDSCAPE PLAN ll.B
ru-u----iE9 5Di.E:'". JII -rt
KEYPlM
Srurn baLigh & A $sotlates
Lan.:ls C op" Ar ch ,I, C lur e
0.00 w.u. "'k str..\ . 5uIt. la~
5 .. 1110, W~ Ml01-11116
T .. optI .... 2or. In lI~
r~_. 105 lilt 3113
•
•
r;
~ z
Cl
Ch
~ " m
"
•
r;
Z .\··1-·
•
", ' EB ~
'" -
•
,
s: z
0 en
~ rn , ~ ;.-."
. ,',
•
EB ::
0
•
:].lj'!"
"1
'-
"."
. \
..... -----_._. -".,,'--._-'-'---,.-. .-.-. ----'-' --
I ~ s~ i~ ;;1 !i a;
tl ~~ ~~
;m i! ~ .>
I~ I ~I
~i
<§ ; ~I
~ I l i !
H
~i J
!
u I ••
o. ur
~
'I I -I !
i
• " .
•
·1
I
I,
f
J
m ...
~ en o
"i
~
t-
EXISTING
~.-,.;.{
;f
-':."
:41
Ii
I]JF,J19
.-' UjF-.I.I
@PJ-Uof
n~'IP:
.::I:::l'.;~
2T3~t!
~.-t._
~ I j~s. ..
!.(
Cl
~
D~ ,-,
cO
@
O~
(~
.0 !:$(."O
if)
:11 c....:..r
jJ ,,-::
c. J
GY'
-:-.-,1
~i
I/)
Sa\/,
e,,;:,.:
CB1.1::7
~. ......
(.j .c,'J
."> P.;G
"'I.
CO U"
,... •..
~.:J
~_.Ii
~,~
'" • ~
... rr:/LD
•• '?/C
I)
PROPOSED
~
X
.0-
E-
1%1
<l-
~
p:
III
~
• @ 0=
®
osseo
Q)
IT!
@
!itl
M
O'!
...
...
• lIB
0
1;)
~
---0 D---
=
===f1'; FM -. G
,111 .~~~~IW ===-,~ ~ ---J---S
STE' STE
---T ---T
-----l-';"·--·· ~,-------p------p---
335(} llo.ntlll fIIk ,.~
BothttD. r~ P8Oa1-lM'i'2
UGHT pOL£ WITH ARM
UGffT POLE, NO ARM
POWER POLE
GUY ANCHOR
JUN 07 m
RECEIVED KEY MAP
,-~, '--tuu
TRANSFORMER
POWER VAULT
.:="-""--=-'7:--
-./'
'..,--.:---.."...-_/
\""" 'ABBREVIATIONS
POWER JUNCTiON BOX
POWER IIETER
POWER HAND HOLE
POWER UNE l4ARI<ER
STREET UGHT CONTROL BOX
TRAmc SIGNAL CotlTROL BOX
SIGNAL POLE
SIGNAl. POlE WITH UGH! ARM
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL POlE
GAS VALVE
GAS METER
GAS I.WlKER
CATCH BASIN. TYPE 1
CATCH BASIN, 'M'E 2; STORM MANHOLE
STORM ClEANOUT
SANITARY SEWER LCANHOlE
SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
mEPHONE VAULT
TELEPHONE JUNCTION SOX
TElEPHONE RISER
WATER MANHOLE
WATER VAULT
WATER VALVE
WATER METER
IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE
MONITOR ww..
ARE HYDRANT
POST INDICATOR VALVE
ARE DEPT CONNECTION
SIGN
MAILBOX
DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
SHRUBS
TACK N UEAO
REBAR/CAP
Ir-lONUMENT
CATCH BAsiN SilT PROTECTION INSERT
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
STORM DRAiN UNE
FORCE UAlN
GAS UNf
INDUSTRAIL WASTE UNE
OVERHEAD POWER UHf
UNDERGROUND POWER UHE
SANITARY SEWER UNE
srrAM UNE
OVERHEAD TElEPHONE UNE
UNDERGROUND TElEPHONE UNE
WATER UNE
POWER UNE
CHAlNUNK FENCE
" -' -.,,--
I~
! -e-
I
~ m
&\ ~ ~"-'~I-f --j.Il'Il4S::"=::;;;.lP01=~ II Cl \111 \ d
I, -;ti z
\ ~ ' ... Ii Jij!~ zl i \ 1 \ Q): '§ , I j 1 !\ >. j I 0' \
! il ~".. ,.. "'II \ ' . Ii .. ' >
\ \ i ! 'V ~l Ii,' :: I' ~ \ I' Yt, I ~! I OJ
:) ! '("p -ci I j -e: I' ',i i I) . =r 0-I j. 0
\ f-\\\ ___ ~_,6~ st. ........ _~III r N 6th St, ~: lUt,.~ I
I ' "., 'I ':, \'1-------·---==..-=.:::11 s! 1 if' Ii' !-I'-' 1-' :r---
''. ; I : ~ Ii, 1 ~ ,I ! I
'\\\ ~lilij':II::iI;,,;,r~:!i ,I
,\ 1, \ I I' ~ @J ~ J ~ I \ j., ~ I ,
\ \, "I ["II-oj/ <Ii I"" I :, \ i ' , ! i~ 1> J > I >, . I
" \ ' ,I. «;" ..:; ~I . N 5th,' St " \1 'II __ "~~ ___ ,_.J~_' _._ .. "-JI .
\1, ': \ j I i rri J-f~ '-r; I--r:; i' -"--, I
1\ \ \ / ' I 1 ii QJ I ==' ~ £ I L J
-'I \ \ ! I II If! I I Ql I ''''' \ 0' 'I i !
\ \ I J ._1 . . 'I '
-i\ \ ~\ \
(,0 \ • "', , ...... \
-£\ \ 0\ \ ~, "
\ "Z-\
" \
"
----.. -.-
'\ I \ , '/ Ol! i $I I: OJ \ CLI ' ,
\ '. 't \ / j ! I !f§i I 1 'I ,i : ; i i; ,1
\ ! ,I rlS'! (1 f' r I I I -,\ \ \ ! Id LL..i L;-' U.J I_L i.. _ . ___ .J " ;I ____ 1:L.4ttl_.~t __
\\\ \ \ / ! LI. ,-1, I n[i '-if-Oj' -rl f I r;,,'-' '.-fll'" 'I,
" ,JI. 'II~ ~., 'I'" ._-I \'\ i' I,.~, r. _, "j; ,',;' \. ,
' ,-,. I, , _ \ / ~, \ \ .. f I I I • I \' I' r I 1 I I II ,I" \ \ ;f
\, \\\ // ;:'I\IiJI. 111 ii, I'I'!' Iii.' :i:1 r-\\7/ \ \. \ ! ! ........ -Jet St I; t; , I" 'I' .~........:,. \~i ~\, \ .... \, /' / !! T'l ;: .. :~_ .. :-.,-; L L I ._ t j ;, I:' !
ell CElffERUNE
CONe CONCREIE
OIA OIAlolETER
OWG DRA~NG
E EAST
EI.£V ELEVATION
EX EXISTiNG
L LOGAN
II UNEAL FEET
LT l£FT
N NORTH
NE NORTHEAST
NW NORTHWEST
P PARI<, POWER
R/W RlGffT OF WAY
RT RIGHT
S stOPE, SOUTH
SE SOUTHEAST
STA STATION
sw SOUTHWEST
T TELEPHONE
TCE TruPQRAAY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
PT POINT OF TANGENCY
PC POINT OF CURVATURE
PRc POINT OF RMP.sE CURVE
TC TOP OF CURB
RlGffT OF WAY UNES .......,..-
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (TCE) I ..-w I ="" -... SHOWN ..-.~-AR CITY OF CITY OF RENTON </17/06
_ "" ~ .. RENTON SOUTH lAKE WASHINGTON
r__ .... • --O<TUU -ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --l'I.""c..,)",,----.... 11''::'-:1. I p~""'''''''''''''"o/Pu~' w.<b c.,.. LEGEND,KEYMAPANOABBREVlAnONS LPOO
~ NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR ~ ~-u
1 0) ....
~
C") ,
I ~
@
i
I
.1
I
I
I
~
~
I
.......
f _z ___ -
i..
1
32
" -"> .... w
-------~-----=::--
' ~~~~~~~~~==~~~~~~~~~~:,===--==--~ ----'---~ ~~, ~ '~--~
If J I 14sr<P ~I =I=~~=-------~--I -I H6~
'L-;OGAN;V;;-;;;-;-:/II.--::ve.-=-cN---I--·-I, ~, ~';-'~-p-s-~:n UGKT, TYPl.J>?i~r-~
T ~ y.-h';--.:'''''',.··-lLS tI) , .... , .. ~ ... :,l ..... ·::·.': ,-•. jJ:: ( '-y _ .. sl...;,.,: .. ~ • .""':":-;;-'Il:'-("""1 ".,.' -.' '-'. <c. ID ". -,' "'" """""1;>
Z ~ ::J r
PLANT MATERIAL Lis[:
SYM QlY BONTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE smm TREES
LS 6 UQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA 'CLYDESFORM' EMERALD SENllNAL SWEErGUM 2.5" CAL.
PS 1 PRUNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAL BURGUNDY ROYAL BURGUNDY CHERRY 2" CAL
~
LAWN SEEDING SEED
REMARKS
B&B
B&B
SEE SPECIFlCATIONS f-'-, '.'1 !r---------~--~--~ ....
~ -----r______ _
-____ ''4-l o ~~ ~ ~ ~ + ..... ~ SLS ~ 7 S
:.', ,,<, , i\.,,:, .: "_e;, .. , .. _ .... _ .... , <': .. ~.,;, ,_, ',;:, __
~ ~ - --~------~-=""1---""" w
Z
::J :c
(J
'<
:::--l_ __ 0 --~-----::::l-o-__ +
. ~O
:::;:
_z ___ -
33.50 JtOIl~ vmol P .. rk ..... ,.
BoUiell. 1I".!I8hIn.!on 98021 -8912
(4!I)16l-~aoo
(4Z1j1:5J-4!D1t ,..-.
""'~dl'lc.""'lJr NO. """"""
N
tl)
.,... ---;::::~---=--=---~-IW '"t;: .. ~ A\II:, N !IOl 5 .. ;"~,,.,. ';'''''' ."'. , ............. ";' ;""""'" ;" .~ ~
--"" -1"-20' wr_ -wr ---BY I DATE I .APPR _ W5
._-r---
"-' --
L
R/W
....:ft':r~ ~ CITY OF ® RENTON
PIannlnq/8ufk&nVPublic Worb Dept.
PLANTING NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET LPl0 FOR PLANT SPACING, QUANllTIES,
SIZE. NOTES, AND DETAILS.
2 DO NOT PLANT ANY mEE Y.1THIN 3 FT. 01' UTIUlY
VAULT AND 25 FT. OF SIDEWALK OR CURB.
3. PLANTING TO CONFORM TO CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
4. DISTURBED AREAS NOT SHOIMI ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED Y.1TH EROSION CONTROL SEEDING, OR AS
DIRECTED.
5. ALL STREET LOCA llONS !.lUST BE ST AJ<ED
BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY ClTY OF RENTON
PARKS DI"SlON PRIOR TO PLANTING.
B. PRO,"OE A !.IINIMU'" OF 24" DEPTH TOPSOIL
IN ALL SEEDING AND PLANnNG BEDS.
7. AlL SHRUB PLANnNG BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH
SARK MULCH, MINIMUM.
8. smEET TREES SHALL BE LOCATED AT A
RECOM"ENDED MINIMUU OF 30 FEET FROM STREET
UGHS AND 1 D FEET FROM DRIVEWAY CUTS. RELD
ADJUST AS REQUIRED.
9. AlL SHRUB AND LAWN SEEDED BEDS TO RECEIVE
2" ,DEPTH SOIL AMENOt.CENT. SEE SPECIRCATIONS.
SCALE
20 0 10 20 .fO
1--S...! I: I
( rEU) ~~ ~u. ...=--
""""'. """" CE7I1JRCA,ll HO, :n:z
CITY OF RENTON
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
LANDSCAPE PlAN
LOGAN AVE N. BEGINNING TOSTA. 152+00
4/17/06 ...---
LPOl
"',61 '""2tM
~
I
OJ ....
~
(') ,
0 ....
0 w II-
~
0
D-
-'
t:;
W
I en
w
W
(f]
~
__ :;0
~
S
43+00 ' ~4+00 45+00 411+00 W ----I----' -----+--------t---------1-------j --_ --_ -+--_ -__ --I--____ ~ tD
----'1--.--->\-W
W
~ o -LOGANAVE.~ 0 o ~
.:.t; 0"-_ 152"+75 (( = = -+ lO~7---_---i , 11.., -== ~
PLANT MA1~",,_ ~,_,.
~ r-LAWN STREET UGIiT, TYP., <i. <i..-.t-.;-5 LS _ '\ __ l-
I-en
Ul ;':::", ~'; ";:: "'< ~ :~':' .. "; :lJJ ~ (l ::...: .~ .. ~~ :.JiI:.~ ~l:.:: .~ ... .:.,: ~."". ·.:.'B.1·: .... :. j"}: :;::'~ ./ . .'r' ."::_:w _ . l. ~ ': ;~ ~ ..... ~.' \i . "1: :~. ".;'" E;' :,~ ~.; f: ,'I .... ; ~.~ •• : ~ ";.: ~ " :. ... ":" l'" il.'~ .;' r:, ~ ~i.~ :.-',;"_" j', "-.: .. :': ~! ..... -: '.'" ~~ ,:.. ' ... / .~ a~:~:~ .. l·l;"'~ "~" 'i. :.: \ W
~ SiDEWALK J '\ A \0 A Z
::J R/W R/W --,
I ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Dr ANT UATt"hlIAI I I~T· ~
• SYM QTY BONTANICAI. NAME COI.4MON NAME SIZE RElAARKS
SIREfT lRffS
LS 5 UQUIDAMBNl STYRJo.CIFI.UA ·CLYDESfORM' EM£R!,U) SENTlN.o.I. SWEETGUM 2.5-CAL B&a
PS 2 PRUNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAL BURGUNDY' RDYAL BURGUNDY CHERRY 2' CAL B&8
PC 1 PY/lUS CAlLERYANA ·CAPITAL· CAPITAL FlOWERING PEAR 2.5-CAl... B&8
~
HE 32 HEBE HEBE 1 GAl.. ruLL IN CONTAINER
RA 16 RHODODENDRON AUGUSTINII X ·1t-rTR1Ti>ST" BLUE DIAMOND RHODODENDRON 12'-15'/1 GAL B&B
RP 2~ RHODODENDRON PEMAKOENSE PJM RHODODENDRON 15'-18'/2 GAL B&B
YO 21 VIBURNUM DAVOli DAVID VIBURNUM 1 GAL ruLL IN CONTAINER
~ E=:J LAWN SEEDING SEED SEE SPEClf1CAnONS '.~. "
__ :;0: ...... __ -til
R/W
~I
r-!-__ ~_ ... 'I Z I
49tOO
50+00 "'
o
ll'J
r----+--------+--__ --+-____
o o
+-;)' , R ~ 0 ~I=========================.
g~ ~ r~~~;., <,:,~.,~.< :,.;<. :"'~ .. :., ~""~ ~
~ , ,
MATCHLINE STA. 60+90 (SEE SHEET LP06)
3350 Monee Vf/1a PaJ"h'ay
BDlheD, Jrubin:lot) 98021-8972
('4~J-.QD()
("~J1IS1-4""...lI r.",
""'p.dlk.._~ NO. I
STREET UGHT,
-", -u._ -... -.... .E\1"" I fI( loot 1_ .....,..
RP
EQ
- -...
1".20' -=-~ ~ CITY OF ® . RENTON
~-._-PllJnnln9lBuiJdn9/PubUc WQrb ~ .... ----
PLANTING NOTES:
1. S£E SHEET LPl0 FOR PLANT SPACING. QUANTITIES,
SIZE, NOTES, AND DETAILS.
2 DO NOT PLANT ANY lREE \IIlH1N 3 IT. OF UnUTY
VAULT AND 25 FT. OF SIDEWALK OR CURB.
3. PLANTING TO CONFOR~ TO CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT ST ANDAReS;
.;. DISTURBED AREAS NOT SHOWN ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED \II]}i EROSION CONlROL SEEDING. OR AS
DIRECTED.
5. IU SlREET LOCATIONS MUST BE STAKED
BY CONlRACTOR AND Al'PRO\£D BY CTY OF RENTON
PARKS DI\1S10N PRIOR TO PLANnNG.
5. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF' 24" DEPTH TOPSOIL
IN ALL SEEDING AND PLANTING BEDS.
7. AU. SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEP]}i
BARK MULCH, MINIMUM.
S. SlREET lREES SHIU BE LOCATED AT A
RECOI.IMENDED MINIMUM OF 30 FEET FROM SlREET
UGliTS AND 10 FEET FROM DRIVEWAY cuTS. FiELD
ADJUST AS REQUIRED.
9. AlL SHRUB AND LAWN SEEDED BEDS TO RECEIVE
,2" OEP]}i SOIL AMENDMENT. SEE SPECf1CA TIONS.
SCALE
'kJ'Pj f
( FIt;, J ~ -.~
g,.'IJ ~E~, ~
"""" £ """ CDI'VJC,I.1E NIl. ;JI2
CITY OF RENTON
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
lAIIDSCAPE PlAII
LOGAN AVE. N. STA. 152.00 TO STA. 51+00
4/17/06 ...---LP02 ,-.
182 ":m,1
~
~
$
CI
. ~
I
!
.",,--"1-""--54+00
5:3+00 -----+-- - ------+ - - -__ "of. ____ 5SLOO
---+-----'---
-I-52.~ __ ---~ ___________ _ -.------r---
:..--N --
lCl'::; RP .{ 1-.\ 5 PC / ... 21 Vii -/ .. r=-" ....... J ,I r17 RP -~_,=,_ -----=.JI.lJ
l;;. W _ r-
v'W ~-BRA
W:t: ZVl
::lw :t:w.~ O~ ':;{.
-::<
//
RP
STREET UGHT,
PLANT MATERIAL LIST:
SYl,I q(Y BOHTANICAl. NAUE COUMON NAlAE
STREEJ JREES
PS 2 PRUNUS SERRUlATA 'ROYAl.. BURGUNDY ROYAl. BURGUNDY CHERRY
PC 7 PYRUS CAl..L£RYANA 'CAPITAl..' CAPITAl.. FLOWERING PEAR
.st!BllllS
HE 166 HEBE HEBE
RA 24 RHODODENDRON AUGUSllNft X 'INTRITAST' BLUE DIAMOND RHODODENDRON
RP 91 RHODODENDRON PEMAKOENSE PJIJ RHODODENDRON
VO 110 VIBURNUM OAVOII DAVID VIBURNUM
----1-=----
SIZE RruARKS
2" CAL B&8
2.5-CAL B&8
1 GAL FUll. IN CONTAINER
12"-15"/1 GAL B&B
15"-18"/2 GAL B&B
1 GAL FUll. IN CONTAINER
56+00 -+ ___ --1--S7+00
o ~ ~-.. 00
lO --... -! '"
+ _------""--~--",-___ --f--59+00
lO __ ------------18 1--lOr:---------I d -+--,~ ---T--it---------~-~j~ -,co
--
--=-"" \\ it LOGAN AVE" N I .,.: L r ' PC ~~f ~ r~ ~ t~ ~ B RA J~
3:350 Mol'! f~ VIII.!! P-srkw.3Y
lJothell. Jl'uhin,ton 98021 -8972
-....
-(42.S;Hl--f.!lO!l ~
....
NO. ."""'"
/
/
/
-"" -",--U< -BY I DATE I APPR _ MO$ ru
-1-.. 20' ------~~ CITY OF ~ RENTON ._-PlannIrq/8u1ldini/Pub1ie WOfb Dept. ._----
PLANTING NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET UPl0 FOR PLANT SPACING, QUANl111ES,
SIZE, NOTES. AND DETAILS.
2. DO NOT PLANT ANY TREE VoITHIN J FT. OF UTIUTY
VAULT AJ<D 2.5 FT. OF SIDEWALK OR CURB •
3. PLANTING TO CONFORM TO CTY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
+. DISTURBED AREAS NOT SHOWN ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED VoITH EROSION CONTROL SEEDING. OR AS
OIRECl1ED.
5. AU. STREET LOCATIONS IJUST BE STAI(ED
BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY aTY OF RENTON
PARKS DMSTON PRIOR TO PLANTING.
6. PROVIDE A "'NJUUU OF 24" DEPTH TOPSOIL
IN All. SEEDING AND PLANlING BEDS,
7, All. SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH
8ARK IJULCH. UINIUUM.
B. STREET TREES SHAll. BE LOCA TEO AT A
RECO ...... ENDED UINIUW OF 3D FEET FROI.( STREET
UGHTS AND 10 FEET FROM DRJ\£WAY CUTs. AEUO
ADJUST AS REQUIRED.
9. AJll. SHRUB AND LAWN SEEDED BEDS TO RECEI\oE
27 DEPTH SOIL AJUENOUENT. SEE SPECIflCA liONS,
SCALE
20 a 10" 20 40 1-.-I !: /
( Fie I ) ~~ -~ ;c:3 ~.--mr
...... <-
CEJrllflC,UE HQ. 312:
CITY OF RENTON
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
LANDSCAPE PlAN
LOGAN AVE. N. STA. 51 +00 TO STA 60+00
---4/17/06 ..... -
tP03
-'83
I
I
'" ....
6.3+00 62t~ ____ --+---__ --+ ______ f-8
-~ --__ 4+00 -1-_<-=--00
-_______________ ___ 61+ ---. --------_______ RAil. __
----'-- - ----L.!!... __ -!!IYi---, LOGAN AVE N
.--I-" _
)Q ----
--.---::: -~ r;~1 05-=---~. -~~
I I
Q :>-o
lD «
...--:::----~ rH RP r ~~ . . r = Ii " ! "TJI PI r! I i d p ___ _
•• • • , _. __ m '=-' ~ EO + EQ ~IR/W
"C...srnEET UGHT, TIP.
PLANT MATERIAL LIST:
SYM 01Y 8ONT/>HICAL NAIIE COMMON NAIoIE
smm refES
PS 1 PRUNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAL 8URGUNDY' ROYN.. BURGUNDY CHERRY
PC 5 PYRUS CAlLERYAtIA 'CAPITAL' CAPITN.. FLOWERING PEAR
HE 107
RA48
RP 99
\10 70
!iI:IIlllIlli
HEBE
RHODODENDRON AUGUSTiNIl X 'INTRITAST'
RHODODENDRON PEMAKOENSE
Vl8URNUU DA\IOII
HEBE
8LUE DIAMOND RHODODENDRON
PJM RHODODENDRON
DAVID VIBURNUM
'----I ------_RLW
SIZE;
2" CAL
2.5-CAL.
1 GIL
,2"·,5"/, GAL
15"·18"/2 GAl.
1 GIL
REW.RI<S
8&8
8&8
FULL IN COIITAINER B&B .
8&8
FULL IN CONTAINER
I
I
I
----------~
6s.,.00 -----....:.-------------~ I
I
I I
--="".!!' -~ 81
-+~
., -1-----6'7+00 68+00 t ____ .. _ ---+--=---------+ -D~ I I~~~r;~~ Iz
3350 1I,:onte Villa ParJn."y
DoLbeJI. lI'uh/nl(DD 98021-f19'72
RA
'-'== UGHT, lYP.
oj. •
I~ 'I
0.;
1'--20' ...::'~ ~ CITY OF
RENTON
("25}ISI-~
("'2$J~'-.f«HI' F'u
ortIJNdlie.cam
I " .. :"-:": I r __ _ ® Planrmv/BuBdin;/Pub1ic Wot1ce Dept. --
PLANTING NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET LPl0 FOR PLANT SPACING, QlJANllTlES.
SIZE. NOTES, AND DETAILS.
2. DO NOT PLANT ANY TREE ""THIN 3 FT. OF UllUTY
VAULT AND 2.~ FT. OF SIDEWALl< OR CURB •
3. PLANllNG TO CONFORM TO CITY OF RENTON
DEVlELOPI.IENT STANDARDS.
4. DISruR8ED AREAS NOT SHOIII-I ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED 'MTH EROSION CONTROL SEEDING, OR AS
DIRECTED.
5. AlL STREET LOCATIONS MUST BE STAKED
8Y CONTRACTOR AJND APPROVIED 8Y CITY OF RENTON
PARKS DIVISION PRIOR TO PLANllNG.
6. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 24" DEPTH TOPSOIL
IN AlL SEEDING AJND PLANllNG 8EDS.
7. ALL SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH
BARK MULCH, I.IINIMUM.
a. SlREET lREES SHAlL 8E LOCATED AT A
RECOf.IMENDED MINIUUU OF 30 FEET FROM STREET
UGHTS AJND 10 FEET FROM DRIVEWAY CUTS. FIEL!J
ADJUST AS REQUIRED,
9. AlL SHRUB AND LA'M'I SEEDEO BEDS TO REOEIVE
2" DEPTH SOIL AMENDMENT. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
SCALE
t J 'P i i
( .oft.; j ~ "'E~ -I!:; """""~ ~
-.so ....
CDTftCI,1r: NO. 312
CITY OF RENTON
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
lANDSCAPE PlAN
LOGAN AVE. N. STA. 60+00 TO STA. 69+00
I •
J
~
~
'?
~
Q
llJ
t-
3350 JiClllte VIJla Por~,...,y
Bothell. lr.sshJnltan 99021 -8972
iI4 t!,"I-t800
(U5)""~ ... aoa ,. .. --
--------~--------------------
__ ~....-r'I,.IV _ ---+-_ _ 71+00 ~I±
r! r -LQGAN-AVE. N----1-::--Ae> --\
C/) _ II __ ,::;:~ . -
<'-
t' 0!!"ti'9*E= ;::::u~-----···W·f~~/
, ---. ---. --" E EET UGHT. TYP. . '-,', .. _0._ .. _,_.~o_ _ _,
PL4NT MATERIAL UST:
SYM OTY 80NTANICAL NAME
SIREfT lRW
COMMON NAME
PL4NTING NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET LP10 FOR PLANT SPACING. QUANllllES.
SIZE, NOTES, AND DETAILS.
2. DO NOT PLANT ANY TREE 'MTHIN 3 FT. 01' UTIUlY
VAULT AND 2.S FT. OF SIDEWAlK OR CURB.
J. PLANTING TO CONFORM TO aTY 01' RENTON
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
~. OiSTlJRSED AREAS NOT SHOIIN ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED VIITH EROSION CONTROL SEEDING, OR AS
DIRECTED. '
5. AlL STREET LOCATIONS MUST BE ST AKEO
BY CONlRACTOR AND APPROVED BY CITY Of RENTON
PARKS DiVISION PRIOR TO PLANllNG.
6. PROVIDE A MINIMUM Of' 2~' DEPTH TOPSOIL
IN ALL SEEDING AND PLANTING BEDS.
7. AlL SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 2' DEPTH
BARK M'ULOi. M(N' ... U ....
a STREET TREES SHALL BE LOCATED AT A
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM OF 30 FEET FROM STREET
UGH1S AND 10 FEET FROM DRIVEWAY CUTS. FlELD
AD.lJST AS REQUIRED.
9. ALL SHRUB AND LAVIIN SEEDED BEDS TO RECEIVE
2" DEPTH SOiL AMENDMENT. SEE SPEaFlCA llONS.
SIZE REMARKS
PS 2 PRUNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAL BURGUNDY' ROYAL BURGUNDY CHERRY 2" CAL B&B
PC 2
HE 62
RA 24
RP 60
VO ~1
-", -ur_ -ur -....
BY I """,IN'PR -1EJ REVISICH NO.
PYRUS c.oJ..I.£\'1Wl. 'CilPfTAL' CM'ffAL FLOWERING PEAR 2.5" CAL. B&B
~
HEBE HEBE 1 GAL FlULL IN CONTAINER
RHODODENDRON AUGUST1NII x 'INTRffASr BlUE DIAMOND RHODODENDRON 12"-15"/1 GAL B&B
RHODODENDRON PEMAKOENSE PJM RHOOOOENDRON
VIBURNUM DAVOli DAVID VIBURNUM
...
'-.20· -.:n-=,_ ~ CITY OF ~ RENTON -----""''''''''"''""'''''''''''''''' ........... ..""----
15"-18"/2 GAL B&B
1 GAL. FlULL IN CONTAINER
SCALE: 2k_ _~ '.0 iO i
( FEi: I ) ~ -~~ ~ ~
-.... ""'" CJ;R1'ACA1t JIll. 3t2
CITY OF RENTON
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
LANDSCAPE PLAN
LOGAN AVE. N. STA 69tOO TO STA. END
-4/17/05 ...... -'''"[POS
-185 ""20.
en
"" -'" ,
0
"" 0
~
I
I
~
N
I
!
,--..
N a ,--.. CL I~ ~~ Rt:!!.. r-smEET LIGHT, lYP.
"'" = R/W 7' -" 7' '" 7' '" , .... ~, .... ,.... .... IJ } 7' '" m
o g ~ ____ --~ ____ ~t.£O ---: ___ 1 ______ 6~ ____ --+-____ =--+=;6;-;4+-:-:;Co~<="_-~~:~_-_-~-==-I!
+-1= _ <0
o
<0 N. 8TH ST. _ ~';AWN ..:
~ -Jl PS ~ " ~-4 CB-~ • ; ~
w r; : .. :... ".-"" ...... ~: .. ~:: :.x. :':1 .. : .......... ~':" ":':.:'. ,", '.:;: ·1':··:: ~". :.,"\-.. " ~:M ~ .... ,,;~ _" ... ~. ::.'.:--' ..... ~ : .. ,' "'::::' ::': .f.: " .::1. ~ ... -iC':'; .~':.:. ,'.; . :;. ._\..~:_···t ~ .. -.,', . :"\"':::" ;t •.... ~-' .... :::: ~ I .-;'. ''''.' .•. :~.~:": "; ': ;. ~ t.~., .;~ z
z L \ I J ~ ...J
:J / R/w ~ R/W -[5
I EQ 'SO' EQ I-U < ~ ~
::;;
PLANT MATERIAL LIST:
SY\j QlY BONTANICAL NAME COMMON IW.IE SIZE REMARKS
smm TRfFS
CB 16 CARPINUS BETULUS 'FRANS FONTAINE' FRANs FONTAJNE HORNBEAM 2.5" CAl.. B&8
PS 2 PRUNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAl. BURGUNDY' ROYAL BURGUNDY CHERRY 2" CAL. 8&8
~
HE 113 HEBE HEBE 1 GAl.. FULL IN CONTAINER
RA 40 RHODODENDRON AUGUSTINII X 'INTRITAST' BLUE DIAMOND RHODODENDRON 12"-15"/1 GAL 8&8
RP 99 RHODODENDRON PEMAKOENSE PJM RHODODENDRON 15"-IB"/2 GAL B&e
VIl 74 \<1SURNUIA DAVIlil DA\<1D \<1eURNUM 1 GAl.. FUll IN CONTAINER
r:·:: ,,"1 .sEEIlIlIli
LAWN SEEDING SEED SEE SPEClFlCATIONS
,~ . ~
~~--'----1-------------------------------'-~--'-~' . ...J .g RtJ!. ~ ~EET UGHT, TYP. . ~ I t::i
<>: =rij~I~~~ Wf±JW@a~'JirtFul'i\L\€il~I\PJ!!.!JQ€3II;F'Vt'iiiif 1·..::0 ~
~
RA RA UJ w
Ul
'-' r~~-~-~O--;S",5~ioiifo,~~FI--_-_-_~~-_---+--~--_~_-_-_-_=_~---t-'6S~+n;OO;-_-_=_~_-_~=~-t-811i=-:S:::T=.--_=_~_-_-_lsf-i?;:;:i~oO!::==--_~_=_-_-_-=_--+---=-_-_-_=_-_~_~--+-=;6,"8:;;+OOOiF_~_-_=.:.-~-_-:Jt;;;O~-~_~_-_~-~=_=_=_=_=;;_6;;:191 g
+ Ol
<0
.-sTREET UGRT. lYf':"" ~' r " ~of:F" l .. ;>, r""!i. 1~ L1' EJ R;~ ~t ~ \fJ'; j""":';'";''''' ~
w
z e J " j' r " J~" _ ,'" ••.. il ,1,"" ......... '-~'.,.'., ........ ,', .. ,' ',' ~"l ,. r ..,.. -':J: , ....... , ... ~ . \.:J ...... < .. '."!'f0.,.\.; .. '~ ·: .. · .. ·,:t·o..·;·,j,,·· .. , ... , .... : .. ,(-?y.,.,;.,., -·~'l'·· .. ··;'· ""W' . . ... ...... , ~ SIDEW"~ ~... " ..... " ..... ,. ,"'" ..• " ' .. , ... ,.' .' ••• ' •.. ' .. ; ..••.. ~.,'.""'\XJ: ... '-'· ... ,;,,3
~
3350 Monle VIDa P.,,.kw.ay
8oUII:1J, li',uhlr>eLom 9B021-89'7.2
If2SjflSl-~e£I
(USJ~I-IMII Fn
wbpocilk ..... .., NO. I """"""
EO so' EQ J: ()
~ :::;;
--'" 1-",,20' -=-~ ~ CITY OF -® "'-RENTON -", ---... :_"':. AannIng/BuBdlnVPublic WoI'kI: Dept. "" I frt' I DATE I APPR I -ru --
PLANTING NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET LPID FOR PlANT SPACING. QUANllllES,
SIZE. NOTES, AND OCT AILS.
2. DO NOT PLANT AlNY TREE IIlTHIN 3 FT. OF UTIUTY
VAULT AlND 2.5 FT. OF SIDEWALl< OR CURB.
3. PLANllNG TO CONFORt.I TO CllY Of' RENTON
DEVELOPt.lElIT STANDARDS.
4. DISTURBED AREAS NOT SHOv.N ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED \\ITH EROSION CONTROl SEEDING, OR AS
DIREClED.
5. ALl STREET LOCA llONS UUST BE STAKED
BY CONTRACTOR AlND APPRO'v£l) BY CITY OF RENTON
PAIRKS DI"'SlON PRIOR TO PLANTING.
S. PRO\<1DE A t.lINIMUM OF 24· DEPlH TOPSOIL
IN All SEEDING AND PlANnNG BEDS.
7. ALl SHRUB PlANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH
BARK UULCH. ~IN').IUU.
B. S1REET TREES SHALl BE LOCAlED AT A
RECOMMENDED MlNlIlUt.I OF 30 FEET FRQIj STREET
UGHlS AlND 10 FEET FRO'"' DRIVEWAY CUTS. FIElD
ADJUST AS REQUIRED.
9. ALl SHRUB AlND LAWN SEEDED BEDS TO RECEiVE
2" DEPTH SOIL At.tENDMENT. SEE SPEClFlCA llONS.
SCALf
20 "'0 20 4{} ~_ -' [[ I
( "to£r ) ~ -.~ ==:: --~
"""" £ ..... CBnI'ICAlE HQ. 312
CITY OF RENTON -~/17/04
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON -ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --LP06 LANDSCAPE PlAN
N. 6TH ST. STA. 60.90 TO STA. fi9.tOO -lBI5 204
'" ....
~
'" '" ....
a
JJ
I-
i
~
I
,-...
to
0
0..
-'
t;i
~I
[f)
W
W
[f)
~
0
t
1 4/
R/W
~% , '---.-.-
?4R+J.I'~ ~ ...,
r--
0 + 0>
<D
f!:
c--It <..-.. r -. --in --in -. u,o'_jn -I ---0 1~;;: fN..ti ..l .1 ---------9 ===============~ Ww ~(IJ N. STIiST. [f)
W
Z
::J :r:
(.)
~
.:E "---'-'
o
!l)
j
PS -
._ . _____ E_'L. _ . .:..-. _. _. _____ . STR~ UGHT,_ TYP .. -.,
PLANT MATERIAL LIST:
SYM QlY BONTANICAi. NAME
C8 6
PS 4
PCC 6
HE 114
RA48
RP 82
VO 64
= t.:::..:..J
srnm TREES
CARPINUS BETUWS 'FRANS FONTAINE'
PRUNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAL BURGUNDY'
PYRUS CAUERYANA 'CHANTlCLEER'
.stlBl!eS
HEBE
RHODODENDRON AUGUSTINIl X 'INTRITAST'
RHODODENDRON PEMAKOENSE
Vl8URNUM DAVOli
.sEEllItro
t
,
COMMON NAME
FRANS FONTAINE HORNBEAM
ROYAL BURGUNDY CHERRY
CHANTICLEER FLOWERING PEAR
HEBE
BlUE DIAMOND RHODODENDRCN
PJU RHODODENDRON
DAVlD VIBURNUM
LAWN SEEDING
SIZE
2.5" CAL
2" CAL
2.5" CAL
1 GAL.
12"-15"/1 GAL
15"-18"/2 GAL.
1 GAL.
SEED
;J; 1-------'74+·00 75+00 ~, 76+00
r-.... --t------t--_;::::;:::=I -~I-==L
~ -K~LAwtl H. 81J:I ST~ -I 3 PCC --~)( ,,-...., ,,-....,
~ : 1'.,:: >-, ,"'.1.1,,":',' '.:' ";;., ;:':'\'" ... -;:;.C,-"" ";.".:'",' :,.: ~~ .. ~,: '}'" . \ .. ~; ... : !'.~: "':', .J., .... :, ... :? t.· ',' './'. ,\;·,i-C:··';· .. :',.:. ,.1' ....,
I-R/W ~ . '
-""
REMARKS
B&B
B&B
B&8
FULL IN CONTAINER
B&B
B&B
FULL IN CONTAINER
SEE SPECIf1CATIONS
IIII
-PlITkw.y -""""" 1~-2Cl'
9lJC2J-89?2 L .L ::r -"" --'"""\os ._-
NO. I ..,..10" 1 BY 10A",1_"1-""
r ___ --
--' :r:w
(.)w
I-[f)
Wi to:., .. ;. "" .•• _\ .. ~~---
,r-'
-~ ~ CITY OF ~ RENTON
PIonning/BuIIdln.;/P1Jbic Works Dept
PLANTING NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET !.P10 FOR PlANT SPACING, OUA/llTTIES.
SIZE, NOTES. AND DETAIlS.
2. DO NOT PlANT ANY TREE v.1THIN 3 fT. OF UllUTY
VAULT AND 2.5 fT. OF SiDEWALK OR CURB.
3. PLANTING TO CONfORM TO CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
-I. DISTURBED AlREAS NOT SHOWN ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED \11TH EROSiON CONTROL SEEDING. OR AS
DIRECllED.
S. ALL STREET LOCATIONS MUST BE STAKED
BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROI.ED BY CllY OF RENTON
PARKS DIVISiON PRIOR TO PlANllNG.
6. PROVIDE A MINlMUU OF 2~" DEPTH TOPSOIL
IN ALL S1EEDING AND PLANllNG BEDS.
7. ALL SHRUB PLANlTNG BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH
BARK UULCH, UINfl,fUM.
8. STREET TREES SHALL BE LOCATED AT A
RECOIII4ENDED IAINIMUM OF 30 FEET FROM STREET
UGHTS AND 10 FEET FROII DRIVEWAY CUTS. f1ElD
AID.lJST AS REQUIRED.
9. ALL SHRUB AND LAv.tI SEEDED BEDS TO RECEIVE
2" DEPTH SQlL A1AENDMENT. SEE SPEaf1CA llON5.
SCALE:
20 orof .flJ
'--"'" 1 1
( FELl J @ ~K~
~ ~~
...... t .....
CEJl~1E HQ. 3t:2
CITY OF RENTON
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
lANDSCAPE PLAN
N. 8TH ST. STA. 69+00 TO END
4/17/00 -----
'""'LP07 --
!
I
I
~
~
"? o ....
'=l
lJ
I-
__ z:-4 ___ -
______ J __ _
/ r-';,Ai~;i'~;'~'='~'-"~~:;:9-';~'~'~='~-' ~€y;;, " ,-, " ~: ML__ 9 --€9--j~ F ~_""""_ ....... ~ -:,... ~ "' ..... -i,n ..... ·.r _:?I' ,.' of. \,~!, '; .. , •.•• ,. :-<--;.: • 't'.; .,' .. ; ';' :" ;' .. :=' ... . -w • __ , ./ J."l4 .. ~····tH.', .. ·,.:.·,·.~Ii":-:··:·'·· ;l( -' " ' ,,' '."., ." :'.'!"'~ ':,,::' ID w w
,,8 o
1------~~--~~
N
<
----------r ,~ " A " N '~'--tH -I '--'" ~ ............-R/W '\ « I~
PLANf MATERIAL UST:
SYIl Q1Y BONTANIC/Il NAME
STREET TRFFS
PS 16 PRUNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAL BURGUNDy'
TC 16 TIUA CORDATA 'CORZAM'
.s!lB!lIlS
EU 65 EUOIffiJUS ALATA 'COMPACTA'
RA 37 RHODODENDRON AUGUSllNII X 'INTRiTASr
RB 56 RHODODENDRON 'BOS'S BLUE'
RD 51 RHODODENDRON 'DORA AMATEIS'
~ t.::::...::...J
.sEEIlIllil
(SEE SHEET LP07)
COIAMON NAIoIE
ROYAL BURGUNOY CHERRY
CORINTHIAN UNDEN
COMPACT WlNGm EUONYMUS
BLUE DIAMOND RHODOOENDRON
SOS'S BLUE RHODODENDRON
DORA AlJATElS RHODODENDRON
LAWN SEEDING
SIZE
2" CAL
2,S" CAL
2 GAL
12"-15"/1 GAL.
15"-18"/2 GAL
15"-18"/2 GAL
SEED
REIoIARKS
B&B
8&B
FULL IN CONTAINER
S&S
B&B
B&B
SEE SPECIFlCATIONS
g "L'" _ !\ e; :: -.lY\, .. '.1
!~\~ "'-______ R/YI_
---en o
~
5! G. '. i ..... /.. .' :\, . " , .< ••• ' " .. ~. --~
o o
TC' 60~
rb L"" J)O...Lnn.
N --------t ---------
~
VI
W
?-
~~ ~J~ ~~ I~ ::E.,: ;'"'''''''''' ;':E01<' .. ; .. ·;·.··~·~ :~;:';J, 2l<,,·t' -J () ........ _ ............... ~ ..... "' ••.• ~!l .,. ' .. ". 't'
!--, til C R_
:::;;:
................ , .... " ... PlIrk'"'T
BoLheJI. l'uhillftDJI gl102l-0972
t~
3Ot oo
t;
z
~ ~-=~OO~~W~~~T(;T)---!~=II~
I Te-
~ 32+00 ------H+------+------
w
~
'--'
o
If) + 10 =1 ~ I i
~ PARKAVE.N. t "[ t\ JI1 ~ (~:r-_._--'-13
I o
------------';;( :::;;: \~( ,/------R7W-
(SEE SHEET LP07)
-..... -------
"" 1--20' -=-..::-~ CITY OF -",,-® RENTON ]-"" I ... :.~ -PIa~drnq/Publk: WOfU Dept. ... .. ... _-
NO, I REViSiON I BY I DATE I Af'PR I -TtJ --
PLANTING NOTES:
1, SEE SHEET LPIO FOR PlANT SPACING. QUANTITIES,
SIZE. NOTES. AND DETAILS.
2. 00 NOT PlANT ANY 'TREE \\r!HlN 3 FT, OF UlIUTY
VAULT AND 2.5 FT. OF SIDEWALK OR CURB,
3, PlANTING TO CONFORM TO CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
+. OISTURBm AREAS NOT SHOIItI ON PlAN TO BE .
SEEDm I'<lTH EROSON CONTROL SEEDING. OR AS
DIRECTED,
5.. ALL StREET LOCATIONS UUST BE STAKED
BY CONTRACTOR AND APPRO\lEl) BY CITY OF RENTON
PARKS DI\1S1ON PRIOR TO PlANTING.
6. PROIo1DE A MINIMUM OF 2+" DEPTH TOPSCIL
IN ALL SEEDING AND PlANTING BEDS.
7. ALL SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH
BARK MULCH. MINIMUM.
8. STREET TREES SHALL BE LOCATED AT A
RECOWJENDED MINI MUlot OF 30 fEET FROU STREET
UGHTS AND 10 fEET fR()f,j DRIVEWAY CUTS, RELO
AOJUST AS REQUIRED.
9. ALL SHRU8 ANO LA IItI SEEDED Bms TO RECEIVE
2" DEPTH SOIL AMENDMENT. SEE SP"ClRCA TIONS,
10, PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREES ON EAST
SlOE OF PARK AVE. N. ""THIN GRADING UMITS.
II. SEE SPECIRCATIONS FOR LAIIN SEm AND
APPUCATION RATE
SCALE
~ V T i f ~ ~tt~ -~ ~.-wr
............
C8m'1C:Al[ KG. 312 ( FEt; )
-CITY OF RENTON 4/17/05
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON -ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS --LANDSCAPE PLAN LPOB
PARK AVE. N, STA23+SO TO STA.32+SO -188 ",20-4
~
~
'" a ...
fa
i-
I <
i •
I
SI
III
SI
GI
!
I!
'" ...
~
'?
~
CI
W
I-
__ z ...... ---
R/W _________________________ _
-------{--------U ---TI III TI
, ---,(T ............ \0 I " 7 '"
o I R ! Il}--. { +co NO
I')~
j'51;j
(f)w
I
WU)
Z
:J
I
()
f;;:
:::0
I " I .. --______ ----i ___________ - - ----.LL.... - --L""1--
I • . R/W ----------------------=-=--=-=---=
PLANT MATERIAL LIST:
S\1.I QTY BONTANIc.\L NAJ.lE COI.IUON NAJ.lE SIZE REMARJ<S
SlEEET TREES
PS 18 PRIJNUS SERRULATA 'ROYAl.. BURGUNDY' ROYAl.. BURGUNDY CHERRY 2" CAL. 8&B
TC 4 TILIA CORDATA 'CORZA!.l' CORINTHIAN UNDEN 2.5-CAL 8&8
~
. EU 86 EUONYMUS AlATA 'CO~PACTA' COMPACT WINGED EUONYMUS 2 GAL FULL IN CONTNNER
RA 60 RHODODENDRON AUGUST Nil X 'INTRITAST BLUE DlAMOND RHODODENDRON 12"-15"/1 GAL B&8
RB 70 RHODODENDRON 'SOS'S BLUE' BOB'S 8LUE RHODODENDRON 15"-18"/2 GAL B&8
RD 77 RHODODENDRON 'DORA NMATEIS' DORA NMATBS RHODODENDRON 15"-18"/2 GAL 8&8
" --67+50 --/ --/ ---/ --------~ --./' -----------------~
I
---Z 1'" • CD ~ ,s --. i---r~----
\
--
---.J..
I!l
-I . ----=t::--. _____ -=-_----,"----"-~--:--.... -----'" ---------------~ R/W
11--"---' U 11U~' BQ(h.eJl. lfuhIn,lcn 9BOZI-B9?~
rofU,lt5l--.noo
(<l2S1P51 ...... !Id r.,..
df"""l'l'la. ....... RE'<1SIDH
-1·-20'
--._-r __ _ --
i"
\
..a:,r..;r-
~ ~ CITY OF
RENTON
Plan~9IPubic Works Dept.
PLANTING NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET LPl0 FOR PLANT SPACING, QUANTITIES,
SIZE. NOTES, AND DETNLS,
2. DO NOT PLANT ANY TREE v.1THIN 3 FT, OF UTIUTY
VAULT AND 2.5 FT, OF SlDEWALK OR CURB,
3. PLANTING TO CONFORU TO CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPIIENT STANDARDS,
4. DISlURBED AREAS NOT SHOIIN ON PLAN TO BE
SEEDED v.1TH EROSION CONTROL SEEDING. OR AS
DIREClEIl.
5. ALL STREET LOCATIONS MUST BE STN<ED
BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY CITY OF RENTON
PARKS DlII1SION PRIOR TO PLANTING.
S. PROIi1DE A MINIMUM OF 24" DEPTH TOPSail
IN ALL SEEDING AND PLANTING BEDS.
7. ALL SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH
BARI( UOlCH. UINIIJUM.
8. STREET TREES SHALL BE lacA TED AT A
RECOUt.lENDED I.IINIUUI.I OF 30 FEET FROM STR£ET
UGHTS AND 10 FEET FROM DRIVEWAY curs. FIELD
AD.AJST AS REQUIRED.
9. ALL SHRUB AND LAYotI SEEDED BEDS TO RECEIVE
2" DEPTH SOIL AIIENDMENT. SEE SPECIFICATIONs'
10. SEE SPEClFlCAllONS FOR LA~ SEED AND
APPUCA 110N RATE.
11. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXlSl1NG TREES ON EAST
SIDE OF PARK AVE. N. v.1THIN GRADING UI.IITs.
12. STREET TREE PLANTING BEYOND STATION 3++00
TO LOGAN AVE. N. AND OUTSIDE OF RlGHT-~-WAY
ON SEP ARA TE CONTRACT.
SCALE
2D 0101040 I-....! ; I I ~ .....
g:s: !' 1D,::1#Ti
•• co.,s<
"""""'" I rtET )
CITY OF RENTON
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
LANDSCAPE PLAN
-
PARK AVE, N. STA32+50 TOSTA. 3fHOO AND STA41+50 TO END ...
L. i:
';-''\-.
II •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AERIAL CONTEXT MAP
CONCS'T IMAGES
PERSPECTIVE SKETCHES
meAAN iifF~ D1SlRlCT AAN, ',' ,_,"
/. '" -. DISTRICT 8.EW<r1<lNS. _ "
DlSlRICTEl.JNATIONS· THE ~
DISTRICT B..EVA11eNS. THE AVI!NUE
DISTRICT El.JNATIONS. _ WALK
DISlRICT PERSI'EC11VE. MARI<ET lANE
MATERIAL SAMPLE BOARD --~ ~.
3-D MODB.IMAGES -
CODE me PlAN I
=.!=AL~' ,:' -",' '.~-"
lAN08CAI'IN81!l19t61R ",
lNIIl8OAPt... .:. " :~,
lANDSOAI'IN8liN', ,
uotfTNJ -:,'
UGHTINO Srnt "'""'" !
APPENDlXA~GMLT
.~
I'
,;1
.~
."
i ,:.-
" :
I
I,
......
~ARVEST
I'ARTNEftS • ~~!!
PAGEl
MGEIII3
PJl\GEI4
PAGESIIN7
!lANDING --.... ' .............
PROJECT DIRECTORY
-~, '.'~
~eL ~~'htii&ll: ,.~~
"~"':'"
···;:;';r,;..·,
'Ilini' "'--.. ," .. ,. ~:t:1iif. ~~.;.~
~:IOt.::l'''''~'''
.................. ::t:::z:-%:,'-'i::e. .......
...... IM .. .. ------................... -"' .... .. --.-, .. " ...... .,.,..., ..... .......... '" "W.M_
-... ----...
---
I';
<<<~et:IIIw ."~ -
""\ .
"):'i;' =''''-;1t.= {.:.
:::= .......
HIIIII .......... ~~
~---
~.:"',;;;..'. -,; .. ~" ...... ~1fl"~T.':~·,: .. ~.-.
__ d ........ f n~ .... hM
• .. ·1iii"!:t','·i;t ......... -................. ....... _ ..... -?om_14M
,.. ...... ~......e:
~
e
CALLISON
I .
Table of Conlents ..
z
o
.~
c i
J
J
II
Ii •
II
j
I
If
Ii
II
.. AND MELD WITH:
CLEAN, MODERN DESIGNSWITHA
S LEE K AND P LAYFU L INFLUENCE.
,. . ARVE,S.~ .~~~~ ART N '-
!LANDING _.-....-.............
,.., ............. ...-e:
MaIioanMaIquIIo een""",lmag8s II
... TO FORM:
AU N I Q!) E EXPER.t ENCE THAT tS
80TH RESPECTFUL Of THE
PAST AND INTRIGUINGLY
MODERN .
.. IA . ARVEST .~
"AIt.TNER5 mLANDING
Ft .... ,
,.., .......... w .... ......e:
M 5 •• ,.. ....
Cawepllmagea II
II
If
Ii •
z
e
.~
c
u
II
jJ
.h .. of h
III
~
II
C)
~I
OJ
ZI.I .. ~I
iIIU
Ii •
z
o
.~
'" u
II
Ii •
z
o
.~
< u
"'.". " ."-
II
Ii •
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
QUADRANT 'A'
RETAil SHOPS
CINEMA
TOTAL8QFT
PARKING ISUrflKllI,
PARKING (Blrulltt.red)
RATIO (Rei,.' ... CInema 708 ps I '4'.111.)
QUADRANT 'B'
ANCHOR
JUNIOR ANCHORS
RETAllSHOPS
FITNESS
TOT,tolSQFT
TOTAL PARKING
RATIO (' .... 7 ps 1276.5 11.)
QUADRANT 'C'
ANCHOR
JUNIOR ANCHORS
RETAIL SHOPS
TOTAlSQFT
TOTAL PARKING
RATIO (825 ps 1109.5 k Relall)
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL san
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL PARKIN.G
87,8k ...
141.811.
"" tltll.,..
6.Q/t,OOO
'10 •
50.5 It ". ...
210.6k
1141 pe
4."',000
125.5k
'" 2Jk
180.5 Ie
825 ps
.. 311,000
607.8 Ie
2880 pI
FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL QUADRANT
RET""l SHOf'S
RESIDENTIAl (885 ufttr;J
TOTN-SOFT
PARKING (SUrface]
PARKING (S'lnK:Ued,~)
QUADRANT '0'
HQMESTORE
JUNIOR ANCHORS
RETAILSHOPB
TOTAlSQFT
TOTAl PARKING
RATIO (1154 ps I 245 k)
'~~v,,~s.~
". 752.5k
167.511.
"" 1418 ps
"" .Ok
'" ....
11504 pc
4.711,000
.~
)
~LANDING ,., ........................
~ .. ~ .... -.--~ .... ,........
RETAtL SHeps
THEA"""
PIdUONG STRUCTURE
RESIDENTIAL
<i
CALLISON
N
CI' W 100' 2f# 400' (2)
SIs Plan II
T r.t. If. I". ,. r.I. f6 ( ~ ~ r. '*' !ill C i ----,
r ft,{. (i Ito v, r.. i V. 4'140
Fashion" IIfutyla.
sophistlc:ot8d through
simplicity
High-energy entertal_t dis-
trlct. vlbrwrt. dl'GlllGl.
"tha plac8 to H $ .....
Irbanstaga
M At fa.. "-~ I L A t>J tt c.J.IIiiJ
Community and
se.asonalevents
'~~y.~s.~
r t./. i 'fI4 ,. t.. "-
Practical. convenient.
neighborhood
garden walk
.~ =LANDING
.... ....,.,..,~ .................. ,'
~-fI "('1&." r., ~ ~
t,.' Residential. e
CALLISON
chormlng lrban living
... T f.1.lf ,. V. It IN V IF
I"w .......................
ModouioMao..-
Tru-llMd urban access
corrider.
°0 prduda to the show·
HIlma-improvement.
0l\lllklng dreams
happen·
fIIsII!Iat Plan II
r--------_ c __ ___ L ,
® ~ ELEVATION· CINEMA/GARAGE
o 111' 32' 64'
J
'A.~~~S.T, =LANDING .~~!! =~:.,,,.....,
(j
CALLISON ______ r __ ------,
1""----+ , , •
.......... ~'-**
~
MATERIALS LEGEND
""'" , ,
--2. BRICK
3 METAl SIDING
~r-+--: ~~~~~A:TL:E~UARDRAIL
I
GLASS CURTAIN WALL
METAL MESH
METAL LOUVERS
-~--1j METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WElDED
WIRE TRElLIS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
I-8EAMfCOlUMN. TYP.
13. STANDING SEAt.1 METAl ROOF
14. AlUMINUM S"roREFRONT
11!i.ALUMINUMPANEL
16.ALUMINUMWlNOOW
CONCRETE BASE
PAN"
The LandihgPlMa, liIevallDns II
z
o
.~
c
u
....
~
It: ..
~
.~
o ,
II
j
f
~
'f I
l
II •
~
r ______ ~ __ ~ ______ r
-hlf!-l-t
~
~.
~
" ,
'~~v..~s.~
l L'::-:j
:~~
I I , ' 9 ____ -l I-___ .1
,._,._-------,._,._-_ .. _---"
~LANDING .~ ~..,...
/fdJfIII. ...............
,
e _____ r __________ : .. LLI50N
Fw .................. -.IIIIIb:
~
MATERIALS LEGEND
. --4. eMU .
BRICK
P.AETAl. SIOING
STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
COR TEN STeeL
GlASS CURTAIN WALL
7 METAL MESH
'\ 8 METAL LOUVERS
9 METAl CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREeN" welDED
WlRETRB.lIS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
I-BEAWCOlLNN, TYP.
13. STANOINO SEAM METAl ROOF
M. ALUU1NlA4 STOREFRONT
15. Al..lIM1NUM PANEL
'ttl. ALUMINUM WINDOW
11. CASToiN-Pl..ACe CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL
19. CONCRETE FIBER eOARD
The LaruIinct PI_. EiIevaliCilns II
B z
0
I!
i
.§ ..
u
I
f
~
II
•
w
Ii (!) ~ ~ w z
, U
z • ,
Q z
!<e
Q
Gi !<e
...J Gi
w ...J w
1" I-~ 0: Vl" ~ ~r 1J,l~ 0
>z "I' '" ~ i:io-
0: -<" '" . :s .. , s • z W 0 ffi :
N • •
faf\ EAST ELEVATION -BLDG 305
QD-O"""f.f6' J2'
'~~v..~s.~ .~
''\ II I '~u \
~-r ~i I I' ; I I I I : I I I: -
:
;
j---t--H--t-~-t-
~ ~ ) ~~ I" --W I I ,.-, ~-"I -1..-:-1 ---1 ;-.. 1 -~--;-
}
!LANDING Far .................. .--
MadsooMIIquaaa ;;Hi;; ...............
<I
CALLISON
045'-0" r.OR ,
28'-0· r.OR if:
0· ...
MATERII\LS LEGEND
1. CMU
2. BRICK
3. METAL SIDING
<I. STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5 CORlEN srEEl
6. GLASS CURTAIN WALL
7 METAL MESH
8 METAL LOUVERS
9 METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN' WELDED
WIRE TRIEUIS
12. EXPOSeD STEEL
I-8EAMlCOlUtAN, TYP,
13. STANDING SEAM MeTAL ROOF
14.AlI..IMINUM STOREFRONT
15. ALUMINIJM PANEt
18. AlUt.lINUM WINDOW
17. CAST..fN.Pl.Ace CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL
19. CONCRETE FIBER BOARD
The I.andItlgf'lace, 61e.va11ons &I
z ~ II 0 ~ !
.~ ~ I ~ I ~~i j c " ~ I ~~ -4 u ~imli~ii~~;~! ~f . I !§ rell·~a w
~i~~ !~~~ ~i ~~~~ i i~~"~CG~ •• g~ = =~~, II.
il f
~
II
•
T
, 1-
, "-"-
Ii •
® ~ WEST ELEVATION -BLDG 100
o 8' 16' 32'
--1 ;-r
,
I
I ,-I /~,t f ----t--; ,
/ ,
/ f'-~>"
I I r" ... I I ,/
-----_L / .. ~ f' /"'/
, i-
'j
~:t I / / ~ ,---~F/;//-
--r k t---~<' '¥1i J li ,------4-",--l\ ' -/ ----
-( , " -~'-/
\
-+--' , \.\/ <)-'1---
I I \ -_.... ~/
I\-/ ,
'.--1---It ---,/
'A,,~v..~S.T, .~!! ~LANDING -.................
j!!'9'IQRiI
ag..g= TOR,
0'=9" ,
~ ~ ~
/~~-
--
•
,..,.....".,..,......-*-11
~
e
CALLISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
1, CMU
2 BRICK
J METAL SIOING
4. STeEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORTEN STEEL
e GlASS CURTAIN WALL
7. METAL MESH
B. METAL LOUVERS
9. METAL CANOPY
10. CNNASAWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" welDED
WIRE TRaLlS
12. EXPOSED STEel
l-BEAUICOlUMN, TYP .
13. STANDING SEAM METAl ROOF
14. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
15. ALUt.41NlJM PANEL
'III. AlUMINUtII WINDOW
17. CAST-IN-f'lACE C~CRETE BME
15. PRECAST CONCRETE PArEL
The LandinU'PIaee, Elevallens II
~U1M EilEVAl1GtI-IiUIG 1011
~ O"""'iw 32'
/_.--..-"
~ ------' ... --.
~
,/ ./ f./ ,..... /
--j-",,---, -·1
' ........ I
/--i/ t-+ [,--~---t' f+" ' / . ~ : -. ~ -,.' : I_~
i ~'rt" .! u \--~. ---; --~-J/":~
\ I I I < '
\\ \ 1__ I, _____ < ~ I 'I _____ '."~ I .... ----+-~. "-. ,__ __._._.~_ .. ~'I I _______ . L ______ -/'.. ;' -I --~ .-/ -----F=.::.-' ,
'A,.~"..~S.~ .~::¥":!~ !LANDING _.-............... -.................... It
~
30'4' T.OA ...
2O'-O"JOA+
.~.
e
CALI.ISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
'-CM\J
2-"""'" 3. foETAL SIDING
4. STEEL CABLE OUARDRAJL
5. CORT£H ST!EL e. GI.AS8 CURTAIN WAU..
1. t.£TAl. MESH e. METAL l.OlM!M
9. MlITAl. CN¥JIfI"(
10. CAHV/fIB AWNING
11. "GREI!:N scREEN" WElDeD
WIRE lRElUS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
t-8EAWCOlUMN. TVP:
13. STANJINC3 fEAM METAL ROOF
1 •. AlUMINUM STOREFRONT
15.ALUMINUM PANEL'
1 •. Al.I.A4IMJU WINDOW
11. CAST4N-PIACE CC»K:RETE BASe
1 •. PReCAST~ PANEL
1 •. CONCAEn!! 'IHR 8OAAO
~
The LiwIII1g PfMe, BlebaIGns iii
'A.~y'~S.T,
tEL1\ EAST ELEVAll0N -BLDG 100
'-!9
rl 'I~~'" .. i + : --:': ,! /--i-., ':,2B\-L---~ , , -1-' " I , -: ,+--::--r-'-. , " i ,/ '''';)" ;Ilrl=r~t-I ~'//'
t· : ,
.! .. , . , , ,-
• i ,
'I " --~---'k'
, \
I t/ '\ .-~---I I \ ' ,
I
"""1 " .. ...,.--_ .. -I··· ....... • .. -+li--·j +-L __ .L L __ !L __ -rl {---~ ~---fl".---+ .---,--
30'-0" T.O.R .... v
20'-0" T.O.R. A.
0<1" A v
.~?! ~lANDING .... ~ ............... .............. --..... %IIto ...............
<i
CALLISON
MATERIAlS LEGEND
1. eMU
2 BRICK
J. METAL SIDING
-4 STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORTEN STEEL
6. GLASS CURTAIN WALL
7 METAL MESH
8. METAL LOUVERS
o METAl CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
tt. "GR£EN SCRSEN" WElDED
WIRE TRELLIS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
I-BEAMICOlUMN, TYP .
13. STANDINO SEAM METAl ROOF
14. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
115. AlUMINUM PANEL
18. AU..lMINUM WINDOW
17. CAST-IN-PlACE CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PAM:L
19. CONCREtE FIBER BOARD
The Landiflg PIaM, llIevaliens II
413D·.(I" TOR
412O'.q· T.O.R .
. I.ao{)"
'''.~v,,~s.~
tEli\ SOUTH ELEVATION -SLOG 102
\!D-o I' 11' 32'
I
I---··i/ __ i ,}" --~ /¥~/;<"
/)\ I f.._/
t-t-I 1
--~_-----r--
de-. I;-m+ __ .~ . -_o--tf--I-
, ---I " II : -----t----L--l ' " ,
~-------~--
1_-·----
•
I ! I ~' ..
--,
I t I t-I
/ /-: \!, \1 ~ , j, ~ n '"L,~ t -__ -T'
• • \. .. •• n. , ~~ • ;,~~,~.~,,~:-t'=, , (~~. I " ~'~m~+~ "I,~ ___ ~_~~ ~~ _____ +-.. "',,-......... ---r '._"'--.-:'j.!: .. 'I I .... __ .
_L .-1 '-_ •• __ ~ ',.
.~~!~!! !LANDIN·G For .................... ......... _ . ............. ,...1'1 ....... ,...1IIi Is
e
CALLISON
MATERIALS lEGENQ
1. CMU ,. """"
3. WETAL 8OINO
... STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIl.
5. CORTEN ST&:L
.. GlASS CUR~ WAlL
1. METAL MESH
I. METAL LOUVERS
.. METAL CNKJPV
10. CAHVASAWNING
11. "GREEN 9CREEN"WElDED
WIRE TRaLlS
t2. DPOSED STEEL
~UMN,TYP .
t3. STANDING SEAM METALROOF
14. ALaoINJU STOREJ'RONT
15. ALUMINUM PANIilL
11. ALUMINUM WINDOW
17. CASToiN-Pt.ACE CONCRETE BASE
11. PRECASTCONCRETE PANEL
UI. CONCRETE FIlER BOARD
<!>
The \.aMInI!f'~. EIe,allens Ii1I
'~~y~SR~
i ~ . '_L
,
I ' __ , I
_;--L----::t;~:-~ --' I -t-j I ,-_I --__ l ~ I -i .... ·-~!-l-----.-i ---:-T--Jt"'" -~ !-_CT , '
,
I: -t----: I i I -~_
I
"~ .1-1'-' I ~ ... 't -I i ; __ ,_--:-! 'i --i -~7f
--1-----'\----
I T
.~~ ~lANDING _.-
ApIt2 • .-. lit ..........
................... -a.t
~
30'-0" T.O.R . .A. v
2Cl.q' T.O.R ... v
0'00" +
e
CALLISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
2 BRICK
3. METAL SIDING
4. STEEL CABLE GUARDRAil
5. CORTEN STeEL
{; GlASS CURTAiN WAlL
7. METAL MESH
8 METAl LOUVERS
9 METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WEUJED
WIRE TRELLIS
12. e>IP08ED 8TEEL
I-BEAMICOLUMN. TYP,
13. STNMlING BEAM METAl ROOf"
14. AUJMINUM STOREFRONT
15. AlUMINUM PANEL
18. ALUMINUM WINDOW
17. CAST-IN-PLACE C~ETE BASE
\sT CONCRETE PANE
The LanIllAtl-PIaee. E1eval1l'lflS E!II
('
IiU\ 5AsT ELEVATION -BLDG ~02
\!9 -M:;e· 32'
.. --t-
r "
l' -
I; ., .
'T' I,
4.
i!
'T'"
. -I
\
\
1
I
I .
t-':l
-:-"-t-. -~---',-~~-~¥+.t-
,I _~ ~ _____ 1_4 \
H'g lOS •
go'.g-lOR.
!T=O" +
'A,.~~~~~ .~ !LANDING
A;ir ...... ,.......
• t , , , , , ,
"~r\
1---;
:--._~_ti / .~-( J
...............
<it
CALLISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
,. BIUCK
3. METAl SIDING
4. ST£RCABLEGUARDRAI..
5. CORTEN STEEL
S. OI..ASS CUflTM4 WAU..
7. J.ETALaESH
I. METALLOUVERB
.. J.ETAL CANOPY
10. CAtNASAWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN"WELDED
WIRE "JRB.lIB
12. EXPOSED STEEL
f.82AMtC01...UMN, TYP.
13. STANDING seAM METAL ROOF
14. ALUMIM,IM STOREFRONT
15. ALUMIMIN PANEL
,I.ALUMINUM WINDOW
17. CMT-IN-f'lAC! CONCReT1!! BASE
11. PRECAST CONCRETE PANE
". CONCReTI! Fl8ER BOARD
~
The LaMIng.F!", EIe\"'ens II
~ ~ ELEVATION -BLDG 106
Ott11" U'
'A,.~v..~s.~
;Ii=-
i -"I
.~~~
e
CALLISON
30'.0" JOR .• 39'=9" TQ R ,
10-=9° TOR, ".qo TOR if;
'I O·.()". " 0'-0-,
I :f.
II
I
I ,
~-I-
@ WElT eLeVATION -BLDG 106 .. --• It 11' II'
-kll+~--i--L
t __ }:.Jc~J-!-:t=l-11--
~
!LANDING Fw'--u,~.......c
.,...."",.,.. --.. 21tt._ .. .."...,
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. eMU
2. BRICK
3. METAL SIDING
... STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORlEN STEEl
6 GLASS CURTAIN WALL
7. METAL MESH
8. METAL LOUVERS
11 METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WELDED
WIRE TRElliS
12. E><POSED STEEL
I-8EAM/COLlJMN, TYP.
13. STANDINO SEAM METAl ROOf"
14 ...... WINUMSTOREFRONT
15 ...... UMINUN Pl'NEl
111. AlUMINUM WINDOW
17. CAST-IN-f'lACE CONCRIHE SASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL on: FISER BOARD
Th •. BooI_nl, EIOIYaUoI18 m
z
o
.~ ..
u
J J
-1---" I
! ,
II
!
I
I
!
II
II •
(
--i " /"
r~'r /' .=-~ -.-
[,
I
i ,
~
"
t ,..!I
I
I
"
,
I
I
I
L
I,
,I r
-4--l' I I :,--. ;
I 1'--' C'"
,I i ~'-,-,i
***' _ .. ; -1'""'T!'~~,:~·r.-~1~.--=": r " ~-.•. "" .. ,:", .. : ,t
_;>:: _oJ ..... ....;.:..: '': _L ! . I I' -4-.J..
,',
'A..~~~S.~ !LANDING .~ ...... ,~
..... 11~ .. -..........
J I
~i ,I , __ . _1_
•
, ----,.---l I
-J:-1: .. r I .,~
:' " " r; :r--.fL.l .~-t--1. __ .....
-: --~'----i-~ ~-.: __ ' . __ ~\
r -t\ '\'
I lc~
I' , ,
'~ 1!1,
:1,
"" if
.n, ,
'"
I'
" , ., '
'\' .\ , . \
, \ -, ' -\-, \
.,1<, \ \ '., \ "
'\ \ ~ • .....--l.
I : , I
"r~") )
/
<i
CALLISON
10'=9" rnA ,
,,'''()" lOR,
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
2 BRICK
3. METAL SIOING
4 STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORTEN STEEL
6. GLASS CURTAIN WALL
7 METAL MESH
8 METAl LOUVERS
9. METAL CANOPy
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GReeN SCREEN" WELDED
WIRE TRB.J.IS
12. E»'06ED ST£EL
J.8EAMICOlUMN, TYP .
13. STN-OIIIO SEAM METAl ROOF
1<1.ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
15. oI\lUMlNUM PANEL
1e. AlUMINUM WINDOW
17. CAST-IN-f'l..AC! CONCRETE BASE
'18. PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL
19. CONCRETE fIBER BOARD
,.. .... ~---
.......,.."... Th. BouIIIVIIRI. EleYaliens iii
z
.~ • u
, , I =-~'-~-~
I'
, .
, ' , ---J-._+--f J
., .... -. I. . . -r---=
.'
I
. \ .. _---.... _-_. I ! II
r.
· ----'-:,; _...JI,t _-+!l __ Lt---J', J .. ,'"
I
. ' , , , , ,
§ j" ---. . --_._ .... -L-... f. ----:-
m " ~ :: j ~I -1 fi!~ _. _'_ ... I ' :' ~ ~ ,) ~_m _}._;"_C: ~ f~"" . ;~,;..---::r=:.:.
t; ..j.:..-~ ~. A_! I --___ .,----' , 0.
W" ..... -:...,. ... ··-1 ..-'" : '
=== co •• -I ----
, .-.....
... ....!--
•• j.
:.::~
T ! . :
, ,.
t ..... --
L .' I ,
!
; .... -'y-'--'''---.
I ' ,
.1.
"
II
~tl'.o"T.OA
I ! . I
I I
I
hU\ NORTH ELEVATION -BLDG 103
\!V 08~lr 32'
•
~ E r' ~ . I __ _ _ .. ___ .
1 -"I' i i !, i . .1 , '"../ _ l1 Iii I~-------+t>------~ ;_-0 __ :::::' --. ../'" ~~~-_~~_~ r--~ -~ .. _ n --~_ ,, ___ _______
'~~~~SR~ ~LANDING .~ ==:.,...... ............................
~
"
e
CALLISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
•. CMU
2 BRICK
3 METAl SIDING
... STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5 CORTEN STEEL
6 GLASS CURTAIN WALL
7 METAl MESH
8. METAL LOUVERS
9. METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11."GR££N SCREEN' WELDeD
WIRE TREU.IS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
. I-eeAMfCOLUMN. TYP .
13. STANDINO SEAM METAL ROOF
'''.ALUMINUM STOReFRONT
15.AlUMINUM PANEL
16. ALlIMINUM WINDOW
17. CAST ofN-Pl..ACE CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PNEl
19. CONCRETE FIBeR BOARD
<!>
The Booievanl, Elevations II
""'" WEST ELEVATION -BLDG 104
\"30--1 -,. 32' ~O •
I -I· -=4--1 ---I "1---r--, l ' -1 .\.+~~-. >~j, 'd~ . --toT ,
" " . t:::;-, .. . , , ' ---'--.... .. ~-" ," -,=---'---l. __ l· __ ·t-~~._ . -', . "---. "'---
JjARVEST
;f'AP.TNf.R.S
~LANDING .~!.¥.!! ,. ...... ~ ...... ............. .-.---~ "...1-............
• CALLISON
.. ..,. TOP iI
'F§' TO B ,
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CWU ,. '""'"
3. MeTAl. SIDING
4. STEElCASLEGUARDRAlL
5. CORTEN STEEL
I. 0lA88 CURTMrf WALL
1. METAlMESH
e. MrrAl.lOUVER8
t. WETAl CANOPY
10. CNNASAWNING
,,. 'GREEN SCREEN' WELDED
WIRE TRB.ltS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
~,TYP.
13. 8TAl«)lNO SEAM METAL ROOF
M. N.UMNJM STOREFRONT
15. AL.lAIINUM PANEl
18. AL ... INUM WINDOW
11. CABT-IN-A.ACe CONCRETE BASe
18. PRECAST CClNCRETE PANEL
1 •. CCINCAIm!! 'IIIR 80AAD
The Belli_Ai, Ii!IevaIkms II
(il;\ EAST ELEVATION· BLDG 103
'('!7 -n~, 32'
J.ARVEST
. ARTNERS
" .~
-+--I --t--~
I , , \ \ --++ ,il \ t---~--~;
-++i+ , , ~'-I
1, ,
.-'
I
!LANDING --'-2-tlt" ___ ............
t ..... T.O.R. ,
•
................ --..:
~
<i
CALLISSN
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
2 BRICK
3. METAl SIDING
... STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORTEN STEEL
6 GLASS CURTAIN WALL
1 META.L MESH
8. METAL LOUVERS
9 METAL CANOPY
'to. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WElDED
WIRE TRElllS
12. EXPOBEO STEEL
I-BEAWCOlUMN, TYP .
13. STANQINO SEMI METAL ROOf
,<I, AlUMINUM STOREFRONT
15. ALtItIIlNUM PANEL
111. ALUMINUM WINDOW
17. CAST-IN-P\.ACE CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PANel
11. CONCRETE FIllER BOARD
n..lkItoIevanI.l!llevaIk!lns EI
z
o
.~
c ...
•
_.-I
II
I
I
~
II
~--t---i-'-i ---. . i i 1_:: .~::, "" \+.+. : . !. i •
"'" '" . : ill ~Y-r'! ;.··ri.--1L.TL.-----~-------+ ...... -
.. _--... I I I f.n1lC
~ .. . ... -... ", .. ~ ...
\ ->z
i::G~
<:'" ,
I --------r:
I
B
J
I
~
'I I
!
Ii •
z o
.~
c
u
!----.-,
i i; r
I --iT-l" I;----_!-------If--
I' :1
) ':, ;
J I l --;i ------.,,'~,--,. ,-::"'--<-! r--~'------r-.......... -~.-\.. L
r-. ---_._--" ---
II
I
I
~
.I
Ii •
tEl1\ WIeST ELEVATION -BLDG 101
,~~v..~s.~
\-/
_/' \
\
\ \.
\ ___ Y'
~--"\-----'. ~<\ \. ~~-I-'-I-[-1 r--rr--1 \\ \1--r-T' -':'1 ,\ ----I ~-, ',':1 \~~~A\r-t---t-:1
.~~!"!!~
,\1 ' , :
\, , I """"'~F-f:'=FlC=1==t--r_l __ _
!LANDING .......,-1fII'it1lw" .fbi , ....
----
1J(14' T.eJIIt. •
•
,... ..... ,_ ........ ,--..:
.,....oMaiqau •
e
CALLISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
, CMU
2 BRICK
3. METAL SIDINO
4 STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORTEN STEEL
6. GlASS CURTAIN WALL
7. METAL MESH
B. METAL LOUVERS
9 METAL CANOPY
10 CAfNAS A.WNING
11. "GREEN SCReEN" WELDED
WIRE TRB..LIS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
I-BEAfNCOliJMt4, TYP,
13. STANDINO BEAM METAL ROOf
14. AlUMINUt.I STOREFRONT
15. ALlIMlNUM PANEL
18, ALUMIMAII W\NOOW
17. CAST-IN-f'LACE CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETe PANeL
18. CONCRETE fiBER BOARD
11iIeA\<anue, EIImIIIens Ell
z
o
S§ ..
"
•
'---l-~ I I .--
I I
I I '
I I _ '. 1-----_ -, ' I
I
-W--, : ,
! i : -tr-----""t-
, ,I
I -l .
. t ~ ---I't:t~;:-r.
I I ' j
i I ; :
I
I
f
II
Ii •
~~l
'A.~~~S.~ .~
i
i
I
1
~
'i '4 I . ~_~__ I I I i -,.---LJ.:Li
--l1li-1• -~:. I it· ! . _-+ -I'
.1 I . -1
/
•
I i_I : --1--j
d\, Ii -FF-:I Iii
i l' +-,-+ !. ___ l.ll. ___ l L---~
,---
~LANDING ..,..,.,11-..... 1 __ ,-.·-..:..........-
.0'-0" T.O.R. ,
18'..(1" T.O_R ••
,. ........ ~---
~
e
CALLISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
2 BRICK
3. META.l SIDING
4. STEEL CABLE GUARDRAil
5. CaRlEN STEEL
6 GLASS CURTAIN WALL
1. METAL MESH
METAL LOUVERS
METAL CANOPy
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WELD£D
WlRETRELUS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
1.aEAMICOl.UMH, TYP .
13. STA/'OING SEAM METAl ROOF
14. ALUMINUM STORefRONT
15. AlUMINUM PANEl
11$. ALUMINUM WINDOW
17. CA8T-IN-f'lACE CONCRiFTf BASE
1e, PRECAST CONCRETe PANEL
19. CONCRElE FIBER BOARD
The Avenue, I!lIawaIIens II
fat\ EAST ElEVATION -BlDG 101
~~~ 37
'A.~y.~s.-r.
r-: • · .. . i ,
• • • I
• : :
•
~-
• 'fJ1MSNi8,.N
........ , •• u .....
~ __ ..a.i.. __ ..i.I" __ ~
-,
I
-~
-'t ,
• -...
!LANDING n... Iii
:.;.;i ..... """'''1 I
•
,.. ........................
.,..."",.....
e
CALLISON
tMTERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
2. 0R1CI(
3. r.£TAL BDINO
4. STliEl CAlLI 0lIAADfWL
5. CCIR'TO STEel
II. QlNJ8 CURTAIN WAU.
1. METALMESH
I. METAL LOUVERS
9. METALCN«:JPY
10. CANVASAWNINO
11. "OREEN SCREEN' waDED
~I!!TREl.LJS
12. EXPDIED 8TEEl
I-8EAM1COl.UMN, lYP.
13. 8TAHDWD SEAM METAL ROOf
14. AU.WlINUM STOREFRONT
15. ALUMIMJIM PNEL
111 ...... l&tINUM WINDOW
17. CAST..fN..f'\AC1 CONCRI!TE BASE
tl. PRECAST CONCRETE PANeL
, •. CONCReTE F18eR 80MD
The·A\l8n.wep EllJIIIISAS EI
r----~~-----------------,
~-~---------------------~
feLl\ NORTH ELEVATION -BLDG 200
~~I' R'
,I, " ''---Q.--jj.---;r-''w-'"-'-jj;
,
\
'A.~~~SR~
I
I
I
-+--
,
--+--+
.~!! ~LANDING _.-
,.u ...................
•
1+ ''---:u'~ ~ll--:n ill
t" - - -\!j 1=1 I==t ~ II fJ: 1% **" tt n.'Ai Ixll
l------------------
..................... ~
M~
<i
CALLISON
56'..()" T.O.R. •
"2"-0-T.O.R. +
2 ... -4l· T.O.R. ~
MATERIALS LEGEND
1_ CMU
2 eRICK
3. METAL SDING
". STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5 CORlEN STEEL
6. GLASS CURTAIN WAlL
1. METAL MESH
6 METAL.lOUVERS
9 METAl CANOPV
1U. CANVAS AWNING
11. ·GREEN SCREEN"" WELDED
WIRE TREU.IS
12. EWOSED STEel
~,TYP.
13. STANDING SEAM METAl. ROOF
1".ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
15. AlUMINUM PANEL
1e. AlUMINUM WlNOQIN
17. CAST-IN-PLACE CCWCRETE BASE
PANEL
Tile Walk, EJ8Y8IIana II
~~rW sr
=r-
---,-
'A,.~y.~s.~
\t.
+--.;. I .j....:-_-:.-----+
----
.~
----------,
L. ______ ..:.... _____ .:.-..J
_-r T.oR. •
:w.cr T.O.R. rb
~
I .... ~"l r; "" _____________ --4
•
~--r
• CALLISON
MATERIALS LEGEND
t. CMU
2. BRICK
3. METAL SDINO
<4. STEEl CoI.BLE CJlJARDAAIL
5. COR"TeN 8TI!!L
8. 0l.AS8 CURT~ WALl
7. METAL. MESH
8. METAL lOUVERS
I. IE"PL CAHOf1Y
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "OREENSCREEN"WEt.DED
WIRE TFlElLIS
12.1!)(p()SEQ8Tea.
I-llEAMICOI,.UMN, TYP .
13. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOf
14. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
18. Al..lJM1MJIM F¥<NEL
WINDOW
~LANDING ~ ....... ~.-....:
·Modoai ... ... The walk, EleYetleIl8 II
foU\ EAST 6LeVA110N -BLI'lG 200
\!V Mw 3Z'
-.. ---
j.ARVEST
~ARTNERS .~~~
~
-----t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ------+
e
CA.LLISON
ZN41' T.O.R. ~
~:"'b,~!AlS LEGEND
2. BRICK
3. METAL SIDING
4. STEEL CABLE GUARORAIL
5. CORTEN STEEL
6. GLASS CURTAIN WAll
T. METAL MESH
8. METAL LOUVERS
9. METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREeN" WElDED
WlRETRElUS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
I.eEAMfCOlUMN. TYP.
13. STANDING BeAM METAL ROOf"
14, AlUMINUM STOREFRONT
15. ALUMINUot PANEL
18. ALUMINUII WINDOW
17. CAST..jft.Pl..ACe CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL
A .... BOARD
-----.. ---_ .. ----_._-.. --.. ---
~lANDING ..........................
~ :::;t-liD I_a~ l ........................
TlleWllIk. Elevallens III
\.~.I:-;0s. 32'
'A,.~v..~s.~
+
I
I
I
I
I
.1._
•TRNUWESIEhH .u ............. .
•
, ..... _____ ..J.
-I
!LANDING ,... .................. -
~ p ..... -•
..... itI ..... ........
e
CALLISON
~3'-O" T.O.R ~
2~·..(J· T.O.R. t
MATERIALS LEGEND ._ CMU
,. BRIO<
3. METAlSDINtJ
... STEeL CABLe OUARDRAJL
5. CORTEN STEEl
.. 0lA8S CURTAIN WALL
7. MeTAl MESH
.. WHAl LOUVERS
II. METAL CANOPY
10. CNNASAWNING
11. "GREeN aCReEN" WELDED
WIRe TRBJ.IS
12. ElIPOSED 8TEEL
IoeeJMfCOL.UMN, TYP .
13. ~o SEAM METAl ROOF
1~.AlUNINUM STOReFRONT
11. Al..UMIHUI.I PMEl
11. Al...UM1HlIM WINDOW
17. CAIT-IN..f'LACE ~ETE BASE
11. PfU!CAST CONCREtE PANEL
F .... ..,.....
TIle w.tk,Ellmdlens III
\e/-M~· 32'
J
1 "i l
,~~v..~s.~ .~~
----------------, <i
CALLISON
L ____________________ ~
•
,
I~ ! ,
-I ~ -q; ...
~LANDING .......... w.mdIIrI...-t:
MadoanMIIqaao • -""-"'--""!'"II' ........... i..-.a. ....
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
2 BRICI(
3. METM. SIDING
" STEEL CABLE GUARDRAil
5. CORTEN STEEL
II. GLASS CURTAIN WALL
7 METAl MESH
B. METAL LOUVERS
Q. METAl CANOPV
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCReEN" WELDED
WIRE TRElLIS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
I-8EAMtCOLUMN, TYP .
13. STANDING SEAM METAlROOF
14.AlUMINUM STOREfRONT
15. AlUMINUM f'IIIINEL
1e. ALUMINUM WINDOW
17. CAST.fItrf-f'I..AC€ CONCRIETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL.
18. CONCRETE FiBeR BOARD
The Welk, SwaIIena lID
r-----
I
~
® ~ ELEVATION -BLDG 201 & 202
o 8· 16· 32'
,~~~~~~ .~!d!J!!.'~
--------,
_____ ...... __ .J
!LANDING
::.'~: .. :. ........
•
..........................
...... oMo:c_
• CALLISON
24·~· '.D.R. ~
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
• BIUCK
3. METAl. 81D1HO
4. 8TEB..~ ot.tARDRAR.
5. CORTEN STEEL
.. GlASS CURTAIl! WALl.
7. Ml;TAI,IiIESH
8. METAl.l.OlIV!RS
.. ~ALCANOPY
10. CANVASAWNNl
11. ~8CRE;eN"welDEO
WI1U! TRI!W1I
12. OPOSED STEEL
J.8EAM1'COl..UMN, TYP .
".STANDING SEAM METALROOF
M. ALlNlNI.JM STOREFRONT
15. AlUMINUM ,.,..,a
18. ALUMINUM WINDOW
t7. CAST-INoPl..ACe CDNCR£TE BASE
11. PRECAST 00NCRe11: PAIEL
11. CONCN:TE flBiR 8OAAO
orucco
<!>
TIle WeIk, Elevailens II
r - ---
L
~ARVEST
./"AP..TNF.RS
" ,(I) J (J): L _____ ! ______ . -l-. __ -I
.~ ~LANDING --",~~,--"",,,,,,,,
-1-______ +
..L.. __ ...l.
~
,
.J
fori ...... w ..........
~
e
CALltsON
jU'.Q"TO R !ill
rr.<r ~
MATERIALS LEGEND
, CMU
2 BRICK
J. METAL SIOIf>JG
... STEEL CABLE GUARDRAil
5 CORTEN STEEL
6. GlASS CURTAIN WALL
7. METAL MESH
8. METAl LOUVERS
9. METAL CANOPY
1D. CANVAS AWNING
11, -aREEN SCREEN' WB.OEO
WIRE TRELLIS
12. exPOSED STEEL
IoBEAMICOlUMN, TYP.
13. 8TAM)1NQ tEAM META1.. ROOF
t .... ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
15. AlUMINUM PANel
111. AlUMINUM WINDOW
11. CAST~CE CONCRETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCJU:TE PANEL
19. CONCRETE RUER BOARD
2O.SrucCO
I k' ... '.
The walk, etaWlllons III
z o
lt~
c
"
---I
""""'-F'" I
1 ,
I
~
,
I ,
I
I
.J
_···t
I
I
I
I
·i
.,.;
' I ,
H
• ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L.
II l --,
I
I
I
I
. I
I C)
I ~j
I !i I
.J
Ii •
I-~
Vl"
J.LI~
~~ ,
I i. -L . ,L.._ . -----_ .....
,...--, , , •
9
CALLISON
MATERIAlS LEGEND
1. CMU
2. BRICK
3. METAL SIDING
4. STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORTEN STEEl
6. GlASS CURTAIN WALL
7. METAL MESH
8. METAL LOUVERS
9. METAL CANOf'Y
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WelDED
WIRE TRallS
12. EXPOSED STeEL
I-BEAtNCOLUMN, TYP.
13. STAMlI\IO BEAM METAl ROOf
.... ALUMINUM 9TOREFftONT
115. ALUMNJt.4 f'IIINEL
111. ALlA'IlNUM WINDOW
17. CMHN-f'lACE CONCRETE BASE
~-1 I' 18. PRECAST CONCRETE "AANEI..
19. CONCRETE FISER BOARD
20. STUCCO
r---------------,
L _________ _ __________ .J
c!>
,~~v,,~s.~ !LANDING --.... 1 ................
.~ ---~ The Walk, E/evalk!)ns II
" ~
:i
1
'I !;
" li
, I
-L, ,
I
I
I ,
-~
: -€)z
I,
•
•
;
'v "L_ i It if d' _1 •
'A.~v..~s.~ .~~ !LANDING F ....... ~.-..:
MdauI ...... "_ ~ .... .. ... at ....• _ ......... rR ..... .
<i
CALLJSON
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. CMU
2 8RICK
3 METAl SIDING
.. STEEL C...aLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORTEN STEEL
6. GLASS CURTAIN WALL
1 METAL MESH
8. METAL LOUVERS
O. METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "'GReENSCREEtrwelDED
WlRETREWS
12. EXPOSED STEEL
t-BEAMtCOlUUN. TYP.
13. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
14. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
1S.ALUUIMN! MNEL
ll11i.ALUMI""" WINDOW
TI\8.W8Ik, EIevaIIOII8 IliI
z
" .~
c
"
I
I
-;
I,
•
I: •
\:!J 0-80u 32'
•
'~~y.~s.~ !LANDING .~~:'!~.~ ,. ................ ...e.a:
~ -_ ...
..... 2tlllll;:a.I ............
• CALLISON
37-0" To.? ~
MATERIALS LEGEND
1. Ch!U
2 BRICK
3 METAL SlOlNG
• STEEL CAfllE GUARDRAIL
5 CORIEN STEEL
B GLASS CURTAIN WALL
7. METAL MESH
H. METAL LOUVERS
9 METAL CANOPV
1D. CAM/AS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WELDED
WlRETRB.U8
12. EXPOSED 8TEEt
I-8EAM1COLUMN, lYP:
13. STANDINO BEAMMETALROOF
1 •. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
15. ALUMINUM PA.NEL
11. ALUMINUM WlNOOW
17. CAST-IH-f'lACE CONCR£T1i BME
111. PRECAST CONCRETE PMEL
19. CONCRETe FIBER 80ANl ".
ThaWliIk, Elevallans Ell
f--------I
----"'----J....-. __ -'
•
+-1
,1
+----~
,~~~~s.~ .~ ~LANDING
=~-:.-
,.. ................ .....c .............
e
CALLISON
Kg T.OP +
MATERIALS LEGEND
t. CUU
2. BRICK
3. METAL SIDING
". STEEL CA8l.E OUAADRAA.
5. CORTEN STEEL
.. QLAS8 CURTAI\I WALL
7. METAL WESH
I. METALI.OUVERS
8. METAL CANOPY
10. CANVASAWNING
11. "GRt!EH acRB!!:'" waDED
WIRE TRELLIS
12. DPOS!OS'JUt.
1oIIEAUfCOI...UN. TYP •
13. STAJIOING SEAM METAl ROOf 1". ALUMINUM S1"OREFRONT
15.N.UMINUM PN.IB.
18.AL.UMINUM WINDOW
17. CASToIN-Pl.Aa: ca«:RETE BASE
18. PRECAST CONCReTE PANEL .. -----------
The WiIIk, elevaltens iii
z
o
.~
<
"
c:
CII c::
.------.. ;! -€):lz ~
~
I
J
I
II
C)
ilUh
z
.~
c
u I .
I '
I
I
/I
z
o
.~
" u
...
I
I
i
I
If
Ii •
z
o
.~ ..
u
,,€>z II
to
j
I
I
I
tf
z
o
.~ ..
u
II I
I
z
" .~ ..
u
•
-~~ "0" c
z8
•
•
• • •
II
I:
II
it
5
I
II
Ii •
z
0 &I
.~
«
u I
..0-8
II
&I
I I
i ,
, j
I ... 1
it , I
j
I'
II
Ii •
1Ien_ SIgn Coole
Signs~,I" CertWMrdal
andlnduatMAlIGft~
Soosect4Gn IS .. Large Retail Uses.
Optional·-:r-JIIInding Sip:
~.OM freestaMiftg sign not to
exceed twit hwneirfll fifty (250) Nlwar.
feet per sign fate and Il'rWIimum
offlve huAl!lFecl (500) sflAre feet
Includi~ all algn (Ka. .... 11 mit te
exceed sbrty feet (68') in-heighL.
'/'''~y.~ S .. \ .~
logo. --
kKiJJ2·.I'~
~LANDING _.-... ~ ...... ..........,
q ::
~I
MOAl COPPER COLOR
TRUSS STRUCTURE WI
COLOR KINETIC IllUMINATION
ON INTERIOR VERTICAl
MEMBER.
FABRICATED DIMENSIONAL
lOGO WI INTERIOR & fACE
IllUMINATION.
CABLE ~WIRE BALl~ SPHERICAL
IIASE WI KINETIC (ANlMAT£O)
LIGHT INTERIOR EFFECT
GUY WIRE TERMINATE INTO
LARGE COPPER COLOR EYE
BOLTS ·SCREWED" INTO
SMOOTH BLACK CONCRETE
BLOCKS. -' ......
................... SIgn .....
'"-I ,,, .... _
~
<it
CALLISON
Compal1lttv.
Code Square Footage:
500 squme fe~of sign (ace.
SIxty (60, ketin height.
Propo.t.ed:
Background Sign Bilnd:
703.71 square feet.
logo Letters (fWc Jeff ,oraD:
Logo A 130.5 square feet.
logo 8 130.5 square feet.
261 square feet total.
Sign Band Above Grade:
5B'-O~ .
Total Structur~ Height:
88'-0" .
NOTE: FINAL SIGN DIMENSIONS
TO BE OmRMINED AFTER
SIGHT LINE CORRIDORS HAVE
BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR VIEWS
THAT ClEAR BUILDING ELEVATIONS,
OVERALL DIMENSIONS MAY
INCREASE.
~td\ll"lcrVD .. PylDn III
Renten SIgn CoR
Signs permltteEf in ClMnfReld.1
and In4ustrial Zones.
Subsecticm ESe.l.<llrgeRetaiI Uses.
"-~n.S.n:
One frlaestandlnt sign per street
frontage "at 10 exceed an area
greater than 1-112 square feet for
each line.r foot Mpropertyfrentage,
up to a maximum of ene humlred fifty
(150) squarefe~ ~ersignface and iI
maximum of threll! hund ... d (300)
square f •• indudlng aU sign fKII!L
Subsection E3b. Large Retail Uses.
... maximum hll!ight of the zone or forty (HI:
(40'). which@Velisless.
SC*JIrool ....
'~~v..~s.~ •TJW:JSWE8iWi
••••• n •• ' ...... .
!lANDING --.. 21 ....................
CUT-our SKU lmERS
MOUNTED ON -T-B£AM
CONfIGURED SUPPORT.
ILLUMINATED WI GROUND
MOUNTED FLOODS
,......... ...-..: ...........
(I
CALLISON
Comparative
Code Square Footage:
ISOsquQfe fe~t per sign fac~ ...
_. mllltimum of fhree hundr~
(300, squQl~ fur Including
Q/t sign fac~s ...
... maximum helghf of the
zone or fortyfe~ (40') •
whichever is 'HS.
Proposed:
40 s.f.x Four (4)= 160 5J.
OIUlIllde ... G8IIon iii
Renton Sign Cede
Signs permitted in C0mmerdal
and Industrial Zones.
Subsl!ctil!)n ESa, 81:1siness Signs.
II. Wall Signs:
_tetal eepy area not exceeding
twenty pei'l;ertt (209ft) of tM ludlll!lirtg
fa~e to which it i5 apfllll!d.
'~~~~SR~
~.~LJ. --. 1 _ "' .... , ....... ''''' ...
SQlcI""I'-O"
.~~
CIr .. "",RIC"
J6uF*fHtL
Clrru. fvwwGt.wc
lhJ.perfaca.
Curved Sl!tlm SI!/IfI-Panei.
FalMkllM NaI0
InWl'\lnfr, .... L.ah~s.
2851.
. _-....
a-tIon • CAIf9 iNIy
~IANDING
~Ill""" ... a ..................
....... -
~
~
:,
'" hi
THREE DOUBLE·SIDED
NON-illUMINATED 01501(
WI INTERIOR IllUMINATED
LETTERS & GRAPHICS.
RIGID ROD SUPPORT TO TWO
(2) tfON·IllUMIIIATED CURVED
AlUMINUM ftSCRIMft PANElS
WI HALO ILLUMINATED
INOMOUAlLETIERS.
TWO (2) ELECTRONIC READER
BOARDS.
.................. 1IIIIIIaBt
.~
<i)
CALLISON
(amparalin
Code Square Footage:
Twenty percent (2096) oftne
building to whlchir is applied.
Proposed:
Applied to Garagl! 28811nl!ar 11!I!t
x 32.5 vertical feet.
Sign .P,. ... s two timo.
NW and SE elevations.
32.Sx288= 9,360 of area.
20% of 9,360"" 1,872 s.f of area.
• Three Double-5ided disk signs
36 sJ.perface= 72 s_1
x Three (3) Signs= 216 s.f.
• Two (2) curved 28 sJ.
uScrim" sign panels: 56 sJ.
• Two (2) 8 s.f.electronic Reader
boards: 16 d.
Sign Area =288 s.f.x 2".576 d .
~tGItmIIfieatkm II
ReMon $lIn CeR
Signs ,e~ In CemrnerdAi
al'M!! tnerustriat Zenes.
Subsectl .... iSa, Ivsiness §Igns.
IL Wall Signal
-hfbI1 £8py area not exeelllling
twenty peKtlnt (21)1Ji;) ofthe tKllWlng
'acMe Ie whldllt is applied.
l w;r t
<it
CALLISON
REAR ILLUMINATED AlUMINUM Camparati".
SCRIM LEflER FORMS. CodtSquare Footagt:
TWlI!nry percent (1096) of fht
building towhich If is appllll!d.
Proposed:
Applied to Garage 28811nyr feet
x 325 vertkal feet.
325x288= g.360 of .rea.
2096 of 9,36O=z 1,&72 s.f of area.
IndiVidual Aluminum Scrim
logo letterforms= 1,260 s.t.
1,260 s.f.sign area plus
Sheet 03 288 s.f. Sign Area =
1,548squarefeettotal,
... -\----_ .
Dot ........
SMShH\:D]
J l"~""~ ·1 r 288,...,..,..(
'A.~v..~s.~ .~~ !LANDING
=-."':":.-M' Ma:~
.,.. ..... __........-t ~Geraga Emry III
Renten Sign Cede
Signs p~rmltted I", Commercial
and Industrlill Zones.
Subsection ES~ Large Rl!tall Uses..
Fnestandln. Sign:
On~ freestanding sign p~r street
frontage net to exc~ed an IIrea
grellter than 1~ 1 12 5q"'illr~ feet for
each linear foot of praperty frontage,
up to ill maximum of GI'I~ hUAt!I~ fifty
(1 SO) square feet per sign face and a
mulmYl'l'l of ti'lree huMl,ed (300)
square (eet inclu~in!ill all sign faces..
Subsection E3b. Large Retail Uses.
-Iftaximum h~gi'lt of tl\e ZORe orflMty feet
(40'), whichever is less.
S(ale:1I1"-"l'Q
;
'A,.~~~S.~ .~ ~LANDING
~";..::.. .........
~
::l
•
e
C:ALLISON
STEEl SUPPORT STRUCTURE Comparative
PAINTED COPPER. DIGITAL Code Square Foolage:
IMAGERY APPLIED TO 5U8-'50 square feer PI!( s;gnface ...
STRATE SUPPORT PANEL ••• marimum of thlee hundred
DOUBlE-S1D"ED PiRPl:NDIC UlAR (300') squale feer induding
TO 5TRHT. DIRECT EXTERNAl
illUMINATION. all.sign faces...
Fw .............. _ M--.,-
... maximum height of the
zone or forty feet (40'),
whichever is less.
Proposed:
Side A= 198 square feet.
Side 8= 198 square feet.
396 total square fell!t.
Four (4) Signs x 396=
1 S84 square feeL
Total Structure Height:
(40'-O~)
&nIIym~1I
Renton Sign Catt.
SigM ~rMIIted in Commerd.1
and In''s~1I IGnes.
Subsect:iM ES, u,rge Retilil Uses.
DI .. ctIon.ISlgn:
. ..shall'net eJl:eeN tNrtyswe (32)
s~ua .. feet per sl", fau ilM iI maxiMum
of sixty feur (64) squal'e fHt IncltHling
ill slgnfiICes.
~
;
"A..~v..~s.~ .~~!=!!~~ !lANDING
;i1 ...... ~
CURVED AUUMINUM
PANELS WI POV't'IR COAT
PAINT FINISH. 3M REFlECTIIIE
VlNVl u:nERS AND ARROWS
APPlIED DIREcnv TO
PANEL FACE.
SECOND SURFACE GRAPHKS
SCREENED.
POl£ SURROUND AT BASE
PAINTED ALUMINUM
WI CUT-QUT DISTRICT NAME.
"-CImIIIr StrH' NIrI-. ............
•
... -.......,..., ,-
<i
CALLISON
(omparatin
Cod~ SqllQf'e-Footage:
M.shall not ac~ed thiff)' fwO (32)
square ket pn $/gn face.
Proposed:
Side A= 30 square feel
Side B= 30 square feet.
60 topl square feet.
light,Pole Surround
NlimeAreil:
1255.1.
Topt Structure Height:
(10'-0")
VeNa I r~1 III
Rentan Sign Code
Signs permitted in (ommen:!al
and INiustrialZenes.
Subsection ESe,. large Retail Uses.
Freest-ndlng Sign:
One freestaneiil'lg sign p. str •• t
frontage not to@)(cee4!i an area
greater ""an 1·1/2 square feet for
each linear foat &f preperty frontAge,.
up to a MlXlmum c:rf 0nll hundreEI fifty
(150) square feet p. stgn face and a
maximum of three hUMrN (300)
square feet IncluCiliRg all sigA faces...
SubsectiGn E3b. Large Retail Uses.
'Hmaximum height of the zone Of fertyfeet
1401. whlcl'll!VM is less.
,~~".,~s.~ .~!!
" :-:
~IANDING
=~::. .........
-WIND SOO:-&
IllFO /CON MOVES
WITH WIND DIRECTION.
DOUBLE-SIDEO -DIRECTORY-
LUTER DISKS COLOR ANIMATE
IN SYNC WITH LIGHT AT TOP
OF PROJECT PYLON.
FAIIRICATED DIMENSIONAL
LOGO MOUNTED ON MESH
RING STRUCTURE. OPTION
ELECTRONIC READER DISPLAY.
ADVERTISING ON
INHRIOR SURFACE Of
BOTH DIR~CTORI£S
PAINHD COPPER
SUPPORT STRUCTURE
SPHERICAL SUPPORT
-WIRE-BALL WITH
INTERIOR LIGHT EFFECT.
FtIr ...... ~,......
MaoIsuo" ........
<i
CALLISON
Comparative
Code Square Footage:
ISO squaTe feet per sign face ...
_. maximum ofrhTee hundred
(300, squaTe feet Including
all sign faces ...
...maxlmum height of the
zone or forty fl!et (40'),
whichevl!r is Il!ss.
Proposed:
Total Square Footage (Iide 8 inchJded)
12.5 7 Disk
28.125 Directory letter Disks
42.5 Sign Band
52.25 Directoril!S
24.75 AdVertising Oisplays
160.115 total square feet.
Total Structure Height:
(30'-r)
PlejeCII DIredory iii
...................
S"'s,~ 11'\ Cen'lfMl'dlll
"""1_IoIZ ......
SuhsKden ESe,.urgs Retlll Uses.
DIrect_hili Sign:
-Shall ftOt exceetl thirty twa (32)
sqw.~ feet per siln fa"e and. maldmwm
of sixty fewr (64) sq ... ,. feet incllHUng
all sip faces.
'A.~v..~s.~ •nwt8WESiEhN .......... ...... .
, ....
~lANDING ::r=.r:. .:.. .......
CURVED AlUMINUM
I'AMLS WI PORCELAIN
ENAMEL GRAPHICS ON
fiRST SURFACE. PAINTED
SECOND SURfACE WI
SCREENED APPUED
lOGO AND GRAPHIC.
LASER CUT ICON MOUNTED
ON COPPER PAINTED
SUPPORT fRAME.
INDIRECT ILWMINATKlN.
... -.. -
,... 's u ...... _ ..............
e
CALLISON
Comp.ratlve
Cod~ Squan Footage:
• ..shall not #!XCeed thirty two (31)
squar. feet p~ sign face.
PropoHd:
Side-A: 195 squafef~t.
Side B= 12 square fel!t.
63 total square feet,
Total Structure Height:
(12'.0")
p.u ...... IiII-1iI
Renton Sign Cede
Signs permitted In Commercal
and Industrl .. 1 Zones.
Subsection ESe, Largl! Retail UsI!5.
F .... standlng Sign:
One freestanding sign fll!r street
fmntagl! not to exceed an arl!.
greatl!r than 1 ~, 12 !iqUllre feet for
I!ach linear fOflt of preplI!nyfrontagl!.
up to a maximum of (lnll! huftdred fifty
(150) squarl!feet per sign face and a
maximum of three hundri!d (300)
squar!! feet including all sign faces...
Subsection E3b.Lar~ R@tailUses.
... maxlmum h~jght of the zonll! or fortyfl!@t
(411), whichever Is less.
!ialei/r_I'-O"
'A.~v,,~S.T, .~!! ~LANDING --..... -2'1,,_ .... ~
<i
CALLISON
OOUBLE-SIOED ~STACKEOw (ompanttive
STEEL HI" BEAM CONSTRUCTION. Code Square Footage:
CUT·OUT LETTERS PIN
MOUNTED ON STEEL MOUNTING
STRIP. tEnERS HALO
IllUMINATED WITH WHITE
INSTAllED PERPENDICULAR
150 square feet per sign (acf.'. ..
._ malC'/mum of thre~ hundred
(300' square feet jncluding
all sign facei. ..
... maximum height of the
tone or forty feet (401 •
whkhever is less.
Proposed:
Sides A & B= 128 sf
x Two (2) signs= 256 sJ.
,.. .................. ,~ .. ......... ."." ... 0n<SlIe teautldenllftoallon II
Renton Sign (ecr.
Slgnll'enniKed In Commercial
ancllndustrial Zl!Ines.
Subsection ESe. brwe Retail Uses.
F ..... tnclln. Sign:
One frematll.lng sign per street
frontage not to exceetlan area
greater than 1-1/2 squaref~fcr
each II near feot of prepertyfrontage.
up to a maximum of ene hundred fifty
(t 50) square feet per sign face and a
maximum of three hundreC!l (3(0)
squall!!! feet Includlng.M sign faces...
Suhsection E3b, L_ge Retail Uses.
...nwdrnum height ef the Ull'le orfmrty f .. t
{401, whichever Is less.
J~~y'~Sl~ .~!!
'r 5·~· > t
~lANDING
...-; __ ...... I
AlLUMltfUM SCRIM
PANEL WI POWER (OAT
PAlliT FINISH. FABRICATED
LenERS WI INTERIOR
ILlUMINATICIN.
TRANSFORMERS MOUNTED
INSIDE (ENTER VOLUME.
POLE SURROUND AT SASE
PAINTED METAL WI
(lIT·OUT DISTRICT NAME.
SUPPORT COLUMN
RUSTY STEEL.
ClraUrStfHtNimt ...........
IMIStHe~
CoIuom
...... " .... ::;:;: ... MaoIouc .. ,...,
<i
CALLI JON
Comparative
Code Square FootOlje."
150 squorefeerper sign (ace •••
•• maximum of three hundrJ!d
(300') square feet including
all sign faces ..•
. .. maximum height af the
zone or forty fut (401 •
whichever Is less.
PropoMd:
Side A= 3 75 square feet
Side B= 37.S squarefut..
7S s.f.+ 12.5 sf. surround=-
B7.5 square feet.
)C Fivt! (5) signs_ 437.5 d.
QII"8IIIt,'f"eIuIM"""""'" II
Renten Sign Cede
Signs permitted In Commert:ial
and lneiu5tfLaI ZOAl!S.
SubsK1il!lfl ESe, UllJle Rmll Uses.
freftUnllllng Sign:
One fr .. stllMlng sit'" per street
ftenl~t! net hi ex~ec:I an area
g~lIterthan 1-112 ~uarefeetfM
each linellrfl!lGt at pr&petty frontate.
up to a maximum of Btle hunetrerJ fifty
(150)~uarefeet pet' sign fa"e 11M a
mmmvm ef dvee huMlrea (300)
square feet inclutllng all sign faees".
SubsecdOfl E3h. hr.ge Retail Uses.
...maximum height of the zene or fertyfeet
(40,), whichever Is le55.
"'8"~m
SUppGftwl
(ut-cm Rust
Letters.
!~~~~s.~ .~~
12'-3~ 1 1 •
~lANDING n_ .... _ . .. 2 __ ...,.... .. ~-
kill-OUT SUELLffURS
MOUNTED ON RADIUS
"T" BEAM PLINTH UnERS
ILLUMINATED WI UP LIGHTS.
!"wI s· ..... ,~
,. 5 """"-
e
CALLISON
Comparative
Code SquareFootage:
ISO square ket prr s;gn facr ...
. .. mClKimum of rhrH hund,M
(JDD) square fnt includlnt)
all sit)" faces ...
.;.maximum height of the
zone or forty feet (40'),
whichever is less.
Propo5ed:
2X12.2S= 24.5 s.f.
i'>R!ij .. ~doAi-B4IIut.
II
'II'
11 •
:----_. . •• j
l
I
J
II
'. ...
-
..... ~--~ ...... t :, ,. ...... .
0. .' -, . .• .••••
~ ;:~I ... ,::-;r::" s
~ ~ iL---------~~
II
i
t
!
I
I ,f
.1 1 .. •
l:
I-eo
LL
&I
I
f
o C)
~ ~ f ~ ~Ii t:: lIHJ. i
o z
w
~ II
~ •
~
I f-~
""' V'l '" ....,-
Z >2 o i:t: >-
-<:'" 1-,< O· W·' en ..
II
I
I
f
.• 1 If .
1..
"'II Ii
11
H
Ii
~
Ii •
Vemcal treIIs 8lemMtS wiI aIow for
cfmbing viles on blank t&cades.
,w'-
SlreetsaJpes with ~ parking w' haw
str&et ttBeS and paver zooes for esse of
access odo the sidewaI< a.s Vll811 as a
delkJeamn between street and sidewalk.
EnhBnoad ptIIIing wIh sawing, .subtle color, and tem.a wiI add pattam 10 the pedestrian
spaces and MIl help guide people tom one ~ 10 snt1Iherwlhin the ceder.
ill!,r;:-~i~:~:~~(~~~~~.: r~
.-;' ;:)~~J -~'1"' <, "..t~.:! "I (. ;~~,rt:.~.~ ;.( ... :t';~" \!~.;; ~" .':", \,.rf~ , fr' ".' "",,'l, ,~, '. I.~" . ~." J~r~~. ~ .... ' .t' ' .. ' '.' '. ·"'r, .~ ,,~, ",)~. ("'" ~'I .' ... : !:(" f f"" J 'ti
, (3n~ ... : 1", '-"',:
TtallseIetnetQ pes1c •• ~.., Ho ___ ._for
plantiflg$lhat add CGJIor and ~st
lighting. and lush plantings all woffl togelhet to
provide inviing outdoor .spac;ff.$.
If ~ J .'~' t.;d"~~' ;t, ~,\tlJ'.
Prwfngondpla_ ""1>eIp __ po_.na
pedtJ$lriM zones and will aBate htfJRJSIing and comfortable
walkway conmctions b6Iween the districts.
~UMdu~
belMJen citcul8tion Bf&8S along the sk1ewalk aDd fJlJlhemg and seatklg nodes 0Ibide of I8SiatntXs and cafes.
Paq wilwxlwKl.aou atteello dMne 11» Mtger pIlIze
as OIJIJ space. SIe AmIuI8 anti pIatbHs as ..... as ptrVilg
pIIhma wilds .... the· ... Hrf8, h lieu efcutba.
A_..-.-..-__ tm>ewiJ
{JItIVide weather proteetIon N W8I as aeate an aiy --............ ---,
,~~~~~~ .~!! ~LANDING
~.::::~:. ..........
..............................
~. U.A.""~ Images II
'A,.~v..~s.~ • ~~!!'!:!!'!! IlANDING
1"1: ......
Austin Bench by Landscape Forms
Quantity: 70 Backless benches (50 with wood seats)
30 Backed benches (All with wood seats)
All benches 10 have surface mount supports, 3 arms, Silver Powder
OOIIt color. Wood benches to have lpe wood seats.
AU will be exterior benches.
A. Pitch Litter Receptacle by Landscape Forms
Quantity: 50 Receptacles
All containers 10 be Side openilg,
Powder Coat color -Silver.
B. Petoskey Utter Receptacle by Landsoop6 Forms
Quantity: 50 Receptacle
All containers to have hinged lid w/surface mount base,
Powder coat color -Silwr.
Napole.n Ash Receptacle by Landscape Forms
Qulntity: 25 Receptacles
All containers to be 85 oz. capacity, surface mount,
powder coat color -Silver.
'-I ' ......... _
M 7 MII;1I8'
SIIe·FumIlu .. II
'/'R~v..~S.~ .~~~
1\11),i~t;iii:It/:~:" : I LIt", i I'y:; ,,: "l .. ~ . i' l'-.,lf.7 ~~> ...
" '," I,~lll-"": , 'I' 'I'! I I '
'l'l' II~ ,'II' '" ,-",ll' ", -: .. : '{ ......... ;j i .,"'"1 J'
"",,;\1 1:1 ~I.'·· " .~'~.
• I. • \ . \#!};';:~~f;, ;: /;~;i~
.. "".'~":"'-·.-·.l ~~. ,}-::::::.-~.~~.~.~'~.~< ~"~' _.... .,,:--": ,~,?'~~
'" ,"" ... "., ...... >, '<" ...:::,., ,-'_.' -.,~." :"\, ""~<--";;': ,.~...;:"'>:::::-::::~ . ",'., '~" -',,~"'-:. ~: ~ ,-.,<>:;:~~:::~.~
A Solstice Umbrellas by Landscape Fonns
Styte: Altair
B, Shade Umbrellas by Landscape Fonns
Quantity: 10
Perforated panels, powder coat -custom color,
umbreOas to be provided with suface rnot.nI stand,
All containers to be 65 oz. capacity, suface mount,
poweder coat color for stand to be custom color.
Pi Bike Rack by L8I1dscape Fotms
Quantity. 15
SUface I11OU1t powder coat color -Silver.
BoIIards by Utban Aa::esoories
Style: 001 wilhout lighls
Cast Metal boIiards, surface mount,
PClNder coat finish -aJStom ooior,
Tme Grates by Iron Age Designs
Style: Oblia 5' sq.
Casllron tree grates with frame.
.'.-:-
.. lIIrf'~. " .... ' ,r.. ". . ..... ".' "' ... "' •.... ' ..••. , .. '-. '''. .' . .it. 'IIi ... " •. ", ................ ,., .. ,-.. ' .. ~ ..... ''' .. i •. ,·.,I~' ..• ,' ..... ~,' ... .. "" " .. ' (' ,:,,:\.-.., , ....... ~. :,..-'
Tree Grates by Iron Age Designs
Styte: 0bIi0 6" width
(.-... ... '" .. ..:., .' L~~·',I J \, .. ,' ' • .t L 01 ,....... .. ~ ,'~ ,I, I I
~LANDING --ApII.l:w." ................
F.. ..... ~ .. LIIIIIk 1 L -. .. .....-
Casllron chameI drain with frame,
Site Fumllul9 II
~ ~ ~
. ~n~~~~~111
ilmmlllU
_______ r----------------·
----'
8
ili
w
III ----------------~
,
II I
I
C)
Z Of ~IJ Hi
Ii •
I
I
~ , • , .. s
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"!
~ ED
~ • • • ~
T -----------n1l33HS33S
,
~~I= I !! II ~dl
I
I
I
II
J
~
I
J
I
If
Ii •
" ~f Q, I
Zr I
~t I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I • I !~! I '~i I ~h
I-~
v)'"
I
J,.Ll~
I >z
i:G~
I <'" , I
I I
II
i
I
J
Ii •
1
j
I
j
!
------,.-'U~
(9 'ii= ~f
~Ii HI
fIll
Ii • I
I-~
3""3< V NY007
Vl"
<Ll~
>~
I!I
jXo-
I
I '~i :1; I
...:::" , I
I
II ..
" ~ • EB .... ...
::j ! ~ . J ~ 311= ;; .all
~ ~ li!1
g. Iii
UI ; sdl ~ ~ . ~ I
~ •
If
I!
. ; •
m
II
i5:
"I E9 f ::; • ~ I • ~ ijl= )
! IP-I ~ ~ II • I'
I ! sdl ~ I
~
I I I
'" :il ,I ..
~I
...J
ml
:J: ..
W . ~I
Ii •
I ~·ll133HS 33S --------
II
Ii •
" I
! I I , ,
,~
"'-'----
, \ .... :1. , "iii~ \ \
, \
, \
..
, \
, \ , \ . ,
..
1.--
II
i
I
II
Ii •
to
C
l
I
If
e z 251
!Ii
The Landing Lighting Concepts
The lnIenl d the Ighlng for The landing WIttI t.. to highlight erohIIeeturali elements of Inlerelt 88 well as 10 !nIIIInIam ow ..... ..".Ievef. that aIew for comfertaIH vllltJllty at right~he hoIn. Both «tefVY eHIcfent long life Ught IDUI'CeS will be used
throughout. WhIe some dec:aratfve lixtures may have eIamenII of -gw. gI .... conb8I will be • pdoftty for allhe ..,..1bt1Wts. ear. wII be Iaken to I'I'Ik*Nze Ihe number of lamp Iypn uaed. AllIIghlIOUl'Cel will be cI ... cdor Iemper'8bnI and
of Ngh color rendering. The projecl .. ~y .11 ... W~ Energy Cedes. W. 'NIl reler 10 lie aty eI RenIen.nd lie I.E.S. for i ...... i ..... M:ltdllghl"" end triformly fIIIIDa ItnughouL
§vdw;t Parking Leta
Surface lois wll7 be lighted wllh energyeftlclenl, M CUI-dI' knllnab'aI fer rnaUrun lION fXIr1IrDf ... mtnnun glare. t..JuN ..... are Ngh CIIor raldering metal haIde and ..... art: eIedronIc wIIh muItHap OflUons 10 operBIa &1120 or 2n v«<. 0pUcaI
component to be aagmented, speajar aIzak Ihat Is ~.In W InI:ntrnenb. Po.t.1ftCIIJI'Its IG 26 foot ....... 8IeIII pele. Proonde wIltt 30" cIameter x 36" tigh CGInIHIe .... lamp: 4OOMKICI\J. Type M1 is *IQIe heeded and Types M2 and M3 are
ooutft! headed. Type M3A hal adcIlionaI moooIIng IoceUen and 120 vdl powa" few' serurIIy ameru _ reqt*ed by hI.icIrIg IBfwIta.. OpIIonaI ~ McGraw EcIaoo GeIerIa Sqtae Sertes; LIIhmIB I..igI*'a VIIionaIra AnIerka1 Series; Gardco f-PV
SM" US ArcIitecttnI SVL22 SerIes.
11YPI!Mt"
TItE LANDING: UCJHTlNG SCHEMATIC DEIION
'A..~~~Sk~ ~LANDING • TfIANSIi'E8IEriN
.~ ....... , ...... .
[ riPE----.a.; M'J
.......... -~~----~ .M'., If
CMDELA
~.1iJIIf'IJa...I"" --,
lIghIIng iii
lrtbtdpr Bpaeav IDII P!!d!lIdeu Lighting
The overan Intent Is to provide oomfCftabie IIghlllIIYeh that allow for good vlsItJIlty wtthoot glare. Care" be..,en Ie aeIect • pHaetrlan lICIIIe paedlWlllhat serYM I!tDIh as. decor8ttve .... em end 1M. ft.Inc:tionaI krnInaite. W. vIsuaIze 8(1 elemen' of
glow within Ihe posllop In addition to cut-off feelures whktt direct most d the light downwards 10 Hght aIcIewaIb _ fOIIdway$. eon_d. will he Inb8duoed tor IcJwef tevellIQhtIng to IdenIIfy changes In grade or highlght pIIftIng poc:keIs. Both thB
pedealr1en postllghl and the boIlstd 'NIH have similar design elamanl&, or be of "Ihe same tamMy". The CNerBll t.lghI of JMdeBtrIan pMUlghts wli no!: exceed 14"..0"', Fbdure 10 have cable mounted brackel AddItIonal brackets for hanging flower baskets or
banners to be detennlned. The light sources will be coler corrected ceramic melallllilll9a. Type M4 optional fIlIIm.JfMturer .. 9811U11'1, W"', ArehitecturaI Nea lighting. t.eula Pt!IUlI8n Nyhaven Sarin til' pOOr BJIPIOHtd aI1emal-. Pole .... , have
custom palm flnlBh In two toMB. Type M4A. opIionaII manufacturers are We-ef, or appftlIVed prior a1temm.. Cenlel'1I,. 'a IBM v...-and upper Md lower pGrtkIn ... c:ueIom paint finish. Type M51dard QJ1knaIlJUDftdu'er .. NoraI Udo, KIm
8ouoce or Poulsen Nyhavn.
"'"
I TYPEM4
THE lANDING: UGHTING SCHEMATIC DESiGN
'A.~v.,~s.~ .~ !LANDING
[meMS
,. ....... ' ..... _ ... _--
~'
(AN)ElA
~.upm.,ea-rt.dI
,......, 2IJ6.467 • .,11
lighting iii
I"'klng Mctu!'!ltd Sqqnc" .",.,..r Pte""",.
WNie many Ihop owners provide IhaIr own f~ IghtIno, we wtllook to pn:wIde a comn'IIM'I ttYead that h HCl'lIUk!InJ"""". w .. ,.,.,.... dacof'dte tIxIurts may.,. '*" rII • f...-y d ftIduree IhBI.IIIIow fa-IIBmf IncIvktIaIty while melf'Ulnlng ......
r_ Ff_.types ... 'ary deperdng ... _ facII"O om -.. In ..... -. ___ • boMng -Ia/OIIII fa .... _ Typo MIl ... be.-. Whent mont......, i~1fng fa req<*OO. or Nr,t1er 1/ghI_ tw>a 1<7 .." be """"-
Type M14 1& 8 sUfface mounted 0)'Inder mwrrted to ........ of canapes tit ~ 4rirenoIttI. Where buUng rMlerI_ 01 ... ...", ~ .. to bit .............. .--. type F1 ~ ... the ................... Treelnlng ___ In bile __ WIll be"_ .. ____ ..... MII fn.ground ___ ....... ""TypoMII ... IIego. __ ",prior ____ fcrT)1>OM7 mll!lboWO«. __ L/ghIIng,_a
similar optIont. Option, fOr Type F1 ... ExtatteurV ... 0rgaWch or InIIahl SUIaIQ manti ...... fer Type. MIl .. ,."..... Bo. Km and ....... AI tiD -.nee to tie c:.IIIr comd CMan*:",..... hIIIIcIe.
i+_4: 4;r~o-
....
~-I
,
L -. :rTo ' ~'r:-"--~ l' + .. • .. 0 'q:+-• !+± ;r-I TYPE ... I.JL, .;.: "" , .. • i+-~f"+:!-_ ~ ~. ~.~(~".._~; I
I TYPEM .. I " 11 TYPE ... TYPSFI I
It""'+-~ .... ~'
.....
[mew I I TYP8FI J
THE LANDING: UGKTING SCHEMATIC DESIGN
,.~~~~s.r. •1JIANSA1ESiERN
........... n· •••
~lANDING
"'''''''" . ..... afllli, ...........
-
SLOGS 404 -406
". [imMO] !:!m: -. ·~~~r ~ "_._._-------"
•"
" "
, . .
~
1
( ',>
[nTraM81 [!YPI!MU]
~ELA --_ .........
I'hwwI 3JI..65?-I511
,... ...... , ........
ME ...... C I UgIItIng II
epr1dng Gtrtqt UgbUnp
The d8si{1\ Intent In lhe parking gsragea Is to uaa eukJff type IlUface rnol.I"ied 100llnairea to reaIftct Ight from elaIb'Ig lhe ht6:Ing & reshId: YI*a gilD from Logan Iwerue. We WOIAd also like to hicJt'!R11rt the "bookend" staifweIIa and treat them 88
architectural featuraa. Fixtures selected ~H emphasize vefticalily and add visual Intentst and "Wey4lndlng" by adding calor fillers. All HrghtIlOlA"CM will be cdor COfTKted metal haIde (It compact ~ Suitable tner'IlIactlJrw for Type M9 aocwJt
f\OodIighIs are We'ef, Kim, Hydra or In Vue. arnorost dhani. 0pIbna terType M10 parkina garage ....... KIm PGl e s.rift.
<)0<)
.,<)
.,<) ~ \
•. ' \
.1<)
[ TYPIiM'-]
THE LANDING: UGtmNG SCHeMATIC DESION
'A.~v..~s.~ • ~!=*!L¥.!! ;;.;2 ................
~lANDING
] TYPIiMio
..................... ---............. -
CAI\OELA
AnllilKhnlLiptiIIJ c.-.r.r .. -_.
L1ghltng II
II £ i
I I
11 ::s 1 ij wn 1
Ii ~p
~
i 11 i .. " .
f] ..
• I ..
~ (" .
I,
i
~ 5" ..
~
::t
i
[j i, ,
IIIJ ,~
fl ~i
f] Ii &{
fl II
~ 1s
H 11
C) f~ Jl if Ij
II fi
~t l~ fl
ilHJ.l
=1
f' ~ ,I:
"s il
J] if
fJ
I'
'"
: .
"P
I'j H
z IJ I
I'
• ~l
Ii i
lli
w n
:z:
4) • Ii
I-~ ~ V'l"
.. ~
1.I.l~
~I :'~ ~ g >.z
Ci i:t!o-
<'"
I f I
~ , L .', ~ ~ !l!
~'!!
.. P'": ~;
~'"
Hotel CorrlderlPlaza area
ThIs area may _ hSll& mulUpie purposes including pedestrlan tni'fk: and ooIdoor dining or ..... ng pI ___ ". ... hi .. IMM klerltlftell as andher v*y high eonerw end dynIiI'nlc k!x:Itim, second mIy 10 "The laldng ~ and In eaence. a continuation d Ihe
lighting concepts. A catenary system SUCh as Type M11 provides good genarallghtlng 800 Type L3 and LA. provkM 9ImI.-~hIIng to attaeenI areas. LED &ourc8B MUd he tnduded in the aame OMX oonImI ayaI&n as ....... Un:Ing Place" and
continue down 8 path 01 directional lighting towards Ihe Identity PykIn. Catenary syatema Type M11 are available frem a.oa, Wf/". l.LJUIa Ptllllan.-lEl NruI, amonpI act--. LEO.ut:eI!I for l3 .ool4 ......... e.g. andWe-er.
--.-: . : .. ---._-'
;~
ITI'PEL3 I Tl'PEIA I TmlMy]
THE LANDING: LIGHTING SCHEMATIC DESIGN
'A.~y.~s.~ ~lANDING .~~~ --..... 2 ....... · ...........
!CJ"S T,
••• • •• 10 • _ .. ... n_"':-. __
=E:..~!:.:..._ ---=-:::-. ~'::.:. =:.....
........ ~...-.t: ..... ~
t ,
.... m.1a
, ,
. ....... ~
CAl\DELA
hddlodJmll ~c.m.d"'"
Phww; ~-8$ll
Ugtdlng iii
II ,
!
II
II •
MarkatLm.
The eoncept behind Markel Lane Is 10 prcMde a sense of"pIaCe" 'Aftlle t\atmg II function as a parking 101 fOf' 5 out &f 7 day!. week.. ExIttIng cmcrat. po. are being I'8-UIIed as an aIemen1lO def\n51he mattet ... 1111 pedMtrlan I!IheIter arM. 88888 are wrapped
In 8 metal cylinder -Mth cut-oulS !hat are back-llghted. For pedestrian shelter, malal poles and cafWPY enend from selected CIDI"ICr8te poles, IIlgmnI upltc/ht8 hIghI{t4 metal framk1g and underside of canopy. Refer to laldscape Ard1Iled's dnlwIngs for
deSi!J'llofonnalion of structure. At the lOp cI the 35 foot concrete palM a catenary syBIem" be ti"ar»ed'rem r;de 10 pel. & frewn IheM deeonIIIv. pendantl; .... mounted allBrBm IriervElia forlestlve-typa IIgtting. CabIea remain In place 2417 wt-.e pendants
be may be hung for l'J1afbt-tlme BY.nts only. LED accents al the 1qlo 01 .. poles flash when the martel (or tither actIWIIIea) .. In pwegrea..
I
, I
'"
I
I
I
, :1
1 I I· I
,I
'_}l:{=lj
THE LANDING: UGHTING SCHEMATIC DESIGN
'~~~~SR~ .~!!
1 TYPEMll I
~LANDING
.. --~
r=w ............... ~
~
.. a-tetr;_ ................
~
ITYPEM8 ITYPEL7
CAl\DELA
~¥'""~ --,
LIghting iii
· ........ ' .---,'-.
II
Ii z
~ ..
" ~ • !I!
1i
.~ .. :. ! I-~
<.I)"
g ..... w
i!i
>z
i::I::~
I <'"
w ,
1 .. -
:c ..
llll~ ~i~!
I
----------------A
" ..... .
; ! i III --n ! 'I ! !\!i n II l' , ;, , ~~ i ~ HI" I! l'lli ! • 'I _,1,-1. i.", ,I i ,! ~ -. -z-t}~! !; I If i.ill11ilh;}III!Un II I II d~~ !HiliBIiBh!! ! i
' • I • " • I
I i I '" 0.,,11111 D
1 iil 5
L.!i)~"'~~i!l"IIi",,,,,a:;:; ,~o"",,~ ":'lIe. ~t.
11I1 I I
--\,
+---'
DECISION DATE: May 19, 2008
Project Name: The Landing Master Plan -City of Renton Improvements
Applicant/Contact: City of Renton
Transportation Systems Division
Attn: Rob Lochmiller
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
File Number: LUA05-136, SA-A, SM
PrQject Mana!1er: Ken Weaver
Project Background/Description: On May 12, Z006, an administrative detenninatlon was issued by
the Development Services Director for The Landing Master Plan application. The determination found
the Master Plan to be consistent wtth the Planned Action Ordinance (Ord. No. 5107) that had been
issued for the site on November 15, 2004. Based on this finding, the detennination designated the
Master Plan as a Planned ActIon pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a).
The City of Renton will construct road Improvements and other infrastructure to support The
Landing project, in accordance with the Renton/Boeing Urban Center-North Development
Agreement, dated December 1, 2003. These improvements are detailed in Exhibit 3. This
detenninatlon addresses the consistency of the City's proposed scope of work with the Planned
Action criteria in RCW 43.21 C.031 (2)(a).
Project Location: North of N 8"' st, between Lo~an Ave N and Garden Ave N
Site Area: Approximately 47 acres
Exhibits
1. Yellow File, The Landing Master Plan Application (LUA05-136, SA-A, SM)
2. Planned Action Determination for The Landing Master Plan, dated May 12, 2006
3. City of Renton Scope of Wori< for The Landing Road and Utility Improvements, dated May
18,2006
4. Memorandum on Air Quality Analysis Findings. prepared by Blumen Consulting Group
dated May 9, 2006
Planned Action Review Criteria
Per Section III.E. of the Planned Action Ordinance, the Director of Development Services, or the
Director's designee, Is authorized to designate a proJect application as a Planned Action pursuant to
RCW 43.21 C.031(2Xa), If the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following
conditions:
<.
a) (he project is located on the subject site as described In Section
III.A., or is an off-site Improvement directly related to a proposed
development on the subject site; and,
The proposed improvements are offslte projects that are direcUy related
to The Landing development, including road widening and sewer, water
and stormwater facilities.
The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan
adopted under RCW 36. 70A; and,
The proposed improvements are consistent with the Comprehensive
Pian.
b) The project's significant environmental Impacts have been
adequately addressecl In the ciS by reviewing the environmental
checklIst or other project review form as specified In WAC 19()'11-
315; end,
The proposed improvements are consistent with the scope of
improvements that were addressed in the EIS as potentially needed to
support The Landing. The significant environmental impacts of these
improvements have been adequately addressed in the EIS.
c) The project complies with the Planned ActIon Thresholds In the
cIS; and,
The proposed improvements comply with the Planned Action
ThreshOlds In the EIS.
d) The Director has determined that the project's significant Impacts
have been mitigated through the application of the Development
Agreemen~ as well as other City requirements, standard mltlgat/on
fees and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mltlgat/on
for the significant environmental Impacts associated with the
proposed project; and,
The proposed improvements will be subject to the terms of the
Development Agreement, and wlll be subject to standard City
requirements and conditions, which will be sufficient mitigation for the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.
e) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and
federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or
modification or other special permits have been requested; and,
The. proposed Improvements will comply with all applicable local, state
and federal regulations. No variances, modifications or other special
penmlts are anticipated to be required.
f) The proposed project Is not an essential public facility.
The proposed improvements wilt serve The landing development, which
Is not an essential public facility.
Decision
The scope of work for the road and utility improvements that will be constructed by the City of
Renton to support The landing development is designated as a Planned Action pursuant to
RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURES:
Nell Wa Its, Director date
--\
DECISION DATE: May 12, 2006
Project Name: The Landino Master Plan
Applicant: Nicole Hemandez
WaH Pacific
3350 Monte Villa Pkwy
Bothell, WA 98021
Owner: Harvest Partners
8214 Westchester Dr, Ste 650
Dallas, IX 75225
Contact Person: Rob King
Harvest Partners
20503 88 111 Ave W
Edmonds, WA
.
File Number: LUA05-136, SA-A, SM
Project Manager: KeriWeaver
Project Description The applicant, Harvest Partners, has applied for Administrative Master Site Plan
approval for the development of an approximately 47 -acre site zoned Urban Center North - 1 (UCN-1)
located between Logan Ave N and Garden Ave N, north of N 8111 St. The proposal is for a mixed-use
development proposed to Include retail, office, entertainment. restaurant, hotel and/or residential uses
with associated surface and garage parking. Site improvements would include landscaping, utilities,
roads, stormwater facilities, and special design standards for the UCN-1 zone.
Currently, the existing site consists of abandoned paved and gravel parking lots and remnants of
previous building foundations. The site is undergoing rough grading and building pads are being pre-
loaded with fill to accommodate future development. It is anticipated that approximately 673,312 sq ft
of residential <;!evelopment (approximately 900 apartments/condominiums) in four buildings and
635,500 sq ft of commercial/retail/office use in approximately 25 buildings will be developed. The
commercial portion of the site has been conceptually divided into several "themed" areas, including
"The Landing Place" (entertainment, restaurants and specialty shops), "Market Lane" (grocery and
retail marketplace), and "The Walk" (large box retail). Approximately 900 residential units will be
located in the northeast comer of the site, to be built by a separate developer.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed redevelopment uses and density
range was completed in October 2003. The site was analyzed in the EIS as Subdistrict 1A. The
project site and potentlal redevelopment were addressed in a Planned Action Ordinance dated
November 15, 2004 (Ordinance No. 5107). This determination addresses the Master Plan's
consistency with the Planned Action Ordinance, and its designation as a Planned Action. Detailed
Site Plans will be required for the commercial and residential components of the overall development.
Project Location: North of N 8th St, between Loaan Ave N and Garden Ave N
Site Area: Approximately 47 acres
Decision
proposed project's consistency with the FEIS/Planned Action
Thresholds.
e) The Director has determined that the project's Significant impacts
have been mitigated through the application of the Development
Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation
fees and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation
for the significant environmental Impacts associated with the
proposed project; and,
The Landing Master Plan application is consistent with the Development
Agreement, the Planned Action 'rhresholds, and the FEIS. Therefore,
standard mitigation fees· and conditions, . as well as other City
requirements and conditions constitute sufficient mitigation for the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.
f) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and
federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or
modification or other special permits have been requested; and,
The Landing Master Plan application complies with all applicable local,
state and federal regulations. The applicant has applied for Master Plan
and Site Plan approvals. No variances, modifications or other special
permits are antiCipated to be required.
g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility.
The Landing is not an essential public facility.
The Landing Master Plan application (LUA05-136, SA-A, SM) is designated as a Planned Action
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031 (2)(a).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURES: tJ;} tJi/;tf
Nell Watts, Director
<
u
-I
City of Renton
Scope of Work -Offsite Improvements
The Landing (LUA05-I36)
5/18/2006
Roadways
All roadways will include decorative roadway illumination poles/signals and
stamped color concrete for intersection and crosswalks. Where on street parking
is provided, parking stalls will be stamped color concrete.
Park Avenue North (South of N. 8th St. to Logan Ave.)
Will be widened to include five-lane roadways section with on street parking,
landscape median, wide sidewalks with tree wells on each side of the street,
Logan Avenue North (N. 6 th St to Garden Ave)
Will be constructed to include a three to four lane roadway section with a bike
path, landscape strip, and sidewalk on the east side of the street.
North 8th Street (Logan Ave. to Garden Ave.)
Will be constructed to include a five-lane roadway section with landscape strips
and sidewalks on each side of the street.
North 10th Street (Logan Ave. to Garden Ave.)
Will be constructed to include a three-lane roadway with on street parking,
landscaping, and sidewalks on each side of the street. North lOth Street includes a
decorative roundabout and a raised pedestrian crossing between Logan Ave. and
Park Avenue.
• Utilities
Sewer Improvements
Project will provide 12-inch sanitary sewer line in North 8th Street, North 10th
Street and part of Park Avenue for connection to the King County 96 inch
METRO line. Project includes lateral stub outs to the right-of-way line for point
of connections needed by the development.
Water Improvements
Project will provide 12-inch water line in North 81b Street, North 101b Street,
Logan Avenue, and Park Avenue. Includes fire hydrants on the roadways and
lateral stub outs to the right-of-way for point of connections needed by the
development.
Stormwater Improvements
Project will provide stormwater conveyance within Logan Ave, and Park Ave.
that serves runoff contributed by the City's roadways and the development
property. Project also includes a collector system and water treatment facilities
for the roadway stormwater runoff in all road sections.
MEMORANDUM
PROJECT No: 12285.000.0
To: Keith Woolley, Rich Perteet, City of Renton Transportation Division
CC: Mike Blumen, Blumen Consulting Group
FROM: Richard Steffel and Lisa Graham
DATE: May 9, 2006
PROJECT: The Landing, Renton, W A
SUBJECT: Air Quality Analysis Findings
At the request of the City of Renton, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix) has evaluated the
potential traffic-related air quality impacts for "The Landing," a proposed urban village develop-
ment in a portion of the Boeing Renton Redevelopment area. At the direction of the City, the air
quality analysis was based on those intersections included in the project's traffic study area, and
extended to conditions expected in 2015. This memo summarizes the methods and findings of
the air quality impact assessment.
Summary/Conclusion
Geomatrix conducted a quantitative modeling study based on full buildout of the project in 2015
to assess potential air quality impacts near the single most project-affected signalized intersection
in the traffic study area. Modeling results indicate maximum concentrations with both the future
baseline alternative (Hybrid 2) and with the proposed project would remain well below ambient
air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO). Although predicted concentrations increase
slightly with the proposed project, potential air quality impacts would be expected to be minimal.
Analysis Method
The intent of a transportation related air quality analysis is to examine the potential for impacts at
the signalized intersections most likely to be adversely affected by a project. When planned
development projects are located in air quality maintenance or nonattainment areas, any transpor-
tation components included in the proposals are potentially subject review under the air quality
transportation conformity rules. (1) Because The Landing project would cause changes to a
regionally significant roadway (park Drive), this project is subject to an air quality conformity
review. However, the study reported here is limited to a ''hot spot" analysis for the single most-
(I) Attainment status is detennined by the US EPA based on whether an measuted pollution levels comply with health·
protective ambient air quality standards. This project is located in the Pugct Sound CO maintenance area.
Keitb Woolley, Ricb Perteet
The Landing, Air Quality Assessment (12285.000.0)
519106 -13 :46
Page 2
affected signalized intersection because the project's traffic study did not extend to cover a larger
area or consider a more distant horizon year. In the absence of these data, a more simplified
analysis was performed. Consequently, this analysis does not comprise a project-level transporta-
tion conformity review (which would require a broader study area and a more distant horizon
year). The conduct of a full-blown conformity review is, in this instance, probably a formality,
because air quality impacts appear unlikely. But a conformity review is nonetheless required to
comply with state and federal air quality rules.
Intersection Section and Modeling Procedures
EPA modeling guidance calls for analysis of the most project-affected signalized intersections,
with a focus on the most congested signalized intersections (Le., those with the worst level of
service (LOS) andlor the highest volumes). (1) EPA suggests considering for modeling any inter-
sections operating at LOS D, E, or F under existing conditions as well as any intersections
projected to change to LOS D, E, or F because of a proposed project. Intersections that operate at
LOS C or better are unlikely to cause or contribute to a potential violation of the CO ambient air
quality standards, and generally do not require further lUlaIysis. (3)
PM peak-hour traffic data for this project provided by the City of Renton and Transportation
Engineering Northwest were used to select the most project-affected intersections. Geomatrix
considered conditions in 2015 with the future ''baseline'' altemative and "with project" traffic and
roadway configurations. Under these scenarios, three signalized intersections in the traffic study area
are projected to operate at LOS D or worse, but only one is expected to be worse with the proposed
project For this reason, only one intersection was selected for modeling analysis: Logan Avenue at
Garden Avenue/S. Lake Washington Boulevard Traffic parameters associated with the three most-
project affected intersections included in the traffic study area are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Lev el fSe 0 rvice and Intersection Delay at Project-Affected Sil!llalized. Intersections
,
2015 Hybrid 2 BaseHne 2015 Tae Landing
Signalized Iatersectlon LOS 1 Delay (sec) LOS 1 Delay (.ec)
Log .. Ave.lGarden Ave.IS. E I 66 E I 70 Lake WA Blvd.
N8tb St.lLogan Ave. E 159 E I 57
N6tb Sl.lLogan Ave. D 152 D I 51
Source: City of Renton and Transportation En2ineerina Nortbwest
(2) LOS is a measure of the weighted average vehicle delay during the peak traffic period at a signalized intersection. LOS
"A" is the least congested, with an average delay ofless than 10 seconds per vehicle. WS "F" represents a weighted
average delay of more than 80 seconds per vehicle.
(3) Guideline/or Modeling Carbon Monoxide/rom Roadway Intersections, US EPA, 1992 EPA-4S4/R-92·00S.
Keith Woolley, Rich Perteet
The La.dine, Air Quality Assessment (12Z85.000.0)
5/9/06 -13:46
Page 3
Geomatrix used two standard computerized tools to evaluate potential air quality impacts from the
proposed project in its buildout year (2015). Peak-hour pollutant emission rates due to traffic in the
project area were computed using the Mobile Source Emissions Model. Worst-case peak-hour CO
concentrations were then estimated using the CAL3QHC dispersion model. Both tools are described
further below.
Mobile6 -Emission Factor Modeling
The latest U.S. EPA vehicle emissions factor model, Mobile6.2, was used to determine vehicle
pollutant emission rates. Mobile6.2 calculates average in-use fleet emission factors for hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. Vehicle emission factors are calculated in grams of
pollutant per vehicle mile-of-travel based on a wide array of vehicle classes, updated basic emission
rates, driving patterns, separation of start and running emissions, improved correction factors, and
changing fleet composition for use in dispersion modeling.
The Puget Sound Regional Council (pSRC) ran the Mobile6.2 model and provided the emissions
factors used in this analysis. The Mobile6 input parameters applied by PSRC were consistent with
those used in the development of the latest Washington State implementation Plan (SIP) for CO. The
following assumptions and parameters were used in Mobile6.2 to determine emission factors in the
project area:
• To simulate conditions when carbon monoxide violations have been found most likely to occur in
northwestern Washiogton, outdoor minirnwn and maximmn daily temperatures of 34· and 50· F
wereusecl.
• Idle emission rates were calculated by multiplying the emission rate for 2.5 mph by 2.5 to
estimate a rate in grams per hour of idling. (3)
CAL3QHC Dispersion Modeling Parameters and Application
Geomatrix used the CAI3QHC, Version 2, dispersion model to calcu1ate peak-hour CO concentra-
tions uear the most project-affected intersection. CAL3QHC is a dispersion model designed to
calculate pollutant concentrations caused by transportation sources. (3) It considers "free-flow" and
"queue" emissions (based on Mobile model emission factors) together with intersection geometry,
wind direction, and other meteorological factors.
The following assumptions and parameters were used in the CAI3QHC modeling and are consistent
with the Washington State CO SIP, CO Maintenance Plan, and EPA modeling guidance: (3)
• Critical meteorological parameters were a 3,280-foot mixing height, low wind speed 3.28
feet/second), and a stable atmosphere (Class D).
• The modeling evaluated 72 wind directions (360° in S· increments) to ensure worst-case
conditions were considered for each receptor location.
Keith Woolley, Rich Pertee!
The Landing, Air Quality Assessm.n! (12285.000.0)
5/9/06 -13 :46
Page 4
• A "background" I-hour CO monoxide concentration of 3 ppm was assumed in the future year to
represent other suburban sources in the proj ect area.
• The modeling configuration considered road links in all directions extending 1,000 feet or until
the next intersection. Using the procedures required for the CAL3QHC dispersion model, both
free-flow and queue links were configured approaching and departing the intersection evaluated.
Near-road receptors were placed approximately 10 feet, 25 feet, 50 feet, and 100 feet from cross
streets, 10 feet from the nearest traffic lane, and 5.7 feet above the ground to correspond to a
typical sidewalk location at breathing height Modeling considered 14 near-road receptors near the
intersection.
• PM peak-hour traffic conditions provided by the City of Renton and Tranaportation Engineering
Northwest would lead to the highest possible I-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations.
• Modeled I-hour CO concentrations were converted to represent 8-hour concentrations using a
"persistence factor" (i.e., the ratio of 8-hour to I-hour CO concentrations) to represent variability
in both traffic volumes and meteorological conditions. Since ac1llal monitoring data are not
available, Geomatrix used an EPA default persistence factor of 0.7.
Air Quality Modeling Results
The dispersion modeling results representing conditions with the 2015 Hybrid 2 (baseline) alternative
indicate the maximum I-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations would be below the respective 35 and
9-ppm ambient CO standards. With buildout of the proposed project, maximum I-hour and 8-hour
concentrations in 2015 increase slightly over the baseline condition but remain well below the
ambient standards (Table 2). Although predicted CO concentrations near this intersection would
increase slightly with the project, because the predicted worst-case concentrations are far less than the
ambient air quality standards, traffic related to the proposed project would not be expected to result in
any significant air quality impacts.
Table 2. Maximum-Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm)
2015 Hybrid Baseline l015 LandlnE
, In tersection I-hour 8-hour I-hour 8-hour
Log .. Ave.lGarden Avo-IS. Lake 5.4 3.8 5.8 4.1 WABlvd.
Ambient Air Quality Standards 35 9 35 9
Source: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
/ If iel I i.. i.J" ... •• ...
BOEING RENTON SUB·DISTRICT 1A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY
BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
FOR
THE CITY OF RENTON
In Compliance With
The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C)
and City of Renton SEPA Policies and Procedures
BOEING RENTON SUB·DISTRICT 1A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy ............................................................................................. E-1
CHAPTER 1
DESCRIPTION OF EIS ALTERNATIVES AND SUB·DISTRICT 1A
MASTERPLAN
Introduction ................................................................................................. : ...... 1-1
Site Area & Range of Alternatives in 2003 EIS .................................................. 1-2
Current Sub-District 1A Redevelopment Plan .................................................... 1-5
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Introduction ....... ~ ................................................................................................ 2-1
Comparison of EIS Alternatives and Current Sub-District 1A
Redevelopment Plan ................................................................................. 2-1
Stormwater Drainage ......................................................................................... 2-2
Transportation ..................................................................................................... 2-3
Land Use Patterns ............................................................................................. 2-5
Relationship to Plans & Policies ........................................................................ 2"8
Summary Matrix ............................................................................................... 2-16
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 2-17
SUMMARY MATRiX ......................................................................................... S-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................... 1-3
1-2 EIS Site Area Map ............................................................................. 1-4
1-3 Sub-District 1A Master Plan ............................................................... 1-7
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1A
Environmental Consistency Anelysis
I Table of Contents
May, 2006
,l
.. ,,4' . .,
't"~."
"
II
l\ II
. if
Ii ,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Statement ("2003 EIS') in October 2003. The 2003 EIS evaluates
potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 2OO-acre Boeing Renton Plant
site with a mix of residential and commercial uses. In 2004, Boeing conveyed to Harvest
Partners that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site known as Sub-district 1A. Boeing
continues to hold title to Sub-district 1 B, which is that portion of the site immediately south of
Sub-district 1A. Harvest Partners and Boeing are now proceeding with plans for future
redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and .1 B.
Subsequent to issuance of the EIS, the City of Renton and Boeing executed a Development
Agreement to guide long-term redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant site (December 2003).
As part of the Development Agreement, a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1A was approved. In
October 2004, an amendment to the Conceptual Plan was approved by the City to allow a
broader range of future retail development in the sub-district. In November 2004, the Renton
City Council passed ordinance No. 5107, which designated Sub-district 1A as a Planned Action
site and designated uses and activities described in the EIS (subject to the thresholds described
for the EIS alternatives and mitigation measures described in Exhibit A to the ordinance) as
Planned Actions (per the State Environmental Policy Act rules, WAC 197-11-164 and RCW 43-
21 C.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 EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning
stage), and that the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
In March 2006, a second amendment to the Sub-district 1A Conceptual Plan was approved by
the City to reaffirm the overall vision for the sub-district, allowing a broad mix of uses. Harvest
Partners, the potential developer of the Sub-district 1A property, submitted a specific Master
Plan application to the City for Sub-district 1 A redevelopment in October 2005. Modifications to
the plan were subsequently submitted to the City,
Harvest now seeks Master Plan approval from the City and a determination as to whether the
current plan is consistent with the previously granted Planned Action designation per ordinance
No. 5107. The following report contains the Environmental Consistency Analysis for Sub-district
1A
A separate Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the proposed
Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B and is on file at the City of Renton. That report also
addresses the cumulative consistency of the combined Sub-district 1A Master Plan and the
Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan.
Goal of this Analysis. The goal of the Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis is
to determine whether the environmental impacts of the redevelopmenf currently proposed for
Sub-district 1A are within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental
impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. If determined to be within this range, the Sub-district 1A
project will be considered by the City to be consistent with the previously granted Planned
Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental ConSistency Analysis
May, 2006
E-1
Introduction
CHAPTER 1
DESCRIPTION OF EIS ALTERNATIVES
& SUB·DISTRICT 1 A MASTER PLAN
The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Statement C'2003 EIS'') in October 2003. The 2003 EIS evaluates
potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping Boeing's Renton Plant site with a
mix of residential and commercial uses. In2004, Boeing conveyed to Harvest Partners that
portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site known as Sub-district 1 A. Boeing continues to hold title
to Sub-district 1 B, which is that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site immediately south of
Sub-district 1A. Harvest Partners and Boeing are now proceeding with plans for future
redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B.
As discussed in greater detail below, Sub-district 1A is subject to a Planed Action ordinance
designation adopted by the City via ordinance No. 5107 in November 2004. Harvest now seeks
Master Plan approval for redevelopment of Sub-district 1A and a determination by the City that
its proposed Master Plan is consistent with the previously granted Sub-district 1A Planned
Action designation. Sub-district 1 B is not encompassed by the Sub-district 1A Planned Action
ordinance.
Boeing received approval'of a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1B redevelopment in November
2005. Boeing now seeks a Planned Action designation for Sub-district 1 B, pursuant to an
ordinance that would be adopted by the City. A separate Environmental Consistency Analysis
has been prepared for Sub-district 1 B.
Overview of SEPA Planned Action Designation
Per the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a "Planned Action" is a designation for a project
that shifts environmental review from the time a permit application is made to an earlier phase in
the planning process. The intent of the designation is to provide a more streamlined
environmental process at the project stage by using an existing environmental impact statement
prepared at the planning stage for SEPA compliance, as allowed by RCW 43.21C.031 and
WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315.
Request for Planned Action Consistency Determination for Sub-district 1A
In November 2004, the Renton City Council passed ordinance No. 5107, which designated Sub-
district lA as a Planned Action site and designated "[u)ses and activities described in the EIS,
subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and
subject to the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A [to the ordinance)" as Planned Actions.
The Sub-district 1A ordinance allows streamlining of the permitting process by using the 2003
EIS as the environmental documentation for future projects that fit within certain thresholds.
The City determines whether an individual project fits within those thresholds and is consistent
with the previous Planned Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrict 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
1
I
.I
'·~BLUMEN
'!JCONSUlTING ~GROUP, INC
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1A
Consistency Analysis
Figure 1-1
Vicinity Map
r> -
'" .. ...
o ,. ...
o SOO
f14Pii " "'j ==,1
SCAI.E IN I'm"
"· .... BLUMEN '~CONSUlTING
.5:GROUP. INC
BOEING
Sub,-dis'trll,1A
(EIS SUtlBl'Bl1IS 118/lCI B)
Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B
Consistency Analysis
Nota Part
Sourre: HearttBnd UC, 2003
Figure 1-2
EIS Site Area Map
Table 1-1 presents the redevelopment that the 2003 EIS assumes for the subareas equivalent
to Sub-district 1A (EIS Subareas A and B) by 2015 and 2030, respectively. As shown in Table
1-1, the redevelopment that the 2003 EIS assumes in Sub-district 1A by year 2015 would range
from approximately 680,000 to 1,660,000 square feet of retaiUcommercial, light industrial, office,
multifamily and lab uses. As shown in Table 1-1, the redevelopment that the EIS assumes in
Sub-district 1A by year 2030 would range from approximately 680,000 to 2,700,000 square feet
of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab and multifamily uses (1,112 multifamily units).
Table 1-1
REDEVELOPMENT THAT THE 2003 EIS ASSUMES FOR SUB-DISTRICT 1A-
2015 & 2030
1 RetaiVCommercial, Ugh! Industrial
2 Retail/Commercial, Office
,
3 RetaiVCommercial, Office, Multifamily
4 Retail/Commercial, Office, Lab
,
RetalVCommercial, Ugh! Industrial
Retail/Commercial, Office
RetaiVCommercial, Office, Multifamily (1,112
units) 1
2,
RetaiVCommercial, Office, Lab 1
Does not include on the PSE property that the EIS assumes, because this property
is not included In the current Sub-district 1A area, and there are currenHy no plans for redevelopment of
this parcel (the development area shown for Sub-district 1A under AHematives 3 and 4 does not include
310,000 SF of offices uses that the EIS assumes; the development shown for Sub-district 1A under
AHema~ve 4 does not inciude 620,000 SF of office uses that the EIS assumes).
Current Sub-District 1A Redevelopment Plan
Subsequent to issuance of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment FEIS in 2003,
the City of Renton and Boeing executed a Development Agreement to guide long-term
redevelopment of the Renton Plant site (in December 2003). As part of the Development
Agreement, a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1A was approved. In October 2004, an
amendment to the Conceptual Plan was approved by the City to allow a broader range of future
retail development in the sub-district. In November 2004, the Renton City Council passed
ordinance No. 5107, which designated Sub-district 1A as a Planned Action site and designated
uses and activities described in the EIS (subject to the thresholds described for the EIS
alternatives and mitigation measures described in Exhibit A to the ordinance) as Planned
Actions. In March 2006, a second amendment to the Sub-district 1A Conceptual Plan was
approved by the City to reaffinn the overall vision for the sub-district, allowing a broad mix of
uses.
Harvest Partners, the potential developer of the Sub-district 1A property, submitted a specific
Master Plan application to the City for Sub-district 1A redevelopment in October 2005.
Modifications to the plan were subsequently submitted to the City. Harvest now seeks Master
Plan approval from the City and a detennination as to whether the current plan is consistent with
the previously granted Planned Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
1-5
Quadrant B
Source: Callison Architects
'·""'BLUMEN !..;1 CONSULTING
.... GROUP, INC
Boeing Renton Sub·District 1A
Consistency Analysis
Fairfield
.. ..... ....
Quadrant C
i
NQrth
Figure 1·3
Sub-District 1A
MasterPlan
"" ,.
DIS"
" ,
Table 1·2
SUB·DISTRICT 1A POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES· 2015 & 2030
2006.
Assumes 100 percent buildout of all redevelopment areas by year 2015.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
1·8
, "
Introduction
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
This chapter compares the potential impacts from the redevelopment currently proposed under
the Sub-district 1A Master Plan to the potential impacts from implementation of the EIS
development altematives in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS (2003)
(see Chapter 1 for a description of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1A and the EIS
Alternatives). Stormwater Drainage, Transportation, Land Use Patterns, and Relationship to
Plans and Policies, are the key environmental elements analyzed in this Consistency Analysis.
As such, more expanded analyses of these elements are provided in this chapter. A
comparison of potential impacts on other elements of the environment from the redevelopment
currently proposed for Sub-district 1A to impacts from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives
is contained in the Summary Matrix at the end of this chapter.
Comparison of EIS Alternatives & Current Sub-District 1A
'j Redevelopment Plan
Table 2-1 compares the range of development assumed under the 2003 EIS alternatives to the
proposed range of development under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan in years 2015 and 2030.
Table 2-1
COMPARISON OF EIS ALTERNATIVES &
CURRENT SUB-DISTRICT 1A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -2015 & 2030
Sub-district -Bulldout EIS Alternatives Current Redevelopment
Year Total Development-Plans
Square Feet Total Development -
. Square Feet
Sub-dlstrlct 1A -2015 680,000 -1,660,000 1,349,000-1,522,500
Sub-district 1A -2030 680,000 -2,700,000 1,349,000 -1 ,522,500
Source: Blumen Consulting Group, 2006.
As is evident in Table 2-1, the maximum development level currently proposed for Sub-district
1A is within the maximum development level assumed for that area in the 2003 EIS (1,522,500
square feet versus 2,700,000 square feet, respectively). The number of multifamily units
proposed for Sub-district 1A by year 2030 is slightly lower than the number of multifamily units
assumed in the EIS (900 units versus 1,112 units). The 2003 EIS assumed the following uses
for Sub-district 1A in 2015 and 2030: retail/commercial, light industrial, office, multifamily, and
lab uses. Under the current Master Plan for Sub-district 1A, the following uses are proposed:
retail, office and multifamily. Therefore, the types of uses that are currently proposed for Sub-
district 1A are similar to the range of uses assumed in the EIS.
As shown by the above, the devEillopment currently proposed under the Sub-district 1 A Master
Plan is considered to be within the range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-1
Stormwater Drainage
The following section is based on the SurfacelStormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district
1A prepared by KPFF (see Appendix A to this document), the Water Resources section of the
Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (2003) (pages 3.2.1 through 3.2.27),
and Appendix B to the Draft EIS.
Background
The analysis methods and calculation assumptions used in Appendix A were identical to those
used in the EIS Surface/Stormwater Technical Report (see Appendix B to the Draft EIS for
further explanation).
In its existing condition, stormwater runoff from Sub-district 1A is collected and conveyed via a
stormwater drainage system that discharges through outfalls located on the Cedar River, John's
Creek and Lake Washington. These outfalls are identified in the EIS as Outfall #15 (Cedar
River), Outfalls #13 and #14 (John's Creek) and Outfall #1 (Lake Washington). As assumed in
the EIS, conveyance system components could be designed to divert water away from existing
overcapacity outfalls within the EIS study area, to the extent possible. As stated in the EIS,
some outfalls serving the site area and the John's Creek channel are currently over capacity
during certain storm events (I.e., Outfalls #13, #14 and #15), while some have excess capacity
(i.e., Outfall #1). Two cases were considered in Appendix A, consistent with the EIS analysis
for Sub-district 1A: one in which the areas drained by each of the existing outfalls are generally
maintained in size and configuration (Case 1), and one in which areas drained by the outfalls
are modified to direct stormwater from overcapacity outfalls to outfalls with excess capacity
(Case 2). A separate stormwater consistency analysis has been prepared for the Sub-district
1 B Conceptual Plan (see the Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1 B on
file at the City of Renton).
Also consistent with the EIS, Appendix A evaluates the potential surface/storrnwater impacts of
the City's current plans to improve existing roadways and develop new roadways associated
with the proposed Sub-district 1A and 1B redevelopment plans (note: the roadway sections of
these roadways will provide capacity at a greater level than required for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B,
but less than required for the entire EIS study area).
Sub-cllstrlct 1A
The area covered by the current Sub-district 1A Master Plan proposal roughly covers Subareas
A and B, as analyzed in the EIS Surface/Stormwater Technical Report (see Appendix B to the
Draft EIS for details). The area of the current Sub-district 1A proposal is 8.4 percent larger than
EIS Subareas A andB. The area subject to redevelopment would be larger, because the
roadway area would be reduced, as described below.
The City of Renton intends to improve existing arterials and develop new arterials to serve Sub-
districts 1A and 1 B (i.e., Logan Avenue N., Park Avenue, 8th Street and 10th Street). The area
covered by the planned arterials is 42 percent less than the area assumed to be covered by the
arterials in the EIS. This is because the analysis contained in the EIS assumes roadway
development that would be sufficient to support redevelopment of the entire EIS study area
(including District 2 to the west of Logan Avenue N.), while the City's current plan includes
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2·2
I
I
I
1
"1
]
j
J
]
1
I
]
I
•
. ;
!
'. ;
roadway development (i.e., roadway sections) that will provide capacity at a level that is greater
than required to serve District 1 only (Sub-district 1A and 1 B redevelopment), but less than
required to serve redevelopment of the entire EIS study area.
Since the areas currently proposed for the Sub-district 1A Master Plan and the arterials planned
by the City do not precisely match the assumed drainage subareas identified for the EIS
alternatives, Appendix A presents stormwater quantities in terms of totals, as well as quantity
per acre. The purpose of this presentation is to compare the relative impacts of the current
Sub-district 1A Master Plan and associated arterials to the EIS altematives.
Peak stormwater flows are very closely linked to the amount of impervious surface area. The
redevelopment currently proposed for Sub-district 1A would result in impervious surface
coverage of approximately 93 percent. This impervious surface coverage would be within the
range of impervious surface coverage estimated under the EIS altematives (at approximately 80
to 100 percent), and would be less than the existing baseline condition (at 100 percent). The
arterial development currently planned by the City would result in impervious surface coverage
of approximately 87 percent. This impervious surface coverage would be less than the
impervious surface coverage estimated for the arterials in the EIS (at 100 percent) .
Total peak flows from redevelopment under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan would be higher
than under the existing baseline condition and under the EIS altematives. However, the peak
flow per acre from the Sub-district 1A redevelopment would be at the low end of the range
calculated for the EIS Altematives. Total peak fiows from the City's currently planned arterial
system would be significantly lower than the total peak flows calculated for the arterials in the
EIS. The peak flows per acre from the arterials would be similar to the peak flows per acre from
the EIS.
Appendix A concluded that stormwater conditions and calculated impacts associated with the
Sub-district 1A Master Plan and arterial system would be consistent with the conditions and
calculated impacts with the range of redevelopment alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
Peak runoff flows from Sub-district 1A to the applicable outfalls would generally be reduced in
comparison to the baseline condition. Except for Outfall #1, the outfalls affected by the Sub-
district 1A proposal (Outfalls #13, #14 and #15) would see reductions in peak flows in
comparison to the baseline condition. Flows to Outfalls #13, #14 and #15 would increase
relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS alternatives. This difference is attributable to the
fact that the EIS alternatives include, at a minimum, redevelopment of Subareas A, Band C,
while the Sub-district 1A proposal reflects only redevelopment of Subareas A and B. Since
Outfalls #13, #14 and #15 receive a significant portion of their flow from Subarea C, the lower
flows at these outfalls (identified under the EIS alternatives) would not occur until Subarea C is
redeveloped in the future. The peak flow at Outfall #1 would be increased in comparison to the
baseline condition; however, the increase would result in a peak flow that would be well below
the capacity of the outfall and within the range of the EIS alternatives. Similar to the conclusion
of the EIS, there would be no significant impacts to the surface or storm water environment as a
result of the current Sub-district 1A Master Plan and associated arterial system.
Transportation
The following section is based on the Transportation Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1 A
prepared by TENW (see Appendix B to this document), the Transportation section of the
BoeIng Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-3
Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (2003) (pages 3.10.1 through
3.10.36), and Appendix E to the 2003 Draft EIS.
Background
Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive
Plan Amendment EIS were used to estimate a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that
would be generated by redevelopment currentiy proposed for Sub-district 1A For traffic
analysis purposes, Sub-district 1A was assumed to comprise approximately 1,522,500 square-
feet of new development, the maximum development scenario (see Chapter 1 of this
Consistency Analysis for further details). Trip generation comparisons for this Consistency
Analysis do not consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation
estimates evaluated in the EIS, and therefore, should be considered conservative. A separate
transportation consistency analysis has been prepared for the proposed Conceptual Plan for
Sub-district 1 B and is on file at the City of Renton for Sub-district 1 B (see the Boeing Renton
Sub-district 1B Environmental ConSistency Analysis).
Sub-distrlct 1A
Total off-site vehicle trip generation from redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1A would be
substantially less than that estimated for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site under EIS
Alternative 4 (the EIS alternative with the highest vehicle trip generation). In 2015, estimated
vehicle trip generation from Sub-district 1A would total approximately 1,249 fewer trips than
identified under EIS Alternative 4 during the a.m. peak hour, and 448 fewer trips during the p.m.
peak hour.
By 2030, no increase in additional development is assumed to occur within Sub-district 1A (for
purposes of this analysiS it Is assumed that any redevelopment of the Puget Sound Energy
property north of Logan Avenue would be part of District 2 redevelopment plans). However, due
to future additional redevelopment within Sub-district 1 B between 2015 and 2030, more vehicle
trips within Sub-district 1A would internalize within the site area (there would be more trips from
use to use internal to the sub-districts). As such, a slight reduction in total off-site trip
generation from redevelopment in Sub-district 1A is expected by 2030, over those levels
estimated in 2015. This characteristic is consistent with the trip generation methodologieS and
assumptions applied in the 2003 EIS. In 2030, estimated vehicle trip generation from Sub-
district 1A would totsl approximately 2,808 fewer trips than identified under EIS Alternative 4
during the s.m. peak hour and 1,885 fewer trips during the p.m. peak hour.
The lower overall trip generation for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site would result In
improved intersection levels of service, as compared to those reported in the 2003 EIS. There
would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from
redevelopment proposed under Sub-district 1A, beyond those disclosed in the EIS;
redevelopment of approximately 1,522,500 square feet of new mixed use development in Sub-
district 1A, as proposed under the Master Plan, would be within the range of development
alternatives and associated impacts presented in the EIS.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Envlronmentsl Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-4
I
I
I
I
.J
I
I
I
)
• Consistency with Infrastructure Needs Identified In the EIS
. J
' . ','J
'. !
, 1
i
,. j
, .
Key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the EIS were
reviewed in the cumulative analysis for Sub-districts 1A and 1B in the Boeing Renton Sub-
district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis to identify whether any significant changes have
occurred since the Final EIS was issued in October 2003.
Subsequent to issuance of the EIS and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, the
Boeing Company and the City of Renton entered into a Development Agreement in December
2003. Based on this agreement, the City is completing design engineering and will be
constructing improvements to the local roadway system that will serve the Sub-district 1A and
1 B redevelopment area and provide a basic through-street grid system within the sub-districts.
This includes improvements to Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, North 6th Street and North 10th
Street to be implemented by the City (see Appendix B of the Boeing Renton Sub-district 1B
Environmental Consistency Analysis for more information on the specific improvements), as well
as certain on-sHe access and circulation improvements to be constructed by the applicants. The
planned improvements to the local road system will provide capacity at a level that is higher
than required to serve only Sub-district 1A and 1 B redevelopment in 2015 or 2030 (higher than
assumed necessary for redevelopment of these sub-districts in the EIS). Per the EIS, this
through-street system was not required to only support redevelopment levels evaluated in the
EIS for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B by 2015 or 2030; instead, this system was required to also
support the redevelopment of a portion of the EIS study area west of Logan Avenue N. (a
portion of the area defined as District 2).
Based on the traffic consistency analysis for redevelopment of both Sub-district 1A and 1 B, all
infrastructure needs identified in the EIS would either be mitigated through expected trip
generation reductions (as compared to trip generation evaluated in the EIS) or as part of the
planned transportation improvements to be implemented by the City of Renton or the applicants.
No additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support cumulative
redevelopment under Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B.
If redevelopment of Sub-district 1A is considered as a standalone project, in comparison to
cumUlative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1B, there would be no changes in
conclusions regarding transportation impacts or infrastructure needs. See Appendix 8 to the
Boeing Renton SUb-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis for further discussion of the
specific intersection, arterial and freeway access infrastructure needs identified in the EIS' for
the cumulative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, and the relationship of the current
redevelopment plans to these infrastructure needs ..
Land Use Patterns
The following section draws from the Land Use section of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Draft EIS (pages 3.5.1 through 3.5.17).
Background
As described in the 2003 EIS, Sub-district 1A is considered part of the existing Boeing Renton
Plant site (defined as Subareas A and B). The alternative redevelopment scenarios analyzed in
the 2003 EIS are evaluated against a "baseline condition" which included certain land use
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrict 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-5
assumptions for the existing site area (see Draft EIS pages 3.5.3 and 3.5.6 for details). Since
2003, the baseline land use condition has changed in certain respects. In particular, below is
one of the key land use assumptions from the EIS related to Sub-district 1A, followed by an
update on the status of the assumption in bold italic.
• Continuation of existing utility operations on the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) property
(under EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 only).
The PSE property was Included In Subarea A (a part of Sub-distrlct 1A) In the EIS,
but Is not Included In the current Sub-district 1A Master Plan. Future
redevelopment of this property Is not anticipated to occur by 2015, as Is not
considered a part of Sub-dlstrict 1A for purposes of this analysis.
Land uses that are currently located adjacent to SUb-district 1A are the same as those
described in the 2003 Draft EIS (see Draft EIS page 3.5.6 and 3.5.7). Sub-district 1A is
surrounded by: Boeing industrial and office uses and the Puge! Sound Energy sub-station to
the north; the Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B property to the south; the Fry's Electronics retail
store to the east and PACCAR industrial/manufacturing uses to the southeast; and Boeing
. industrial and office uses and parking lots to the west.
At the time that the 2003 EIS was prepared, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan
designations for Sub-district 1A were Employment Area -Industrial and Employment Area -
Office, and the zoning classifications were Industrial -Heavy (IH) and Employment Area -
Transition (IH). Subsequent to the Final EIS issuance, the City adopted new Comprehensive
Plan and zoning designations for the Boeing Renton Plant site. area. The current
Comprehensive Plan designation for Sub-district 1A is Urban Center -North (UC-N). The
current zoning classification for Sub-district 1A is Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1). The 2003 EIS
analyzes the potential impacts of re-designating and reclassifying the Sub-district 1A property to
its current land use designation and zoning classification.
Sub-dlstrlct 1A
The current Master Plan for Sub-district 1A proposes a total of approximately 1,349,000 to
1,522,500 square feet of retail, office and multifamily development, with bulldout projected by
2015 (see Chapter 1 of this Consistency Analysis for details). Retail uses are proposed to be
located in the northwest and south portions of the property (in Quadrants A, B, C and a small
area in the west portion of the Fairfield area); multifamily uses are proposed to be located in the
northeast portion of the property (in the Fairfield area); and office uses are proposed to be
located in the southwest portion of the property (in upper floors of retail uses In Quadrant B)
(see Figure 1-3).
As noted above, re-designation of the Boeing Renton Plant site from EA to the UC-N in the
Comprehensive Plan and reclassification of the site to UC-N1 zoning occurred subsequent to
issuance of the Final EIS. The 2003 EIS analyzes the impacts of these land use changes, and
indicates that the changes would facilitate an eventual transition in land use patterns in the north
Renton area from primarily employment based to a broader and more urban mix of employment,
retail, residential and open space land uses. The EIS also evaluates the potential land use
impacts of four redevelopment scenarios (Altematives 1 through 4) that encompass a range of
land uses that the site could potentially aocommodate in. the future (see Chapter 1 of this
Consistency Analysis for further description of these altematives).
Boeing Renton Sub-distrfct 1A Envlronmentsl Consistency Analysis
Mey,2oo6
2-6
I
J
I
)
;)
J
,
;,1
. I
•. 1.
... ,
',.j
! :
.!
<
!
The principle conclusions that the EIS reaches with respect to potential land use impacts are
summarized below, followed in bold italic by an analysis of how the proposed Sub-district 1A
Master Plan compares to each.
• EIS Land Use Conclusion 1: Sub·district 1B would be converted to a mixed use,
urban district Implementation of EIS Alternative 2 would convert Sub-district 1A
(defined as Subareas A and B) to low·rise office and retail uses. Implementation of EIS
Altematives 3 and 4 would convert the Sub-district 1A property to an urban district,
characterized by retail shopping, a commercial business district, multifamily residences,
and public amenities.
Under the cun-ent Master Plan, redevelopment of Sub·district 1A is proposed to
include retail, office and multHamily uses. This redevelopment would contribute
to the creation of an mixed use, urban district In the Boeing Renton Plant site
area, similar to under ElS Alternatives 3 and 4, and would, therefore, be consistent
with the analysis of Impacts In the EIS.
• EIS Land Use Conclusion 2: The mixed use. urban character proposed for Sub-
district 1B would be compatible with surrounding uses. The land uses assumed
under the EIS alternatives would be compatible with the existing uses surrounding Sub-
district 1A. Implementation of Alternative 2 would convert Sub-district 1A to low·rise
office and retail uses. These new office and retail land uses would be compatible with
ongoing Boeing operations, as well as existing commercial and industrial uses to the
east and southeast, including the Fry's Electronics superstore and PACCAR.
Implementation of Alternatives 3 and 4 would convert Sub-district 1A to a more intensive
urban district, characterized by retail, commercial, multifamily uses and public amenities.
The higher intensity retail and multifamily development in the east portion of S ub-district
1A would be compatible with the Fry's Electronics superstore and would be adequately
buffered from manufacturing uses further to the southeast; the higher intensity retail and
commercial uses in the west portion of Sub-district 1A would be compatible with ongoing
Boeing operations.
Under the current Master Plan for Sub-distrlct 1A, future uses are generally
proposed to be located in similar areas of the property as under the range of
alternatives In the ElS (retail uses would be located In the northwest and south
port/ons of the property and multifamily residential uses would be located In the
northeast portion of the property); proposed uses would, therefore, be consistent
with the analysis in the ElS (see Figure 1·3 In this Consistency Analysis).
• EIS Land Use Conclusion 3: Eventual conversIon of Sub-district fA to a mixed
use. urban district would Increase the likelihood of similar changes In the
surrounding area. consistent with the City's vision for the area. Redesignation of
Sub-district 1A to UC·N, and redevelopment to higher intensities across the property,
could generate pressure for Comprehensive Plan map and zoning redesignations for
surrounding properties located generally between 1-405 and Rainier Avenue (north of N.
4 111 Street), currently designated for a more limited range of uses. Overall, redesignation
of Sub-district 1A to UC·N ref/ects the City of Renton's goals for its Urban Center. Over
time, the redesignation could facilitate changes in land use patterns that are consistent·
with the City's vision for where different types of land uses should be concentrated and
the ongoing transition of the Boeing Renton Plant site area from an industrial base to
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2·7
one that is more mixed and urban in character. Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning
provisions and individual project review by the City would serve as mitigation to preclude
potential future impacts.
Subsequent to issuance of the Final E/S, the Boeing Renton Plant site and
properties between the site and 1-405 (north of the PACCAR property) were
redesignated to the UC-N ComprehensIve Plan designation and reclassified to the
UC-N1 zoning classification, consistent with the City's vision for the area within
the Urban Center. Further pressure for additional Comprehensive Plan map and
zoning redesignatlons, as a result of Sub-district 1A redevelopment, Is expected
to be limited. Consistent with the conclusions the E/S reaches, Comprehensive
Plan policies, zoning provisions and Individual project review by the City would
serve as mitigation to pryaclude potential future Impacts.
The EIS concludes that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to land use patterns would
result from development under the range of altematives. Redevelopment under the current
Master Plan proposed for Sub-district 1A would be consistent with this conclusion.
Relationship to Plans & Policies
The following section draws from the Relationship to Plans and Policies section of the Boeing
Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft E/S (2003) (pages 3.6.1 through 3.6.13).
Background
The 2003 EIS analyzes the consistency of the proposed land use designation for the Renton
Plan site with applicable state and local land use plans, policies and regulations (in place at that
time). The EIS summarizes Important elements of each applicable plan, policy, or regulation,
and provides an analYSis of consistency. Highlights of the EIS analysis are presented below,
followed by an evaluation of the consistency of the current Master Plan proposed for Sub-district
1A with the analysis in bold italic.
Sub-dlstrlet 1 A
State of Washington Plans and Policies
The 2003 EIS addresses relevant State of Washington Plans and Policies, including the Growth
Management Act (1990) and the Shoreline Management Act (1971). The EIS concludes that
the City of Renton had adopted a Comprehensive Plan to guide Mure development and fulfill
the City's responsibilities under GMA. The City had also adopted mitigation (Impact) fee.
standards for fire protection and parks and recreation consistent with GMA. The EIS
determines that the proposed amendments to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan would
encourage future growth in the City's Urban Center (within its UGA), and would be consistent
with GMA goals and policies. The Shoreline Management Act is implemented In the City of
Renton through the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (see the discussion of City of
Renton plans and policies below).
Amendments to the Renton Comprehensive Plan that encourage future higher Intensity
growth In the CIty's Urban Center (which Includes Sub-district 1A) were adopted
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-8
I
I
J
]
1
]
J
J
I
.J
•
; j
· 1
· ,
• t
~ j
,
:' ?
subsequent to issuance of the Final EIS. The Master Plan proposed for Sub-district 1A
would represent an urban, mixed use development In the CIty's Urban Center, and would
be consistent with the EIS analysis regarding GMA goals and policies.
King County Plans and Policies
Relevant King County plans and policies, specifically the King County Countywide Planning
Policies (CPP) (1992) are also discussed in the EIS. The EIS indicates that, as mandated
under the GMA, the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan was consistent with the Countywide
Planning policies. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan included policies to accommodate the
CPP housing and employment growth targets city-wide. The City of Renton also had a
designated Urban Center, with associated goals and pOlicies, consistent with the CPP (see the
discussion of City of Renton plans and policies below). The EIS concludes that the general
policies proposed for Renton's Urban Center reiterated the CPP language regarding the vision
and "design' of Urban Centers; and, that the proposed zoning would create capacity for Urban
Center employment and residential density levels that reflect the CPP household and
employment capacity criteria,
The current general policies for Renton's Urban Center North area, and the zoning of the
Sub-district 1A properly, were adopted subsequent to Issuance of the Final EIS. The
current Sub-district 1A Master Plan includes both employment and residential
development, and would help the City to meet Its employment and household targets,
consistent with the EIS analysis regarding the CPP.
City of Renton Plans and Policies
City of Renton Comprehensive Plan
The EIS addresses the following elements of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan: Land
Use, Tnansportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Downtown and Economic
Development and Environmental.
• Land Use Element. The EIS states that policies in the Land Use Element encounaged a
compact urban city with a revitalized downtown that would function as a regional Urban
Center. Office, retail and residential developments were encouraged in the downtown
area. New commercial and multifamily development outside the downtown would be
accommodated in ·centers'. The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan would divide the existing (at that time)
Urban Center into two parts: Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) and Urban Center North
(UC-N). The proposed policies that would apply to the Urban Center would establish
these areas and outline objectives for Renton's Urban Center that would reflect the CPP
objectives and criteria for Urban Centers. The proposed zoning would create additional
capacity for mixed use development.
The EIS indicates that proposed policies specific to the UC-N designation were intended
to provide a blueprint for tnansition of land over the next 30 years into a dynamic mixed
use district. The UC-N policies were developed to correspond to the EIS alternatives,
and anowed an analysis of the impacts associated with different thresholds of land use
and intensity in the Boeing Renton Plant area. The policies reflected the assumed level
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-9
of redevelopment associated with each EIS altemative and a wide range of potential
uses and densities of redevelopment.
Subsequent to Issuance of the Final EIS, the City adopted the UC-N
Comprehensive Plan designation and the UC-N1 zoning classification for the
Boeing Renton Plant area, including Sub-district 1A, In November 2003. The City
also adopted new policies and regulations to support the re-designation/rezonlng
In November 2003. These new policies were consistent with those in the EIS
analysis (see below for an analysis of the consistency of the Master Plan currently
proposed for Sub-district fA with key Urban Center North policies). The Sub-
district 1A Master Plan would contribute to the creation of a dynamic mixed use
district In an Urban Center, consistent with the Intent of the UC-N land use
deJSignation and UC-N1 zoning classification.
• Transportation Element The EIS indicates that the re-designationlrec!assification of
the Boeing Renton Plant area, and related adoption of policies, would increase the
area's employment and residential capacity. Actual redevelopment would result in
additional traffic volumes distributed on the local and regional roadway network. Under
EIS Alternatives 3 and 4, higher density mixed-use redevelopment would support transit
and non-motorized travel patterns (at a lower density, Alternative 2 would not be as likely
to support transit and non-motorized travel patterns). The EIS concludes that demands
on transportation infrastructure would be dealt with through ongoing capital facilities
planning by the City, consistent with the policies in the Transportation Element that
require coordinating land use and transportation planning, and phasing transportation
plans concurrently with growth.
Following Issuance of the Final EIS, the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan was amended to address potential impacts from Increases In
Boeing Renton Plant site area capacity (including the capacity from Sub-district
1A). Various Improvement needs were defined and Included In the City's six year
Transportation Improvement Program (11P), which is updated annually. The City
Is planning new improvements to certain existing arterials and planning new
arterials (Logan Avenue N., Park Avenue, IfI' Street, and 1f1' Street) surrounding
Sub-district 1A to support redevelopment of this area. See the Transportation
section and Append"IX B to this Consistency Analysis for an analysis of the
consistency of the potential transportation Impacts under the cutTent Master Plan
for Sub-district 1A with the analysis In the ElS.
• Housing Element. According to the EIS, the redesignationlreclassification of the
Boeing Renton Plant site, and related adoption of policies, would generate new
residential capacity within the area that would accommodate future population growth
within the City. Potential future redevelopment allowed under mixed-Use zoning would
add to the multifamily housing supply in the City and would be consistent with the
Housing Element goals that call for adequate supply of multifamily housing capacity 10
meet Urban Center goals. Urban Cenlers are envisioned as areas of concentrated
employment and housing, served by transit, with a wide range of other land uses.
The cutTent Master Plan for Sub-dlstrlct 1A would Include multifamily hOUSing,
consistent with the Housing Element goal to provide an adequate supply of
multifamily housing In Urban Centers.. This housing would be located In a mixed
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrkt 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-10
)
-
I
I
I
1
i 1
]
J
j
]
J
t; .
. i
. i
use development area that also features employment opportunities and is served
by transit
• Capital Facilities Element. As the EIS describes, the amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations would create the capacity for a range
of uses at the Boeing Renton Plant site, and associated employment and housing
potential. The EIS concludes that ongoing capital facilities planning related to provision
of public services (i.e., fire and police protection), parks and recreation facilities,
transportation, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure would address the
increases in population and demands on services associated with potential future
redevelopment.
Following Issuance of· the Final EIS, the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan was amended to address phased improvements required by
future redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant site. See the Summary Matrix at
the end of this chapter for a comparison of the potential Impacts of the Sub-
district 1A Master Plan on public services, paries and recreation, and utilities with
. the potential impacts of the as alternatives on these elements.
• utilities Element The EIS indicates that future redevelopment of the Boeing Renton
Plant site area that occurs as a result of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning would require utilities infrastructure to serve the area. Utility policies in the
Comprehensive Plan support those improvements that are necessary for redevelopment
of the Urban Center.
Any utility Improvements that would be made as a result of redevelopment
proposed for Sub-district 1A would be consistent with the policies In the utilities
and Capital Facilities Elements. See the Summary Matrix at the end of this
chapter for a comparison of the potential Impacts of Sub-district 1A
redevelopment on utilities with the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives •
• Downtown Element The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan would divide the existing (at that time) Urban Center into two parts:
Urban Center Downtown (UC-O) and Urban Center North (UC-N). Adopted general
policies would be consistent with CPP criteria for Urban Centers that would apply to the
whole of Renton's Urban Center. Individual policies and zoning for the UC-N area would
support a higher density mixed use urban district. Potential future redevelopment that
could occur under these land use regulations, particularly under EIS Alternative 3 and 4,
could result in a spillover effect to the downtown area as a result of increases in
population (Alternative 2 would be less likely to have this effect, given the lower densities
of development assumed under this alternative). This could generate support for
businesses in the downtown area and create new types of businesses. Alternatively,
some downtown businesses could compete with uses in the Boeing Renton Plant site.
Subsequent to Issuance of the Final as, the City adopted the UC-N
Comprehensive Plan designation and the UC-N1 zoning classification for Sub-
district 1A. The City also adopted new policies and regulations to support the
redeslgnationlrezoning. Redevelopment under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan
would represent a higher density mixed use urban district with an increase In
employment and population. This could result in impacts to (and from) downtown
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistancy AnalysIs
May, 2006
2-11
businesses. similar to those described in the EIS. However. given that Boeing
operations are continuing in Sub-district 2 (the area west of Logan Avenue N.).
such potential for Impacts would be less than identlfjed in the EIS for Alternatives
3 and 4.
• Economic Development Element The EIS concludes that the proposed amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan and related new general policies for Urban Centers would be
consistent with the goals and policies from the Economic Development Element.
Redevelopment under EIS Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would include office, retail and
commercial uses, consistent with policies in the Economic Development Element
relating to expanding the City's office and retail employment bases. Redevelopment
under EIS Alternatives 3 and 4 would encourage mixed-Use redevelopment in a range of
office, retail, residential. and community-based land uses (redevelopment under
AHemative 2 would be less diverse and intense). This type of redevelopment would be
consistent with policies supporting a diversified employment base, and expansion in
retail and office use. .
The redevelopment currently proposed under the Sub-distrlct 1A Master Plan
would contribute to the creation of a mixed use development that would include
retail. office and residential uses. This redevelopment would be consistent with
. tha Economic Development Element policies related to supportlng a diversified
employment base and expanding the CIty's office and retail employment bases, as
ldentiifed In the E1S.
• Environmental Element. The EIS concludes that redevelopment of the site, as allowed
J
I
I
J
,
by the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and related policies and regulations, 1
would occur consistent with City adopted environmental and critical area regulations. . j
Redevelopment under the Sub-dlstrlct 1A Master Plan would occur In compliance
with City-adopted environmental and critical area nlgulations. consistent with the
conclusion In the EIS. See the Summary Matrix at the end of this chapter for a
comparison of the potential Impacts of the redevelopment under the proposed
Sub-district 1A Master Plan on the environmental elements (I.... earth. water
quality. fish and wildlife habitat) with the potential Impacts of the EIS alternatives
on these elements.
City of Renton Shoreline Mast.r Program
No portions of Sub-district 1A are located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington or Cedar River
shorelines, and, therefore, are not subject to the provisions of this program.
City of Renton 2003 Long-Range Park. Recreation and Open Space Plan
The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and associated
development regulations would create capacity for a range of uses in the Boeing Renton Plant
site area, including housing and employment uses. Future redevelopment would lead to
demands on parks and recreation facilities. These demands would be addressed in annual
updates to both the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Redevelopment within the Boeing Renton Piant site area would
be subject to the City's Park and Recreation Mitigation Fee policy (Resolution 3082). EIS
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
2·12
)
J
)
I
. j
, ,
Alternative 2 did not include residential development, and demands for open space and/or park
and recreation opportunities were assumed to be minor; Alternatives 3 and 4 were assumed to
generate greater demands, because of the greater range of uses (including residential). All of
the EIS altematives were assumed to include some open space.
The redevelopment under the proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan would contribute to
the creation of a mixed use development that would Include residential uses. These uses
would lead to demands on parles and recreation facilities; however, overall demands
would be less than under EIS Alternatives 3 and 4, because fewer housing units are
proposed (900 units versus 1,112 units). See the Summary Matrix at the end of this
chapter for a comparison of the potential impacts of Sub-district 1A redevelopment on
parles and recreation with the potential impacts of the EIS altematives. ResIdential
development In Sub-district 1A would be subject to the City's Parle and Recreation
Mitigation Fee polley.
Redevelopment of Sub-district 1A Is proposed to Include open space/landscaplng
(Including pedestrian paths and connections between areas of the sub-cilstrict and
adjacent areas, plazas, courtyards and outdoor seating areas and other landscaped
areas). The Fairfield residential neighborhood would Include approximately 45,000
square feet of common space/recreation area in a combination of courtyards, plazas and
multJpurpose open space. The applicant proposes to construct community buildings
and pooUspa areas (one per each of the two phases of resldentlal development In this
area). The community buildings and pooUspa areas would provide actlve and
recreational opportunltles for residents. A more detailed description of proposed
recreation opportunltles would be presented with the site development and building
permit application for the specific residential project. Approximately 23,000 square feet
of pedestrian-oriented space would be provided in the non-residential portions of the
Sub-ciistrict 1A development (primarily in a plaza located in the northwest portion of the
property).
New City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies
The 2003 EIS analyzes a new UC-N land use designation for the Boeing Renton Plant site
(including Sub-district 1A). The EIS includes a proposed intent and vision for the UC-N area, as
well as new pOlicies to support the UC-N vision. Following issuance of the Final EIS, the City
adopted the UC-N land uses designation for the Boeing Renton Plant area, and related policies
and regulations in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Comprehensive Plan [20041). A
brief summary of the current vision and purpose statements and excerpts from several of the
current policies applicable to redevelopment of Sub-district 1A are presented below, followed by
an evaluation of the consistency of the currerit Master Plan for Sub-district 1 A with each
statement/policy in bold italic.
• Vision Statement. The vision for redevelopment of the Urban Center -North is one of
dramatic change as existing low-rise industrial and mid-rise office buildings are
reconfigured into a dynamic new retail and office neighborhood. 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 com mercial retail uses. Also part of the vision for
the UC-N is a dense employment center.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency AnalysiS
May, 2006
2-13
Redevelopment under the Sub-district fA Master Plan would support this vision
for the UC-N. The Master Plan proposu that the property would be reconfigured
Into a new mixed use development with a wide range of complementary uses. The
northwest and south portions of the property are proposed to Include retail,
cinema and a small amount of office development, consistent with the· destination
retail shopping district pattern of development from the vision statement A mix
of larger, dutlnation retail stores, smaller specialty retail stores, restaurants, and
entertainment usu are proposed. The n~eut portion of the property is
proposed to be developed to a multi-family neighborhood with supporting retaH
uses, consistent with the more diverse mixed use urban scale of development
from the vision statement The Sub-district 1A development would contribute to
creating a dense employment center In the Urban Center North area.
• Purpose Statement. The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop the area 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 commerciaVretail, office and
residential.
The Sub-district fA Master Plan would contribute to redevelopment of the Boeing
Renton Plant site area at a larger scale that In Downtown Renton, and with a wider
range of uses. The uses proposed for this area Include retail, office and
multifamily uses. Industrial uses are currently being consolidated In the west
portion of the BOeing Renton Plant site area.
• Policy LU-265. Support a more urban Intensity of development (e.g. building height,
[etc.J) than '/Vith land uses in suburban areas of the City.
Redevelopment proposed for Sub-district fA would feature a more urban form and
scale of development. Building heights are assumed to range from one-story to
ten storlu, and would not exceed the heights allowed In the UC-Nf zone.
Proposed heights are within the range of helg~ evaluated in the 2003 EIS.
• Policy LU-27B. Support creation of significant gateway feature within gateway nodes as
shown on Urban Center-North Gateway Map.
A gateway element In the proposed Master Plan, to potentially be located at the
Intersection of Parle Avenue N. and Logan Avenue N, Is currently being discussed
with the City of Renton. The gateway element would serve as the primary
Identifier of the South Lake/North Renton neighborhood area when exiting ~5.
The Faltfield residential neighborhood would also serve as a gateway and primary
entrance feature of the proposed Sub-district fA Master Plan development
Located In the northeast comer of the property, It would be the first element of the
larger development to be seen from 1-405 and the Parle Avenue exit. During the
Clty's site plan and building review process, the Fairfield developers will propose
special design features and architectural elements to ensure that as a gateway,
the Fairfield residential neighborhood would be distinctive within the context of
the overall district, yet compatible and complimentary to the fonn and scale of
neighboring land uses.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrict 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2·14
1
I
J
I
I
]
1
:i
.1
Jo
, • Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box [large-format] retail functions as an anchor to
larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments.
Redevelopment under the SUIJ-district 1A Master Plan would include destination
retail stores. Such stores are proposed to be located in anchor positions,
generally in the east and south portions of the property. A system of pedestrian
paths and connections and a coordinated design and landscaping theme would
serve to Insure a cohesive urban neighborhood.
• Policy LlJ..303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development.
The Sub-district 1A Master Plan includes provisions for pedestrian connections
within the site and to surrounding areas (including to future Sub-district 1B
redevelopment). N. 1rJ'1' Street between Logan Avenue N. and Parle Avenue, and
"Entertainment Boulevard" are intended to be pedestrian streets. Pedestrian
amenities would be provided along all pedestrian-oriented streets. The frontages
of retail shops would feature promenades with a series of pedestrian-oriented
inodes~ Pedestrian routes would also be provided through surface parking lots
(see Figure 1-3 In this Consistency Analysis).
• Policy LlJ..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.
Under the current Master Plan, landscaping would be provided throughout Sub-
district 1A to reinforce the design theme, guide pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, soften paved areas, create pocket garden spaces, and provide climatic
relief In parking lots and sidewalk zones. Street tree spacing would be
coordinated with the City of Renton roadway plans. Specific landscape plans
would be submitted with Individual building permits and the residential site plan
application. The amount and placement of landscaping would meet or exceed the
CIty's minimum design guidelines.
Other urban forms of setback and buffering would also be provided. A large
central courtyard would span across the street and link with the adjacent retail
uses in "The Landing Place", an entertainment district proposed In the northwest
comer of the property. Unique paving would be Incorporated Into "Market Lane",
a marketplace zone proposed in the central portion of the property. Pedestrian-
oriented nodes featuring seating, landscape planting, lighting and hardscaplng
would be featured in "The Walk", a large-scale retail district proposed In the east
and south parts of the property. Specialty frontage paving would also extend Into
the parking areas to expand the pedestrian character of this district Street
furniture would be provided at appropriate locations throughout the development.
• Polfcy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or
under-building parking is not market viable.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-15
• Policy LU-308. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of
blocks, screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers._
The proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan Includes structured and surface parldng )\
(some surface parking Is proposed by the applicant based on their determination
of economic feasibility). A slx-story parldng structure would be located In
Quadrant A, adjacent to Logan Avenue N. Structured parldng would also be I
provided beneath the Fairfield residential buildings. Surface parking would be •.
located in the central portion of Sub-district 1A, behind the' proposed buildings
and screened from the adjacent roadways with landscaping. Some parallel
parking along streets would also be provided (see Figure 1-3 in this Consistency I
Analysis).
• Policv 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.
Redevelopment under the proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan would represent
an urban rather than a suburban form of development. Surface parking areas
would provide opportunities for future InfJll development. The parking rat/o for
Sub-district 1A would be consistent with maximum parldng standards determined
by the City. New structured parldng facilities would be Included In the
development
• Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads.
Retail uses In Sub-district 1A would generally be linked in various districts,
Including:
The Landing Place -The northwest comer of the property Is planned as a high
density entertainment zone with cinema, restaurants and specialty retail shops.
Market Lane -The center of the property Is planned as a "marketplace zonen
created out of a more densely landscaped pedestrian path and a portion of the
surface parking. This zone Is Intended to accommodate outdoor markets and
seasonal events.
The Walk -The east and south portions of the property would feature la~sca/e
retail anchors, Junior anchors and smaller retellers or restaurants.
The EIS concludes that amending the ComprehensiVE! Plan, adopting related policies and
regulations, and developing under the range of EIS alternatives would be consistent with
existing (at that time) plans, policies and regulations. Redevelopment under the current Master
Plan for Sub-dlstrict 1A would be consistent with this conclusion.
Summary Matrix
The following matrix provides a comparative overview of the significant impacts that would
potentially result from the EIS alternatives and the proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan. The
potential impacts that would result from the EIS alternatives are listed in the left column of the
table and the potential impacts from redevelopment under the proposed Sub-district 1A Master
Plan are compared to them. Significant unavoidable 'adverse impacts are also identified, as
Boeing Renton Sub-c/Istrlct 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-16
1
1
, .,
j
~
.J
.1
I
J,
.
I
..
• Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box [large-format] retail functions as an anchor to
larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments.
Redevelopment under the Sub-district 1A Master Plan would include destination
retail stores. Such stores are proposed to be located in anchor positions,
generally in the east and south portions of the property. A system of pedestrian
paths and connections and a coordinated design and landscaping theme would
serve to insure a cohesive urban neighborhood.
• Policy L1.J.303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development.
The Sub-district 1A Master Plan includes provisions for pedestrian connections
within the site and to surrounding areas (Including to future Sub-district 1B
redevelopment). N. 1f1h Street between Logan Avenue N. and Park Avenue, and
"Entertainment Boulevard" are intended to be pedestrian streets. Pedestrian
amenities would be provided along all pedestrian-oriented streets. The frontages
of retail shops would feature promenades with a series of pedestrian-oriented
inodes~ . Pedestrian routes would also be provided through surface parking lots
(see Figure 1-3 in this Consistency Analysis).
• Policy LI.J.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.
Under the current Master Plan, landscaping would be provided throughout Sub-
district 1A to reinforce the design theme, guide pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, soften paved areas, create pocket garden spaces, and provide climatic
relief in parking lots and sidewalk zones. Street tree spacing would be
coordinated with the City of Renton roadway plans. Specific landscape pia".
would be submitted with Individual building permits and the residential site plvl
application. The amount and placement of landscaping would meet or exceed f"-
CIty's minimum design guidelines.
Other urban forms of setback and buffering would also be provided. A large
central courtyard would span across the street and link with the adjacent retan
uses in "The Landing Place", an entertainment district proposed in the northwest
comer of the property. Unique paving would be incorporated into "Market Lane",
a marketplace zone proposed in the central portion of the property. Pedestrian-
oriented nodes featuring seating, landscape planting, lighting and hardscaping
would be featured In "The Walk", a large-scale retail district proposed in the east
and south parts of the property. Specialty frontage paving would also extend into
the parking areas to expand the pedestrian character of this district. Street
furniture would be provided at appropriate locations throughout the development.
• Policy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or
under-building parking is not market viable.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
2-15
applicable. The matrix addresses those elements of the environment that were analyzed in the
EIS. It does not address Stormwater, Transportation and Land Use Patterns, because those
elements have already been covered in this chapter and in the technical consistency analyses
appended to this document (see Appendices A and B).
Conclusion
Redevelopment under the current Master Plan for Sub-district 1A is considered to be within the
capacity of the range of development alternatives and associated impacts analyzed in the 2003
Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS. Sub-district 1A is, therefore, consistent
with the previously granted Planned Action designation.
Boeing Renton Sub·district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
2·17
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment ..--
EARTH
Impacts
• Redevelopment would require site preparation including: removal of some • Consistent with EIS analysis. No significant changes in the degree of site
of the existing structures and foundations, grading including provision of preparation from that assumed in the EIS are expected.
structural fill, and provision of foundation support induding the likely use
of new and/or existing piles.
• Deep foundation systems, including the use of driven or drilled piles, • Foundation systems similar to those described in the EIS would be
would likely be required for most structures. Some level of ground required for Sub-district lA redevelopment.
vibration would occur with pile driving (see the Noise section).
• Significant erosion and landslide impacts after redevelopment would not • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing erosion and landslide
be anticipated; Impacts aSSOCiated with seismic hazards (liquefaction) impacts would not be anticipated, and mitigation measures similar to
would not be anticipated with implementation of proposed mitigation those identified in the EIS would be implemented relative to seismic
I measures. hazards.
!
I Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
I. Implementation of the redevelopment alternatives would alter the site area • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because mitigation measures similar to
through construction of new roads, utilities and structures. With those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts from the redevelopment alternatives would
be antiCipated.
WATER RESOURCES
Impacts
Surface Water Quality
• Redevelopment would expose erodible soils to varying degrees; however, • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing site soil conditions are the
the increased erosion risk from redevelopment would be much less than same as described in the EIS and TESCP measures similar to those
for many other construction sites, because the site area is already identified in the EIS would be employed.
developed and covered in impervious surfaces. With proper
implementation of required TESCP measures, erosion impacts would not
be anticipated .
• During construction, unintended release of fuels, oil, or hydraulic fluid • Consistent with EIS analysis, because construction site control measures
could contaminate soils and ultimately migrate to groundwater or into and spill response planning similar to that identified in the EIS would be
nearby surface water resources. Such water quality impacts would implemented.
typically be· prevented with adequate construction site control measures
and spill response planninll.
BOeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental ConsIStency Analysis
May,2006
5-1 Summary Matrix
~
2003 EIS Alternatives SulHllstrict 1A Redevelopment
• Stormwater runoff during construction would ultimately be directed to the • Consistent with EIS analysis, because TESCP measures similar to those
Cedar River, John's Creek and Lake Washington, and could result In a Identified in the EIS would be Implemented.
local rise in turbidity near the discharge locations. With proper
Implementation of required TESCP measures, no significant water quality
Impacts to these water bodies would occur.
I • Impervious surfaces within the site area would be subject to water quality • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because water quality treatment similar
treatment under Altematives 2, 3 and 4, compared to no assumed water to that described in EIS would be implemented (see Appendix A for
, quality facilities under the existing/baseline condition. Water quality more information on stormwater impacts from Sub-dislrict 1A
parameters In the stormwater discharge to lake Washington, the Cedar redevelopment).
River and John's Creek would improve relative to the existing/baseline
condition.
Groundwater
• Recharge to the aquifer beneath the Site area from direct preCipitation is • Consistent with the EIS analysis, because the majority of groundwater
considered minimal with the majority of recharge originating from off-site recharge would continue to originate from off-sile areas.
areas. The potential for adverse impacts to groundwater recharge from
redevelopment Is considered to be very low and not significant.
• Dewatering would likely be required for the placement of new utilities and • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing groundwater conditions
other excavation. If groundwater levels are significantly decreased, are the same as described in the EIS, and mitigation measures similar to
ground settlement could result that may Impact existing fences, buildings, those Identified in the EIS would be implemented.
bulkheads, or other nearby structures. Implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures would preclude these Impacts. Dewatering would
not be expected to produce silty or turbid water, with Implementation of
the proposed mitigation measures.
I
Slgnfficant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Future redevelopment of the site area would result in the construction of • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because new water quality treatment
new water quality treatment facilities that would meet current applicable facilities would be constructed and conditions would improve relative to
standards. Compliance with such standards would result In an the existing/baseRne condition.
Improvement in water quality and localized drainage conditions, relative to
the existinglbaseline condition. With implementation of mitigation
measures, no significant unavoidable adverse Impacts would be
expected.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrfct 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 20011
S-2 Summary Matrix
"",c;cc ~ 1M ~ ~ ~ ....... i" ',' ~"",,·u .. lII 0(y.:"",.UoIII ---~ ....... IIiIiIIIl --j'" --..i
I 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelo ment
FISH AN_ ••• LDLIFE HABrrAT
Impacts
Shoreline Habitat and Fisheries
• Under Alternatives 3 and 4, construction could occur near Lake
Washington, and potential water quality and aquatic habitat impacts could
result. The potential for impacts to aquatic habitat in Lake Washington,
Cedar River and John's Creek would be lower for Alternatives 1 and 2
because construction worK would occur at greater distances from these
water bodies. With implementation of TESC measures, signifICant
impacts would not be expected.
post-constructionloperational impacts to aquatic
Washington, the Cedar River and John's Creek would be expected due to
increased. stormwater quality treatment aSSOCiated with redevelopment,
relative to the exis6ng/baseline condition.
• Temporary, minor construction-related impacts to wildlife habitat could
occur. However, existing habitat is limited and of poor quality, and its
temporary loss (until re-Iandscaped) is not expected to have any
significant adverse effects on wildlife.
• At full buildout of Alternatives 3 and 4, open space is expectec! to
relative to the existing/baseline condition (less open spade would be
provided under Alternative 2). This increase in open space would
increase wildlife habitat. . .
Impacts
• No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to fish or wildlife resources
would be expected to occur from the redevelopment under any C?f the EIS
alternatives. (This is .primarily due to the eXisting lack of any significant
fish or wildlife habitat or fish or wildlife use· oHhe site area; the lack of any
in-water worK assumed for redevelopment; with implementation of typical
temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures (TESC) and other
best management practices (BMPs). construction could be completed
without adversely .affecting nearby· watercourses; and improved
stormwater quality treatment prior to discharge to the Cedar River, lake
Washington, and John's Creek from all redeveloped areas.
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub-district 1A is located at a
distance from these water bodies and habitat, and TESC measures
similar to those described·lnthe EIS would be implemented.
• \;OnSlslent wltn 1::1::; analYSIS, Decause water quality treatment
implemented and conditions'· would Improve relative to the
exlstinglbaseline condition.
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing wildlife conditions
continue to be limited and of poor quality.
• Consistent wnh EIS analysis, because open space and landscaping
would increase relative to existing conditions with redevelopment
proposed for SulHiisbict 1 A
• Consistent with EIS conclusion. because fish and wildlife habitat
continues to,be limited and ,of poor quality, TESC"measures and' other
BMPs.simiiarto those identlfied,in the,·EIS would be implemented, and
improved stormwater quality would result
Boeing Renton Sub-dIstrict 1A EnVironmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
S-3 Summary Matrix
2003 EIS Alternatives
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts
• Any need for further Investigations, associated with future redevelopment
in the site area, as well as any subsequent remedial actions, would be
determined as part of the Corrective Action process or slate Model Toxies
Control Act (MTCA) process.
• If proposals for redevelopment to different, non-industrial land uses are
submitted In the future, the MTCA process would address appropriate
cleanup levels at that time, based on the land use proposed for Ii specific
area.
• There would be the potential for new areas of contamination to be
Identified, In Subareas A through C, in addition to the one area of known
contamination at the southeast comer of the 10-50 complex (Subarea B),
as buildings are demolished and pavement Is removed for new
construction in the future. If such areas are identified they would be
Investigated, and If necessary, cleaned up, according to MTCA
regulations ~AC 173-340) or the conditions of the Agreed Order.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• No unavoidable adverse Impacts from the future redevelopment under
any of the aitematives would be expected.
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Impacts
• No population would be added to the site area under Altemative 2. At full
buildout of Altematives 3 and 4 in 2030, population capacity of the site
area could be about 7,300 and 9,200 people, respectively; this populallon
growth would represent between 37 and 47 percent of forecasted growth
In the Renton/Skyway FAZ Group between 2000 and 2030.
• New employment capacity and associated indirect employment would
likely generate Increases In population to the City of Renton over the 25-
year buildout period.
Employment
• In 2015 at full buildout of Altemative 2
Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment
• Consistent with EIS analysis.
• Consistent with EIS analysis. Assumed redevelopment of Sub-district 1A
would Include non-industrial uses similar to those identified in the EIS,
and cleanup measures Similar to those Identified in the EIS would be
Implemented, if necessary.
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because, as necessary, investigations and
cleanup similar to that identified in the EIS would be undertaken.
• Consistent with EIS conclusion, because remedial actions similar to
those Identified in the EIS would be undertaken, as necessary.
• Population generated in Sub-district 1 A at full buildout would be
approximately 1,620, based on a person per household ratio of 1.8 and a
100 percent occupancy rate. The population would be within the range
estimated In the EIS.
• Consistent with the EIS analysis, because the potential for new
employment capacity and associated indirect employment to generate
increases In population to the City of Renton would ,be within levels
identified in the EIS.
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis S-4 Summary Matrix
May, 2006
~., ,
lfJ:!~'.~ ~ ~;iil t".,; ~
, , ,,' ~ ~ ~~~ ~~":..--.... ,,---~ ... ..... ..... .......
.~ ..
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelo ment
entire Renton Plant site would be about 14,700; this would account for from approximately 1,350 to 1,650, based on ULI standards used in the
approximately 16 percent of total projected employment in the overall EIS. Employment capacity would be within the range estimated in the
Renton/Skyway FAZ Group. In 2030, at full buildout of Alternatives 3 and
4, total employment capacity would be about 23,700 and 41,400,
respectively; this would account for approximately 25 and 43 percent of
total projected employment in the Renton/Skyway F AZ Group,
respectively. Without existing Boeing employees, total new employment
would be 3,500 under Alternative 2, 4,400 under Alternative 3 and 7,900
under Alternative 4.
• By 2030, redevelopment would result in a transition in the employment
base within the site area from industrial/manufacturing to the services
sector (potentially including jobs in the retail, "finance, insurance, real
estate and services", and government/education employment sectors).
The new mix of employment would reflect that of a mixed-use urban
district and is assumed to include a range of jobs associated with
redevelopment in new retail, office, lab, hotel and residential uses.
• Jobs created within the site area would generate secondary
(indirect) employment that could easily result in increased
regional economic activity.
Adverse Impacts
induced
local and
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub-dlstrict lA is proposed to
redeveloped as an urban mixed use development.
• Consistent with EIS
the EIS would be
induced employment.
because jobs similar to those described in
with the potential to generate secondary and
• No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to population, housing and I • Consistent with the EIS conclusion.
employment would occur as a result of the redevelopment alternatives, as
analyzed.
Impacts
• Increase In demand on park and recreation facilities would result from
future redevelopment Mitigation would include capital facilities planning
by the City, provision of on-site open space and compliance with the City's
Park and Recreation Mitigation Fee Policy for residential projects.
• It is assumed that redevelopment would include new open space, a
portion of which would be available to the public, with a mix of active and
passive recreational features. Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that
apprOXimately two acres of open space (consisting of landscaped area)
would be provided.
• Consistent with EIS analysis.
• Similar to EIS analYSiS, because it is proposed that open
spacenandscaping (landscaped area, plazas and courtyards and
residential open space/recreation), a portion of which would be available
to the public, would be provided with redevelopment of Sub-district 1 A.
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct fA Environmental Cons/slaney Analysis
May,2006
S-s Summary Matrix
~
2003 EIS Alternatives
• Construction-related impacts could include temporary increases in noise
and dust levels at the Cedar River Trail, new Sam Chastain Waterfront
Trail, and Gene Coulon Park; however, these Increases would be
temporary in nature, likely of short duration and not significant.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• With Implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable
adverse impacts to park and recreation facilities from the redevelopment
scenarios, as analyzed, would be expected.
AESTHETICSILIGHT AND GLARE
Impacts
• Views to the site area from adjacent areas would substantially change.
• The visual character of the site area would be substantially changed.
Buildings could be located along the street edge, encouraging Increased
pedestrian activity. Street-level retail spaces could be included in some
mixed use buildings, and parking areas could be hidden from street view,
representing an urban scale and character.
• New sources of light and glare would be primarily from vehicular traffIC,
parking areas and street lighting, and interior and exterior building lighting.
Light and glare would also likely increase near the Lake Washington
shoreline.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Sub-distrlct 1A Redeveloiiinent
• sub-district 1A is not located adjacent to these park and reCreation
facilities, and construction in Sub-district 1 A would not adversely affect
them.
• Consistent with the EIS conclusion, because similar mitigation measures
to those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
• Similar to EIS analysis, views to Sub-district 1A would change with
proposed redevelopment of that, property. ,
• Consistent with EIS analysis, the visual character of Sub-distrlct 1A
would be substantially changed. Proposed redevelopment would
represent an urban scale and character, and would include various
design features to encourage pedestrian activity.
• Similar to the EIS analysis, because redevelopment proposed for Sub-
district 1A would create new sources of light end glare similar to those
described in the EIS. However, light and glare would not increase
substantially near Lake Washington, because of the distance between
Sub-district 1A and the shoreline.
• No signifICant unavoidable adverse Impacts to aesthetic, light and glare \ • Consistent with EIS conclusion.
conditions would occur.
NOISE
Impacts
• Noise associated with the demOlition of existing structures, parking area
removal, building construction, truck traffic to and from building sties, and
the operation of heavy equipment and support vehicles in the site area,
would increase noise levels adjacent to the site area over the duration of
the construction process. Locations Immediately adjacent to the site area
• Similar to EIS analysis. Noise Would generally be limited to the Sub-
district 1 A property and immediately surrounding area. Noise-sensitive
receptors to the south would be located at least 1,200 feet from the Sub-
district 1 A property line. Construction mitigation measures similar to
those identified in the EIS would be imDlemented. and no significant
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May. 2006
5-6 Summary Matrix
III!i:Y 6,'" '" '." =. Mi:...y..::~ ~.,. ...... ~ -~ ~ ---... --... 1',..
could expcllence brief sound levels exceeding 110
driving. The majority of noise-sensitive receptors (existing residences)
would experience substantially lower noise levels due to the distance from
the site area. NOise associated with demolition and construction traffIC
would be of shorter duration under Alternative 2.
• Increases in the sound level from operation of building mechanical
equipment .after redevelopment would be between 4 dBA and 6 dBA
above baseline levels at some analysis locations under Altematives 3 and
4, respectively, representing a small to moderate increase. Under both
baseline conditions (without redevelopment) and with redevelopmen~
sound levels would exceed City of Renton allowable daytime noise limits
at some locations, and the nighttime noise limit at all analysis locations;
however, with implementation of standard noise reduction mitigation
measures, no significant Impacts would be expected. Sound level
increases from operation of building mechanical equipment would be
slightly lower under Altemative 2.
• Increases in traffic
within 2 dBA) would
analysis locations.
Significant
above baseline conditions (generally
be small or imperceptible at the more sensitive
• Consistent wilh EIS analYSis, because the
proposed for Sub-<listrict 1A would fall within the range of development
assumed in the EIS. Also, standard noise reduction mitigation measures
similar to those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
• Consistent with EIS analysis, because vehicle trip generation would be
within the range estimated in the EIS for redevelopment of Sub-<listrict
1A (see the Transportation section and Appendix B to this Consistency
Analysis for details).
• The predicted sound levels from the redevelopment alternatives would not I • Consistent with EIS conclUSion.
result in significant unaVOidable adverse impacts.
Fire and Emergency Services
• Construction-related impacts would include the potential for increases .in
calls for service related to inspection of the construction sites and
potential construction-related Injuries.
• In 2015, at full buildout under Alternative 2 in 2015, an
calls for service from the Renton Fire Department of !wo to three percent
over the 2002 district-wide call levels would be expected; at full buildout
under Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, an increase in annual calls for service
from the Renton Fire Department of 19 and 30 percent, respectively, over
2002 district-wide call levels would be expected.
• Consistent with EIS analysis.
• At full bulldout of Sub-district 1 A, an increase in annual calls for fire
service of up to 3 percent over 2002 levels would be expected. The
increase in calls for fire service would be within the range estimated in
the EIS.
Boeing Renton Sub-district fA Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
S-7 Summary Matrix
-
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment
• At full bulldout.under Alternatives 3 and 4 In 2030, the projected increase • With only Sub-disbict 1 A redevelopment, expanded personnel levels and
in calls could require expanded personnel levels and fire and emergency equipment would not likely be necessary.
response eqUipment to ensure consistent response levels to the site area
and overall service area.
Law Enforcement
• New commercial square footage identified under Alternative 2 would • At full build out of Sub-dislrict 1 A. an increase in annual calls for service
generate calls for police service; such call volumes are not anticipated 10 from the Renton Police Department of up to 2 percent over 2002 district-
be significant At full buildout under Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, an wide call levels would be expected, and would be within the range
increase in annual calls for service from the Renton Police Department of estimated from the EIS.
, 13 and 16 percent, respectively, over 2002 district-wide call levels would
be expected.
• At full buildout under Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, an additional 4.1 to 5.3 • The potential for increases in calls and associated need for increased ,
patrol officers (over 2003 levels) would be needed to maintain the existing personnel levels and eqUipment at full buildout of Sub-district lA would
City of Renton level of service standard of 1.75 patrol officers to 1,000 be within the range estimated in the EIS, and less than Alternatives 3 and
population. Long-term capital and operating needs would be addressed 4.
through incremental capital facilities planning over the bulklout period and
beyond.
Schools
• Increases In enrollment associated with Alternative 2 would not be • At full bulldout of Sub-dlslrlct 1 A, an enrollment Increase of up to 3
expected 10 be significant. At full bulldout under Alternatives 3 and 4 in percent over 2002 district-wide enrollment would be expected to be
2030, an enrollment increase of 7 and 9 percent, respectively, over 2002 generated and would be within the range estimated in the EIS. This
dlstrlct-wlde enrollment would be expected. This would represent about 5 increase In enrollment would represent about 2 percent of future
to 6 percent of future projected disbict-wlde enrollment In 2025. projected district-wide enrollment in 2025.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• With Implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because mitigation measures similar to
adverse Impacts 10 public services from Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, as those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
analyzed, would be expected. It Is anticipated that Incremental Increases
In population over the 25 year buildout perlod{s) would be planned for
through the capital facilities planning by the City of Renton and other
affected agencies.
UTILITIES
Impacts
• The capacity of the City of Renton's water system (based on annual water
rights capacity) would be adeQuate 10 serve future redevelooment Based
• Similar 10 EIS analysis, because the water demand generated by the
redeveloj:lment j:lroPQsed for Sub-district 1 A would be within the range of
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrlct fA Environmental C<lnslstency Analysis
May. 2006
S-8 Summary Matrlx
.." ~,:,,; ~~v·~; ~""~'-.. ~ ~ ............ ~""'~ ~~ -.......... -.. IIiII1iII I .......
---
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-dlstrict 1A Redevelopment
on water demand estimates related to future growth in the City (used in
the 1998 Water System Plan) at full buildout under Alternative 2 In 2015,
demand estimated in the EIS.
annual water demand would be approximately four percent of total City
water system capacity; at full buildout of Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030,
annual water demand would be 13 and 19 percent, respectively, of total
City water system capacity.
• New infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to new • Similar to EIS analysis; infrastructure improvements would only be
transmission and distribution mains, domestic meters, fire hydrants,
pressure reducing stations, and storage, would be needed. The private
required to serve the redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1A.
Boeing water system would not be used to provide water to any
redeveloped areas.
• At full buildout of Altemative 2 in 2015, annual wastewater flows from the • Annual wastewater flows from redevelopment in Sub-district 1A would be
site area would be about 398 million gallons, including allowances for within the range estimated in the EIS.
infiltrationllnflow. At full buildout of Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2030, annual
wastewater flows from the site area would be about 564 and 714 million
gallons, respectively, including allowances for infiltration/inflow. These I
flows would be less than 2 percent of the total King County Eastside ,
Interceptor sewer main capacity.
• New wastewater collection systems would be required. The existing • Consistent with EIS analysis.
Boeing-<>wned wastewater facilities would not be used to serve any future
redevelopment. New wastewater facilities would be constructed in
accordance with City of Renlon standards.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• WIIh ongoing utility systems and capital facilities planning by the City of • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because mitigation me'!sures similar to
Renton, utility infrastructure improvements would be made to ensure those identified in the EIS would be implemented.
adequate capacity to serve the demand associated with growth from the
redevelopment alternatives and on an overall basis in the City. No
significant unavoidable impacts are antiCipated.
AIR QUALITY
impacts
• Probable significant adverse air quality Impacts from redevelopment • Consistent with EIS analysis, because redevelopment proposed for Sub-
under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not be likely, because mixed-use district 1A would represent an urban mixed-use development.
urban redevelopment are generally neutral or beneficial to regional air
quality, as they allow development to occur close to employment centers
and housing, thereby minimizing commute times and aSSOCiated vehicle
emissions. - - - -
Boeing Renton Sub-dlstrict 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis
May, 2006
S-9 summary Matrix
2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-district 1A Redevelopment
• Under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, local air pollutant emissions from • Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub-district 1A local air pollutant
associated traffic would represent less than 0.5 percent of the regional emissions would be within the range estimated in the EIS.
transportation emission budget. Redevelopment in this location could
reduce local emissions in other paris of the Puget Sound region;
therefore, no significant Impact to regional air quality would be expected
under any of the redevelopment alternatives.
• Prior to future construction of new signalized intersections, a local • Consistent with EIS analysis. The City is currenUy preparing an air I
intersection-level conformity analysis would be completed per WAC 173-quality conformity analysis related to the construction of new
420-120, which requires analysis of newly signalized Intersections in air intersections in the site area.
I quality maintenance areas.
Significant Unavoidable Advarse Impacts
• With Implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because mitigation measures similar to
adverse impacts to regional or local air quality would occur. those Identified in the EIS would be implemented.
-L~~ _~ --~~
Boeing Renton Sub-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis S·10
May, 2006
012:.:·· ~.' rtr~
(i}':,"c", <: . ~,. __ "',i!lil _ ~ ..... ("..,.,.; ........
summary Matrix
.. ,
........ "';1,..,. --.......... iiIiJIIlIf iiMM iii'"· ..... ~
Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for
Sub-District 1 A
May 2, 2006
Prepared By
KPFF Consulting Engineers
. 711 Court, Suite 202
Tacoma, WA 98402
(253) 396-0150
(253) 396-0162 FAX
Introduction
The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in October 2003. Harvest Partners is proceeding
with plans for redevelopment of Boeing Renton Plant Sub-districts IA. This sub-district
is part of the overall site that was evaluated in the 2003 EIS. Harvest Partners is seeking
Master Plan approval from the City and a determination as to whether their current plan
is consistent with the City's previously granted Planned Action designation for this sub-
district Preparation of an Environmental Consistency Analysis was requested by the
City for the Master Plan to be considered consistent with the previously granted Planned
Action designation. .
Following is the Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1 A. A
separate Surface!Stormwater Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-district lB.
The Sub-district lA surface/stormwater analysis compares the stormwater conditions
associated with the current redevelopment plan for Sub-district IA to those associated
with the range of development alternatives for this sub-area analyzed in the 2003 EIS.
The analysis highlights any differences in probable significant impacts to surface or
stormwater conditions from the current redevelopment plan, and indicates whether the
impacts were adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. The goal of the analysis is to
determine whether the impacts of redevelopment of Sub-district lA are within the range
of development alternatives and associated impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS, and that the
Sub-district IA Master Plan is, therefore, considered by the City to be consistent with the
previously granted Planned Action designation.
Summary of Redevelopment Proposal
The Harvest Partners proposal for Sub-district lA is described in Chapter I of the Boeing
Renton Plant Sub-District IA Environmental Consistency Analysis. The Harvest
Partners proposal has been compared in this report to the range of Alternatives evaluated
in the EIS. The area of the Harvest Partners proposal, Sub-district lAo roughly covers the
area identified in the EIS Surface/Stormwater Technical Report as Sub-Area A and Sub-
Area B (see Appendix B of the 2003 Draft EIS). The area of the Harvest Partners
proposal is 8.4% larger than the combined area of the assumed Sub Areas A and B. This
is because the area subject to redevelopment would be larger as a result of the reduction
in the roadway area, as described below.
The City of Renton intends to improve existing and develop new arterial roadways
defined as Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, 8th Street and 10 th Street. The area covered by
the currently planned arterials is 42% less than the area assumed to be covered by
arterials in the EIS. The reason for this difference is that the analysis contained in the
EIS assumes roadway development that would be sufficient to support redevelopment of
the entire EIS study area (including District 2 to the west of Logan Avenue N.), while the
City's current plan includes roadway development (i.e., roadway sections) that will
provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District I only (Sub-
2
district lA and IB redevelopment), but lesser than required to serve the entire EIS study
area.
Since the areas of redevelopment in Sub-District lA and the arterials do not precisely
match the -assumed drainage sub areas identified for the redevelopment Alternatives in
the EIS, this report presents stormwater quantities in terms of totals as well as quantity
per acre. The purpose of this presentation is to identify the relative impacts of the EIS
Alternatives and the Harvest Partners proposal per acre of redevelopment area
Harvest Partners Proposal Impemous Coverage
"Table 1, Impervious coverage associated with redevelopment alternatives" provides a
comparison of impervious areas that would cover Sub-Areas A and B, or Sub District lAo
within the EIS site area, dependent on the ~edevelopment plan. This table is similar to the
Draft EIS, Volume II, "Table 3.1 -Impervious Coverage".
•
Primary differences between Table 2, herein, and the Draft EIS, Volume II, "Table 3.1 -
Impervious Coverage" include the addition of the Harvest Partoers redevelopment
proposal and, the omission of unaffected sub areas, as the Harvest Partners Proposal only
affects EIS Sub-Areas A and B.
Baseline EIS Redevelopment Sub-district 1 A
Existin£; Alternatives Harvest Partners Proposa
Sub-Area (%) (%) ("/0)
Combined A and B 100 100 to 80.24 92.50 . Table 1 -ImpervIOus coverage assocIated WIth redevelopment
alternatives
The impervious coverage of the Harvest Partoers proposal would be within the range of
the EIS alternatives and would be lower than the present day, baseline (existing
condition).
Storm Water Quantity Analysis Method
For consistency, the analysis method and calculation assumptions used in this Report are
identical to those used in the DEIS. Storm water quantity analysis is performed
according to the 2001 Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual and specifically follows the
Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method. Reference Draft EIS Volume II, 3.1
to 3.3 for a more comprehensive explanation of the analysis methods and procedures.
3
I
1
1
J
)
j
I
1
I
•
Harvest Partners Proposal Quantitative Peak Flow Data and Quantitative Comparison
Analysis
"Table 2 -Stonn event peak flows versus redevelopment alternatives for Sub District
IA" provides a quantitative comparison of peak stonnwater flows associated with the
baseline condition, EIS Alternatives and Harvest Partners proposal during five storm
events.
EIS Sub Areas A and B EIS Redevelopment Scenarios Sub-district 1A
Baseline (Existin~) Sub Area A and B Harvest Partners Proposal
Total Flow Unit Flow Unit Flow Unit Flow
Stann Event (cfs) (cfs/acre) Total Flow (cfs) (cfs/acre) Total Flow (cfs) (cfslacre)
6mo Flow 14.00 0.329 13.98 to 13.16 0.33 to 0.31 14.29 0.31
2yr Flow 20.05 0.471 20.03 to 18.97 0.4710 0.45 20.73 0.45
10yr Flow 29.99 0.705 29.95 to 28.57 0.70 to 0.67 31.41 0.68
2SyrFIow 34.24 0.805 34.23 to 32.72 0.81 to 0.77 36.04 0.78
10Qyr Flow 40.84 0.960 40.78 to 39.07 0.96 to 0.92 43.15 0.93
Table 2 -Stonn event peak flows versus redevelopment alternatIves for Sub
District lAo
Peak stonnwater flows are very closely linked to the level of impervious ground
coverage. In comparison to the baseline condition and the EIS Alternatives, total peak
flows for the Harvest Partners scenarios would be higher, but the flow from each affected
acre (unit flow) would be in the low end of the range calculated for the EIS Alternatives.
The higher total flow of the Harvest Partners proposal is reflective of the fact that the
Harvest Partners proposal area (Sub District lA) does not precisely match the drainage
area included in the EIS for Sub Areas A and B. The lower peak flows per affected acre
is reflective of the lower levels of impervious coverage that would occur with the Harvest
Partners proposal.
The City of Renton intends to improve existing and develop new arterial roadways
defmed as Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, 8th Street and 10 th Street. Tables 3 and 4 below
compare areas, impervious coverage and stonn event peak flows for five stann frequency
events associated with the arterials assumed to serve the EIS Alternatives and the arterials
associated with Sub-districts lA and 1 B (as described above, the roadway sections of
these arterials will provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District
1, but lesser than required to serve the entire EIS study area).
4
iArea (acres) Impervious Coverage (%)
EIS Arterials 29.11 100
Arterials Associated with 16.9 87.4 Sub-districts IA and IB
Table 3 -Areas and Impemous Coverage for artenals servmg Sub
District IA and IB
Note: The roadway sections of these anerials will provide capacity at a
level that is greater than required to serve District 1.
EIS Arterials Arterials Proposed to Serve
Harvest Partners Proposal
Total Flow Unit Flow Total Flow Unit Flow
Storm Event (efs) (efs/acre) (efs) (efs/acre)
6moFIow 9.57 0.329 5.55 ' 0.328
2yrFIow 13.70 0.471 7.95 0.470
IOyr Flow 20.49 0.705 11.90 0.704
25yr Flow 23.42 0.805 \3.60 0.805
10OyrFIow 27.90 0.960 16.20 0.959
Table 4 -Storm event peak flows versus redevelopment
alternatives for arterials serving Sub District lAo
From Table 4, a significant reduction in runoff from arterials under the City's current
plan is evident in comparison to the arterials proposed to serve the EIS Alternatives. This
reduction is attributable to two factors:
1. The currently planned arterials cover a smaller area than is assumed in the EIS, as
shown in Table 3. The analysis contained in the BIS assumes roadway
development that would be sufficient to support redevelopment of the entire EIS
Study area (including District 2 to the west of Logan Avenue N.), while the City's
current plans include roadway development (Le., roadway sections) that will
provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District I only
(Sub-district IA and lB redevelopment), but less than required to serve the entire
EIS study area.
2. The impervious coverage of the currently planned arterials is reduced in
comparison to the arterials assumed in the EIS, as shown in Table 3. As a result
of this reduced impervious coverage, the peak runoffper acre of arterial would be
lower for the currently planned arterials in comparison to the arterials assumed in
the EIS.
Storm Water Collection and Conveyance
5
I
I
1
" ,
~ ;
"Ii
• In its eXlmng condition, stormwater runoff from Sub-District 1 A is collected and
conveyed through a storm drainage system which discharges through outfalls located on
John's Creek. These outfalls are identified in the EIS as Outfall #13 and #14.
As assumed in the EIS, conveyance system components could be designed to divert water
away from existing overcapacity outfalls within the EIS study area to the extent possible.
There are 16 storm drain outfalls receiving stormwater runoff from the EIS study area.
As stated in the EIS, some of the outfalls and the John's Creek channel, which receives
flow from two outfalls in the EIS study area, appear to be over capacity during some
storm events, while others appear to have excess capacity. Since the alternatives
evaluated in the EIS, as well as the Harvest Partners proposal, involve redevelopment of
large areas of the ErS study area, it is assumed that stormwater runoff could be directed
to outfalls with excess capacity, and away from John's Creek and the outfalls in other
areas of the EIS study area that are overcapacity. This approach would benefit the area
surrounding the EIS study area by alleviating drainage issues that are currently present.
The degree to which this approach can be implemented in the EIS Alternatives, and in the
Harvest Partners proposal (when Boeing Company operations remain in the site area),
will be somewhat dependent on the extent to which existing Boeing owned and
maintained outfalls can be utilized to convey runoff from non-Boeing properties. Since
the possibility of implementing this approach was unknown at the time the EIS was
issued, two approaches for handling stormwater runoff are considered in the EIS, defined
as Case 1 and Case 2. To evaluate the consistency of the Harvest Partners proposal with
the EIS, the Harvest Partners proposal is considered in terms of both the Case. 1 and Case
2 approaches to handling stormwater. These approaches are defined as follows:
Case 1 -In Case I, the general stormwater runoff patterns of the site area would be
maintained, the areas drained by each of the existing outfalls would be maintained in size
and configuration to the extent possible, within the constraints of the assumed
development in each redevelopment alternative; and in alternatives where Boeing
Company operations continue within the EIS site area, a separation would be maintained
between systems carrying stormwater runoff from the areas used by the Boeing Company
and systems carrying stormwater runoff from areas used by others.
Case 2 -In Case 2, stormwater runoff directed to the outfalls in John's Creek and
overcapacity outfalls serving the EIS site area would be minimized to the extent possible
by directing stormwater runoff from areas currently draining to John's Creek into outfalls
with excess capacity on Lake Washington currently owned and maintained by the Boeing
Company, in particular to Outfall #1, which has a capacity of 437 cfs and a peak flow of
69.94 cfs during the 25-year design storm event.
6
Harvest Partners Proposal Outfall Impacts Qualitative Assessment
Stormwater from Sub-District 1A flows to multiple outfalls in the baseline condition and
under the EIS Redevelopment Alternatives. Additionally, these outfalls receive
stormwater from areas other than Sub-District IA.
To provide a specific analysis of the impacts to outfalls associated with the Harvest
Partners proposal and a comparison of the impacts with those identified in the EIS, the
following calculations were prepared:
1. Peak flows at the outfalls receiving stormwater from the Harvest Partners
proposal area were cal~ulated.
2. Calculations assume that the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials is
constructed and that the remainder of the EIS study area remains in its existing
condition.
3. Calculations were prepared for the Case 1 and Case 2 approaches to handling of
stormwater runoff, as defined previously in this report.
4. Calculations were prepared for the 25-year storm event, which is the basis of
design for new conveyance systems according to the 2001 DOE manual ..
These calculated peak flows are presented in comparison to the baseline condition and
the EIS Alternatives in Tables 5 and 6 below.
Baseline
(Existing) EIS Redevelopment Harvest Partners Proposal with
Outfall No. Jefs) Alternatives (efs) Associated Anerials (efs)
I 69.94 81.82 to 58.27 69.94
13 and 14 73.79 68.95 to 66.28 69.69 .
15 25.03 19.26 to 15.S0 24.86
Table 5 -Case I : 25 Year Storm Event Peak Flows at Outfalls Affected by Harvest
Partners proposal .
For Case 1, flows identified for Outfall #1 would be unchanged in comparison to the
baseline condition, since handling flows based on a Case 1 approach would not affect
Outfall #1. Flows identified for Outfall #1 would be within the calculated flow range for
the EIS Alternatives.
Flows identified for Outfalls #13 and #14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly
identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfalls, dependent on
the detailed design of any site development. As indicated in Table S, at OutfaJls #13 and
# 14, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would decrease anticipated
flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows would increase relative to
the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. This difference is attributable to the
fact that the EIS Alternatives include, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B
and C While the Harvest Partners proposal reflects only redevelopment of Sub Areas A
and B. Since Outfalls#13 and #14 receive a significant portion of their flow from Sub
7
I
I
I
1
j
I
• Area C, the lower flows at these outfalls identified under the EIS Alternatives would not
occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future.
At Outfall #15, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would decrease
anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows would
increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. This difference is
again attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum,
redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal reflects
only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfall #15 receives the majority of its
flows from Sub Area C, the lower flows at this outfall identified under the EIS
Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future.
Baseline
(Existing) EIS Redevelopment Harvest Partners Proposal with
Outfall No. (cfs) Alternatives (cfs) Associated Arterials (cfs)
1 69.94 122.31 to 96.39 90.81
13 and 14 73.79 45.47 to 20.90 49.88
15 25.03 16.45 to 12.51 24.86
Table 6 -Case 2 . 25 Vear Stonn Event Peak Flows at Outfalls Affected by Harvest
Partners proposal
Flows identified for Outfalls #13 and #14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly
identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfaI1s dependent on
the detailed design of any site development. As indicated in Table 6, for Case 2 at
Outfalls #13 and #14, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would
decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows
would increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. This
difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum,
redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal reflects
only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfalls #13 and #14 receive a
significant portion of their flow from Sub Area C, the lower flows at these outfalls
identified under the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in
the future.
At Outfall #1, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would result in flows
that are lower than the calculated range for the EIS Alternatives. Similar to conditions at
Outfalls #13 and #14, this difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives
included, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest
Partners proposal reflects only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since the Case 2
Alternatives in the EIS sought to route runoff from 36% of Sub Area C toward the excess
capacity available at Outfall #1, the increase in flow at Outfall #1 does not occur until
Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future. The Harvest Partners proposal would increase
anticipated flows at Outfall # 1 in comparison to the baseline condition; however, the
capacity of Outfall #1 is 437 cfs. Therefore, the increased flow would be well within the
capacity of the outfall.
8
At Outfall #15, the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials would decrease
anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows would
increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS Alternatives. This difference is
attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum, redevelopment
of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal reflects only
redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfall #15 receives the majority of its
flows from Sub Area C, the level of reduction in flow at these outfalls identified under
the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is redeveloped in the future.
Sumnuuy of Consistency Amzlysis fOT Sub District 1A
The findings of this Report conclude that specific conditions and calculated impacts
associated with the Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials are consistent with
the conditions and calculated impacts associated with the range of redevelopment
Alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
Peak runoff flows from the study area to the applicable outfalls would generally be
reduced in comparison to. the baseline condition. Except for Outfall # 1, the outfalls
affected by the Harvest Partners proposal (OutfaIls #13, #14 and #15) would see
reductions in peak flow in comparison to the baseline condition. Flows to Outfalls #13.
#14 and #15 would increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EIS alternatives.
This difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a
minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, B and C, while the Harvest Partners proposal
reflects only redevelopment of Sub Areas A and B. Since Outfalls #13. #14 and #15
receive a significant portion of their flow from Sub Area C, the lower flows at these
outfalls identified under the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Area C is
redeveloped in the future. The peak flow at Outfall #1 would be increased in
comparison to the baseline condition; however. the increase results in a peak flow that is
well below the capacity of the outfall and within the range of the EIS alternatives.
Similar to the conclusion oftheEIS. there would be no significant impacts to the surface
or storm water environment as a result of the Harvest Partners proposal.
9
1
I
I
J
1
)
I
I
.J
I
I
DATE:
TO:
cc:
FROM:
RE:
Transportation Engineering NorthWest.
LLC
May 1, 2006
Alex Pietsch, Administrator,
Memorandum
Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
City of Renton
Mike Blumen, President
Blumen Consulting Group, Inc.
Michael]. Read, P.E.
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC
The Landing (Sub-district 1A) -Transportation Consistency Analysis of Proposed Master
Plan with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS
The memorandum summarizes a detailed comparative trip generation analysis of The Lmding, a
proposed Master Plan calling for mixed use development within Sub-district 1A 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 (BRCP A) EIS (2003). Sub-district 1A is noted as
Subarea A and B in the 2003 EIS. This analysis addresses consistency with the transportation element
of the EIS, and specifically with the land use and trip generation assumptions that were used to evaluate
the transportation impacts of redevelopment.
For this analysis, proposed uses at The Landing were assumed to comprise approximately 1,522,500
square-feet of development, and would include approximately 57,000 square-feet in office use, 58,000
square-feet in a multiplex cinema, 900 residential apartment units (assumes 900 square-feet per unit),
and the remaining 597,500 square-feet in a mixture of retail uses (refer to Chapter 1 of the Consistency
Analysis document for more infonnation on the proposed Master Plan for Sub-district 1A).
Trip Generation Comparison
Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRCPA EIS were used to estimate a.m.
peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by The Landing, as part of Sub-district 1A
redevelopment (It should be noted that Sub-district 1A excludes the Puget Sound Energy substation
portion of Subarea A located on the north side of realigned Park Avenue, as redevelopment of that
parcel is not included in the current redevelopment plans for Sub-district lA). Table 1 provides a
summary of the estimated 2015 and 2030 a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation of The
Landing compared with those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportation impacts and outline
mitigation measures for Alternative 4 from the BRCPA EIS (i.e., the maximum redevelopment
scenario). Detailed trip generation comparisons to all EIS alternatives are provided as Attachment A
As shown, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels of The Landing are significantly less than those
estimated under Alternative 4 in the BRCP A EIS. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-
district 1A would range from approximately 448 p.m. peak hour trips in 2015 to just over 2,800 a.m.
wwvv.tenw.com
PO Box 65254. SeaHle. WA 98155
Office/Fax (2061361-7333. Toll Free (8881220-7333
The Londing Trip G .... ;rotion Comparfson with BRCPA EIS
Moy 1 .2006
Poge2
peak hour trips in 2030, and the number of trips are substanti:iUy less than those levels used to evaluate
traffic impacts and develop mitigation for the EIS.
Table 1 -
1 -By 2030. no inacuc in additional development is usumed within Sub-disaiet IA. However, due to future
odWtioillll <Cd...Jopmoru widUn Sub-diltrict IB -... 2015 ODd 2030 ...,.. vchic10 aipo wrthin Sub-
district IA would mtemalize..;dUntheate.....II<sueh. •• lishtt<duaioninbllalolF ..... trip peution by
redevelopment m Sub-district IA is cxpcct<d by 2030 over _ I...,h eoCmated m 2015. no. ~tic
is consistent with the trip generation methodologicl and Uaumpbona applied in the BRCPAEIS.
Although an increase in entering p.m. peak hour trips (272 p.m.. peak hour trips) ~ estimated to result
by 2015 with The unding versus those levels evaluated in the BRCP A EIS, the significant reduction in
estimated exiting trips from the site (over 700 p.m. peak hour trips) would on an overall basis result in
less trip generation and improved intersection levels of service as compared to those reported in the
BRCPAEIS.
Therefore, based upon this comparative analysis: redevelopment according to the proposed Master
Plan for Sub-district lA 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. As
such, there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from the
proposed Plan as compared to those disclosed in the BRCPA EIS; and redevelopment of up to
approximately 1,522,500 square-feet of mixed use development in Sub-district lA, as proposed by The
Landing Master Plan, is within the range of development alternatives and associated impacts addressed
in the 2003 EIS.
Tronsportction engineering Northwest.LLC
PO 80x 65254 • Seattle. WA 98155
Office/foX f206I361-7333 • Tol free f8881 220-7333
'I
I
I
I
J
j
1
]
•
Attachment A
Detailed Project Trip Generation Estimates
Draft for neview
Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment
2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off·Site Trip Generation
Peak Period
Difference from Subarea
&8
Note:: These compuiaons do DOt ooosidec addiJionll mode split adjustments made 10 the tdp geaea.uoo estimates .:nluated ill the BRCPA HIS, a.ad tbetefme. .hould be conaid~
cOOIenratin.
Transportation Engineering Northwest 312812008
Attachment A
Pagel
Draft for Review Attachment A
Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment
2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation
Peak Period Enter Exit Tota.
Note: Thae compai.oal do DOl: UXIIidec addidoo.J. mode iplit. adjDlI:IDeDtI a.de 1a abe hip ~ eatima •
.... uatod .. tho IIRCPA I!IS, .... Ih ... ro.., obould '"' coaside..d ..... ....-
DIfference from Subarea
A
~l-=-~"]~
'--~_-,1" "r-"1 -~Jc -~~ ...cc~___ ., _ _ ___ • .~21i=
By 20.30. DO iDereue In .dditionlJ. demopmeat it USUDIed 'IIritb Subarea t .. Howevu. other ~pmeat uaumpdou.in Subue. lB inaeue belweeD 2015 and 2030 Mel
tberefoce,. -iutemalizeltmorefthidctdps.WitbiatheBoeiagRernoaPlantareaasawhole.As .ucla,. .. dight mducdoJa hi Iota! off-the rap pDIIftboo by Subuea la iI upecwi by 2030
over those Icftb alim.ted in 2015. ThiI cban:clerisrk iI conlistcot with the trip geDedIion metbodolop. mel USWIlpbOUI applied Ut the DRCPA HIS.
,
Transportation Engln •• rlng Northwest 3/2612006
-~ ...... -.... ~ ~ to-.. -.".., .. ~", --........ IIiiIIiiiii ... ... ... ....
Page 2 , ..
...
f
•
MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION:
REFERENCE:
SUBJEcr:
BACKGROUND I
..
Cl'fY.OF ItENTON
DEVBLOPMFNr sERVIC~,DlYISJQN
JNTERl>JmTA UONJPOLICY DECISION
RMC Section 4-2-120E
Development Standards for Conunercial Zoning Designations.
NA
Maximum Setbacks Required in the Urban Center -North I Zone
JUSTIFICATION: The regulations regarding maximum setbacks in the Urban Center -North 1
CUC-NI) zone, RMC 4-2-120E, require a maximum setback for front and side
yards along streets of 5 feet. There are no provisions to modify the maximum
front and side yard along a street setbacks except 1hrough the Varianee process.
The m.;rimnm setback requirements established on other commercial zones, in
particular the Cominercial Neighborhood (eN) and Center Village (CV), can be
modified through the site plan review process provided the proposed site plan
IIlCCts the following criteria WIder RMC 4-2-12OC.IS:
1. Orients development to the pedestrian through such measures as providing
pedestrian walkways beyond those required by the Renton MWlicipal Code
(RMC), encouraging pedestrian amenities and supporting alternatives to
single occupant vehicle (SOY) transportation; and
2. Creates a low scale streetscape through such measures as fostering distinctive
architecture and mitigating the visual dominance of extensive and W1brokcn
parking along the street front; and
3. Promotes safety and visibility through such measureS as discouraging the
creation of hidden spaces, minimizing conflict between pedestrian and traffic
and ensuring adequate setbacks to accommodate required parking anellor
access that could not be provided otherwise.
Alternatively, the Reviewing Official may also modifY the rnaximnm setback
requirement if the applicant can demonstrate that the preceding criteria carmot be
met; however, those criteria which can be met shaD be addressed in the site
development plan;
4. Due to factors including but nol limited to the unique site design
requirements or physical site constraints such as critical areas or utility
easements the maximum setback cannot be met; or
5. One or more of the abeve criteria would not be furthered or would be
impaired by compliance with the maximum setback; or
08/2'/2006 TUB 9.12 FAX 42543_.JOO Clty.f Renton DS/BDNSP 1j1J00l/OOl
•
,
DIVISION HEAD
APPROVAL:
DATE:
APPEAL
PROCESS:
6. Any fiu;Iction oftbc: use which SOfVI:S the public health, safety or wclfilrc
would be materially impaired by the required sctback.
Therefore, it appears that the requirement for a maximum setback in the UC-N 1
zone without thc provision for allowing modifications to Ibis setbackrcquirc:mcnt
through the site plan review process is an error in the development regulations.
This development standard to allow for the modification of the maximum setback
requirement in the UC-NI zone subj<:Ct to the above listed criteria should be
included in the annual docket proc..aure for addition into Title IV.
DECISION: To remain consistent with other maximum setback
requirements in conuncrcia\ zones throughout the City, the S-foot front and side
yard along a street setback requirelOOllt in the UC-Nl zone may be modified
through the site plan review process provided tht: above listed criteria found in
RMC 4-2-J 2OC.I 5 can be met.
To appeal Ibis detmnirultion, a written appeal-accompanierl by the rcquirerl
$75.00 filing fee-must be filed with the City'& Hearing Examiner (1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. 42S-43~15) no more than 14 days from the
date oftbis decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal.
Section 4-8-110 of the Renton MlIIIicipal code provides further infonnation on
the appeal process.
""'" '01'8-.'1 \~. i
post-It' F.' Note 7671
F",," , \ .:i' -h: """ ,. 'n,-· .. <:j: ... ~ ( ,'.~ () eo.
COJDOPl PftDM· '"'r c;.!=; .. !..i ~ ~ -L~·P;
P"cf\8' I a...7.r' Fa> ~~ .. ,::;) F ... (~ ?Y..n~ .
RECEIVED
REPORT City of Renton AUG 21 2006 Deparlment of Planning / Building / Public Works
& BUCK & GORDO ~ DECISION ADMINISTRA TIVE LAND USE ACTION
DECISION DA TE: August17,2006
Project Name: The Landing Site Plan
Owner: Transwestem Harvest Lakeshore LLC, 8214 Westchester Drive ste 650, Dallas, TX
75225 .
Applicant: Nicole Hernandez, W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Pkwy, Bothell, WA 98021
Contact: Rob King, Harvest Partners, 20503 88m Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026
File Number: LUA06-071, SA-A
Project Manager: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner
Project Description: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Approval for the constnuction of
an approximately 572,700 square foot commerciaUretail development with a 12 screen
cinema. The proposed development would be constnucted on a 38.22 acre site
located within the Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1) zoning designation. Proposed site
improvements would consist of landscaping, utilities and stormwater and special
design standards for the zoning. The structures are proposed to range in height from
•
approximately 30 to 45 feet. The parking provided would be a mix of stnuctured and
surface parking. A four level parking garage is proposed that would provide 675
parking stalls and 1,955 surface parking stalls are also proposed. The proposed
project received Master Site Plan approval May 19, 2006.
Project Location: North of N 8th Street, east of Logan Ave N and west of Garden Ave N
Exist Bldg. Area SF: NlA Proposed New Bldg. Area: 572,700 sq. ft.
Site Area: 38.22 acres Total Building Area SF: 572,700 sq. ft.
•
Project Location Map SA-A06-C71.doc
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
Pago 20'24
"
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND !
The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review in order to construct approximately 518,700 square feet of
large and small format retail, a 54,000 square foot 12 screen cinema, 675-stall four-tevel parking garage and 1,955
surface parking spaces. The subject site encompasses 3S.22 acres and is bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west
and north, Garden Avenue N on the east, and N Sill Street on the south. Park Avenue N bisects the site from north to
south and N 101ll Street bisects the site from east to west. A Master Plan was approved on the subject site under a
separate file (LUA05-136) dated May 19, 2006.
The subject site was previously subdivided via an approved and recorded Binding Site Plan (file no. LUA 04-081),
which created 4 parcels (Lots 1-4). The subject site is comprised of 3 of those parcels (Lots 1, 3, and 4). A Lot Line
Adjustment has been approved and recorded adjusting the lot lines between Lots 2, 3, and Tract D (file no. LUA06-
004) of the Binding Site Plan, and another Lot Line Adjustment (file no. LUA06-057) has been approved and recorded
adjusting the lot lines between Lots 1, 4, and Tract C of the Binding Site Plan. In addition, a short plat is being
reviewed under a separate application (LUA 06-069) to subdivide the southeastern parcel (Lot 3) into two lots. Both
Tracts C and D are proposed to be dedicated to the City of Renton for the right-of-way of N 101ll Street. The submitted
site plan assumes that Tracts C and D have been dedicated.
The cinema, parking garage, and some retail are located on the northwestern parcel. The parking garage and cinema
are oriented such that the fronts of the buildings would face Entertainment Blvd, which is a proposed internal private,
pedestrlan-oriented street. RetaD store fronts are proposed fronting N 101ll Street, Entertainment Blvd, and Park
AvenueN.
Retail and surface parking stalls are proposed on the southwestern and southeastern parcels. Retail space is
proposed on the northern and southern portions of these parcels with the surface stalls separating the retail space.
The north retail area would have store fronts oriented to the north onto N 101ll Street and onto the east and west sides
of Park Avenue N. The southern retail areas would have store fronts oriented to the north towards the surface parking
•
lot and on the east and west sides of Park Avenue N.
!PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I
•
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed in October of 2003. A consistency analysis was prepared
by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May S, 2006, which reviewed the project's consistency with the EIS, and
conciuded that it met the condnions and calculated impacts associated with the range of development alternatives
analyzed in the EIS.
I PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION· REPORT & DECISION
A. Type of Land Use Action
xx Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Conditional Use Binding Site Plan
Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination
B. Exhibits
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exhibit 10:
pertinent to this request.
CD ofThe Landing Site Plan Review booklet (dated 7/21106).
Site Plan (dated 7/19106).
Site Plan of Northwest Portion of Site (dated July 21,2006).
Site Plan of Southwest Portion of Site (dated July 21 , 2006).
Site Plan of East Portion of Site (dated July 21,2006).
The Landing Place representative elevation (page 14) (dated May 22, 2006)
The Boulevard representative elevation (page 29) (dated May 22, 2006)
The Avenue representative elevation (page 35) (dated May 22, 2006)
The Walk representative elevation (page 39) (dated July 21, 2006)
SA-A06-071.doc
•
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
The Landing
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Exhibit 11:
Exhibit 12:
Exhibit 13:
Exhibit 14:
The Walk representative elevation (page 42) (dated July 21, 2006)
The Walk representative elevation (page 45) (dated July 21, 2006)
The Walk representative elevation (page 46) (dated July 21, 2006)
Zoning Map Sheet E4 west Y, (dated 2/16/06).
Page 3 of 24
Exhibit 15: Development Services Division Interpretation/Policy Decision regarding Maximum Setbacks
required in the UC-N1 zone (dated 7/17/2006).
C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria
In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-9-2oo.E of the
Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers:
1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, it's Elements and Policies;
The consistency analysis prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 8, 2006, included an
assessment of the project's consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and found the project to be
consistent with the relevant Comprehensive Plan requirements.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Urban Center North (UC-N). The
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project property is Urban Center North. 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 the large available land holdings under single ownership. In addition, this 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-orlented shopping districts, and a range of
urban-scale mixed-use residential, office and commercial uses.
The following Comprehensive Plan poliCies are applicable to the proposal:
Policy LU-208. Consolidate access to existing streets and provide internal vehicular circulation that suppolts
shared access. Internal vehicular circulation is proposed throughout the development through the parking lots
as well as through the creation of a private internal street (Entertainment Blvd). All access to The Landing
development would be via shared access.
Policy LU-215. Site and building design should be pedestrian/people oriented with provisions for transit and
automobiles where appropriate. The proposed site and building design incorporates a pedestrian oriented
design through the orientation of storefronts (entrances, display windows, and weather protection) towards the
sidewalk, and the low rise bulk and scale of the buildings proposed. ProVisions have been made for
automobiles with the inclusion of a parking garage at the north end of the site and two surface parking lots
proposed on the southern parcels. The proposed development would not preclude any transit improvements
that may occur in the site vicinity in the future.
Policy LU-265. Supporl a more urban intensity of developmMt (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping,
parking standards) than with land uses in the suburban areas of the City outside the Urban Center. The
proposal is a more urban form and scale of development. The proposed buildings would be 1 story and a 4
level parking garage is also proposed. The bulk of the buildings have been treated through the use of vertical
and horizontal modulation and articulation. Landscaping is proposed throughout the site to provide additional
cohesiveness to the site design and the development while screening, other less appealing aspects of the
development.
Policy LU-272. Suppolt uses that serve the region, a sub-regional, or citywide market as well as the
surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed development is intended to as a retail center that would serve a
regional market.
Policy LU-273. Suppolt integration of community-scale office and service uses including restaurants, theaters,
day care, alt museums and studios. The proposed project would include a 12 screen cinema as well as a
variety of restaurants and retail shops.
SA-A()6.()71.doc
•
•
•
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative Site Plan Stsff Report
. LUA06-071, SA-A
Page 4 of 24
Policy LU-27B, Support creation of a significant gateway faature within gateway nodes as shown on the
Urban Center -North Gateway Map. The approved Conceptual Plan identified the intersection of Park
Avenue N and Logan Avenue N as a location where a gateway feature would be required. The proposed
project would incorporate gateway features in the way of special paving and proposed sign age at the
intersection of Park Avenue N and Logan Avenue N.
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. Incorporate integreted
design regulations into this review process. The proposal has received conceptual and master plan approval.
The proposal would develop a large 38.22 acre site and will be required to comply with the adopted design
regulations.
Policy LU-2B5. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate
later infifl development at higher densities and intensities over time, The surface parking area has generally
been consolidated in the center of the two southern parcels, which would allow for further redevelopment with
later infill.
Policy LU-293. Support a mix of activities within the Urban Center -North designation that support
populations in adjacent residentiel 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-ta-day needs of residents, restaurants and coffee hOUSes, public facIlIties, and places of
assembly such as parks and plazas. The proposed development would include a mix of large, medium, and
small retail uses as well as eating and drinking establishments that would serve the needs of the existing and
proposed adjacent residential areas.
Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail
davelopments. Big-box retail would function as an anchor to the larger urban-scale development. Big box
anchors are proposed to be attached to small anchor and retail. A system of pedestrian paths is proposed to
connect the big-box retail anchors with the smaller scale retailers.
Policy LIJ.303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development through master planning, building location, and
design guidelines. The proposed development has pedestrian-oriented components including retail buildings
with store fronts located adjacent to the sidewalk and pedestrian walkways through the surface parking lot,
which would connect pedestrians to different retail areas within the development. In addition, street furniture,
awnings, and container plants are proposed to support the pedestrian.
Policy LU-304. Support urban forms of setback and buffering freatment such as:
a) Street frees with sidewalk grates,
b) Paving and sidewalk extensions or plazas, and
0) Planters and street furniture,
The proposed development incorporates street trees with grates, coordinated paving and sidewalk extensions,
plazas, planters, and street fumiture throughout the development.
Policy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or under-building
parking is not market viable. The applicant has proposed a 4 level parking garage with 679 parking stalls in
addnion to two surface parking lots. It is anticipated that as future infill occurs, additional parking stnuctures
may be developed based on market demand.
Policy LU-30B. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of blocks, screened from the
street by structures with landscape buffers, The proposed large surface parking lots would be located in the
center of blocks and would be screened from the surrounding public rights-of-way via a 1 C-foot wide
landscape strip .
Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads. The proposed development has been reviewed as a Master
Plan. The retail uses would be linked in various themed districts (The Landing Place, Market Lane, The Walk,
and The Boulevard) via pedestrian pathways. Consistent signage, landscaping, and architectural design and
materials would tie the districts together as one development.
SA-A06-071.dcc
II
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
The Landing
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF Augusl 17, 2005 Page 5 of 24
2. Conformance with existing land use regulations;
The subject site is designated Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1) on the City's Zoning Map. The proposed
retail development is a permitted use within the UC-N1 zone. The compliance of the proposal with the
development standards of the UC-N1 zone and Renton Municipal Code parking regulations is addressed
below:
Lot Coverage -The UC-N1 zone allows building coverage at a maximum of 90% of the lot area or 100% of
the lot area is parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. The majority of the
parking onsile would be provided within two surface parking lots. Based on the overall site area
(1,664,792 square feet), the proposed 627,240 square foot building footprint (572,700 square feet of large
and small format retail + 54,540 square feet of parking garage = 627,240 square feet) would result in a
38% building lot coverage, which is well below the maximum coverage allowed in the UC-N1 zone.
Setbacks -There are no minimum fron~ side, side yard along a street, or rear setbacks required. A
maximum 5-foot front and side yard along a street setback is required. The Director of Development
Services issued a Determination (Exhibit 15), which states that the maximum front yard and side yard
along street setbacks may be altered through the Site Plan Review Process without the need for a
variance, which would be consistent with maximum setback requirements applicable in other commercial
zones within the City of Renton. The purpose of the maximum setback requirement Is to foster a
pedestrian-oriented development. The proposed development Incorporates pedestrian-oriented elements
within and around the development (such as street furnishings, coordinated paving, awnings, etc.). In
particular a private internal street is proposed (Entertainment Blvd), which would have the retail store
fronts adjacent to the sidewalk. In addition. the retail store fronts along the northern portion of Park Ave N
would also be located adjacent to the sidewalk. Pedestrian pathways are proposed throughout the surface
parking lot to connect the various retail districts. which would further encourage a pedestrian environment.
Due to the pedestrian-oriented elements included in the development, It would appear that The Landing
has complied with the intent of the UC-N1 zone and the front and side yard along a street maximum
setback may be increased. Staff recommends approval of the proposed setbacks as shown on Exhibit 3,
the submitted site plan.
Landscaping -The UC-N1 zone requires that all setback areas from a public street be landscaped and
that truck docking and loading areas be screened from public streets. The City's parking regulations have
additional landscaping requirements for surface parking lots. However the subject property is located
within the Urban Design District C, which also has landscaping requirements. Per RMC 4-3-1OOB.5 where
conflicts exist between the Design Regulations and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the
Design Regulations shall prevail. See landscaping discussion below under Review of Compliance to
Design Guidelines for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
Height -The UC-N1 zone allows a maximum building height of 10 stories along primary and secondary
arterials. The proposed development would have a 4 level parking garage with a maximum height of 45
feel. All other buildings would be 1 story with heights ranging from 18 feet to 45 feet, which is
considerably less than the 10-story maximum height permitted.
Screening/Refuse and Reevclable Areas -The submitted building elevations indicate that the proposed
rooftop equipment would be screened from view, such that a person standing 150 feet away from the
building would not be able to see the rooftop equipment.
The site plan submitted indicates the proposed locations for refuse and recyclable deposit areas would be
spread throughout the site to allow for convenient access for the tenants. In retail developments, a
minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for
recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor
area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. Based on the proposal for 572,700 square feet of gross
retail floor area, the project would require a minimum of 2,863.5 square feet of recyclables deposit areas
and 5,727 square feet of refuse deposit areas. The applicant did not submit the specific areas that would
be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas due to the variable refuse needs that each tenant will
have. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the total areas dedicated for refuse and
recyclable deposit areas be submitted with the building permit applications for review and approval by the
Development Services Division Project Manager.
The refuse and recyclable deposit areas shall be screened from view. The architectural design of any
structure enclosing a refuse and recyclable deposit area shall be consistent with the design of the larger
development as a whole. A refuse and recyclable deposit area screening detail was submitted with the
SA-A06-071.doc
•
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative SIte Plan Staff Report
LUA06"()71, SA-A
Page 6 of 24
submitted site plan and is shown on page 56 of Exhibit 2. The screening detail includes an 8-foot 4-inch
concrete masonry unit wall with a painted corrugated metal gate. The proposed reluse and recyclable
enclosure area is consistent with the design 01 the larger development and utilizes materials that are used
throughout the development.
Pedestrian Connections -All development in the UC-N1 zone Is required to provide pedestrian access per
the pedestrian regulations outlined in the Urban Center Design Overlay regulations (RMC 4-3-100). See
discussion below under Review of Compliance to Design Guidelines for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
Parking -The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls based on the
amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses. A maximum of 0.4 parking spaces per 100 square
feet of net floor area is pemnitted unless structured parking is provided, in winich case 0.5 parking spaces
per 100 square feet of net floor area Is permitted. The proposed development includes a 675 space four
level parking garage, therefore a maximum of 0.5 parking spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area is
pemnitted for the project. No more than 30% of the surface parking spaces provided may be compact
spaces and no more than 50% of the structured parking spaces provided may be compact spaces. Based
on the proposal for 572,700 square feet of retail area a maximum of 2,864 parking spaces may be .
provided. The submitted site plan proposes a total of 2,630 parking spaces (675 structured spaces and
1,955 surface spaces), winlch is below the maximum number of parking spaces permitted. Approximately
10 percent of the structured parking spaces are proposed to be compact stalls and approximately 7
percent of the surface spaces are proposed to be compact stalls, winich is well below the maximum 50
percent permitted for structured spaces and 30 percent pemnltted for surface spaces. Of those 2,630
proposed parking spaces a total of 36 are required to be Handicap Accessible. The applicant has
proposed a total of 55 Handicap Accessible spaces, winich exceeds the minimum of 36 required.
Ail code required spaces must comply with the dimensional requirements of the parking regulations. The
surface parking stall dimension requirements in the UC-N1 zone are g feet wide by 19 feet in length and
the parking stall dimensions required for structured parking are 8 feet 4 Inches wide by 15 feet in length.
In addition, the surface parking requirements specify that the dimensions required for compact stalls are 8
feet 6 inches wide by 16 feet in length and the dimensions required for compact structured parking stalls
are 7 feet 6 inches wide by 12 feet in length. An aisle width of 24 feet is required for 90 degree parking
stalls. ADA accessible stells must be a minimum 018 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent 8-
foot wide access aisle for van accessible spaces. The applicant has proposed structured parking stalls
with the following dimensions: stendard stalis would be 9 feet wide by 18 feet In length and compact stalls
would be 8 feet wide by 18 feet in length, which exceeds the minimum dimensions required for structured
parking stells. The applicant has proposed surface parking stalls with the following dimensions: standard
stalls would be 9 feet wide by 18 feet in length and compact stalls would be 9 feet wide by 16 feet in
length. The proposed standard stalls would be 1-loot less in length than the minimum required under the
parking requirements and the proposed compact stalls would exceed the minimum dimensional
requirements. The applicant has requested a modification from the standard surface parking stell
minimum length requirements. The applicant contends that the proposed 18-loot length for standard
surface stalis would implement the intent of the parking regulations and that the quality of total, on-site
parking would exceed the standards allowed in the code. The applicant also contends that increasing the
stall length to 19 leet would cause the reduction of standard stalls currently proposed to be compact stalls,
in addHlon the reduction would negatively impact the aesthetics of the project's parking areas.
Section 4-4"()80Fd 01 the parking standards allows the Development Services Division to grant
modifications from the parking standards for individual cases provided that the modification meets the
following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D2):
a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum
adjustment necessary to implement these poliCies and objectives;
The requested parking modification would implement the policy direction 01 the Comprehensive Plan as it
would allow for the development of The Landing, which is a large scale mixed use development with
pedestrian-oriented features. In addition, the proposed modification would allow lor sufficient pedestrian
pathways and landscaping throughout the parking lot which would improve the aesthetic appearance 01
the surface parking lot.
b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability
intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment;
SA-A06-<l71.doc
•
•
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Reporl
LUA06'()71, SA-A
Page 7 of 24
The proposed parking modification would meet the objectives of the parking requirements, through the
provision of adequate parking spaces throughout the development. In addition, the applicant has
proposed fewer compact stalls (7 percent) than the maximum of 30 percent penmltted by the parking
regulations. The proposed 1-loot reduction in the standard stall length would also allow for a more
compact surface parking lot design with additional landscaping and pedestrian pathways throughout the
parking lot.
c. Will not be injurious to other proper/y(s) in the vicinity;
The proposed 1-foot reduction in the standard surface parking stall length would not be injurious to other
surrounding properties in the vicinity.
d. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code;
The proposed modification would conform to the intent and purpose of the parking regulations as
previously stated above under subsection b.
e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
The justification for the Hoot reduction in the standard surface stall length is that It allows for the surface
parking lot to be more consolidated and allows adequate space for the proposed pedestrian pathways
through the parking lot and the landscaping that is proposed throughout the parking lot. The proposed
pedestrian pathways and landscaping would break up an otherwise monotonous sea of parking spaces
and would make the parking lot more aesthetically pleasing.
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity.
It is not anticipated that the proposed 1-foot reduction would create any adverse impacts to any properties
in the vicinity .
Staff has reviewed the parking modification request; the approval of the modification would appear to
comply with modifICation criteria. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's parking modification
request to reduce the standard stall length by 1-loot to 18 feet.
All aisle widths proposed meet or exceed the minimum aisle widths of 24 leet required.
Signs -Per RMC 4-3-1 00B.5 where conflicts exist between the City's adopted development standards and
the urban design regulations, the urban design regulations take precedent. The City's sign regulations
(RMC 4-4-100) provide sign regulations for shopping centers and large retail uses. Under the sign
regulations, the proposed development would be permitted one free standing sign per street frontage, wall
signs, marquee signs, and under marquee signs. The urban design regulations (RMC 4-3-1 OOJ) also
regulate signs for development located within the Urban Design Overlay. The urban design regulations
require that signs be integrated into the proposed development, which provides for a more flexible
standard that would not be accomplished through the strict interpretation of the sign regulations. The
urban design regulations also require quality signage that would contribute to the character of the
proposed development. The sign requirements found In the urban design regulations conflict with the sign
regulations, therefore the sign requirements of the urban design regulations shall be applicable to The
Landing development. See further discussion below under Review of Compliance to Design Guidelines
for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses;
The proposed project would redevelop an existing vacant site that was surplussed by the Boeing Co, The
surrounding properties to the north and west are utilized for airplane manufacturing, the properties to the
south are developed with office buildings owned by the Boeing Co. and a PACCAR manufactUring plant,
tihe property to the east is developed with an existing Fry's electronics retail store. The proposed project
would utilize industrial materials like steel, concrete and brick, which would tie the development to the
property's industrious past as well as result in a development that fits with the existing industrial and
commercial uses in the project vicinity .
To mitigate for the visual impacts of the surface parking lots, truck docking and loading areas, surface
mounted utility equipment, and roof top eqUipment from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way,
screening is required. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan with the application materials, Which
proposes to screen the surface parking lot, truck docking and loading areas, and surface mounted utility
equipment from view through the installation of a mix of trees and shrubs. The plantings would include a
SA-A06-071.doc
,
•
•
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
Page Bot 24
mix of deciduous street trees, accent trees, and conifer trees; large evergreen, accent, and deciduous
shrubs; masses of ornamental grasses, and evergreen ground covers. The roof top equipment would be
screened from view by raised parapets.
To provide for a transition to the surrounding uses and to the stree~ the proposed development has
provided retail store fronts along N 10" Street and along the northern portion of Park Avenue N, which
provides a direct pedestrian linkage to the street. In addition, where store fronts are not located along a
public right-of-way, direct pedestrian connections have been provided between the proposed buildings and
the existing sidewalks. The use of scored paving within the pedestrian crosswalks distinguishes these
pedestrian connections from automobile drive aisles.
Buildings for The Landing are proposed at the north and south ends of the project site with two surface
parking lots located mid block. The separation of the northern and southern retail areas with parking areas
would prevent the over concentration of structures on one portion of the site. In addition, the consolidation
of the surface parking lots would allow for future retail development to occur within the site.
The proposed buildings are single-story buildings, with the exception of the parking garage, which would
be four levels. The heights would range from 18 feet to 45 feet above grade. It is not anticipated that the
proposed development would adversely impact the views of the surrounding properties.
A lighting plan was submitted with the site plan materials. The applicant has selected parking lot and
pedestrian light fixtures with cut-off luminaries, which allow for maximum light control for security and
safety purposes and reduce glare to adjacent properties and streets.
There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent businesses (e.g., noise), which would result from the
construction of the project. These impacts will be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan,
which limits work and haul hours to those perm illed by City Code.
Long term impacts included increased traffic, activity, and noise associated with a vibrant retail
development. These impacts were anticipated through the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning process.
4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site;
The buildings on the southern portion of the project site are oriented such that the buildings would front to
the north towards the surface parking lots proposed. The buildings on the northern portion of the project
site are oriented to provide retail store fronts onto Entertainment Blvd (a private street), N 10 th Street, and
Park Avenue N. The proposed building orientations would adequately accommodate vehicular needs
through the location of surface parking lots within the center of the site, and a 4 level parking garage on
the north portion of the site; and would also accommodate pedestrian needs through the provision of store
fronts abutting the sidewalks and pedestrian walkways through the surface parking lots.
The proposed project would place buildings on the northern and southern portions of the site with surface
parking located mid block. The proposed placement of the structures would avoid an over concentration
of structures and would result in the surface parking lots being located adjacent to retail uses and the
northern and southern ends.
Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site, within the site, and within the parking area. The
proposed landscaping would allow for some infiltration of stormwater, enhances the aesthetics of the site,
and provides a screen from the surface parking lot, truck loading and docking areas, and utility equipment.
The landscaping within the parking lot is proposed within the raised planters to reduce the likelihood of
damage from vehicles.
Consideration was given to the location of buildings and landscaping to ensure that the proposal would not
generate excessive. shade within the site and onto adjoining properties. The heights of the proposed
buildings are primarily one-story structures and therefore would not result in large amounts of shading
within the site or onto neighboring properties. Staff has reviewed the submilled landscape plan to ensure
that appropriate plant species are proposed that would thrive in areas that receive more sun or more
shade .
S. Conservation of area-wide property values;
The proposal would allow existing surrounding uses to continue operating in their present locations and
provide additional retail square footage. The proposal is antiCipated to enhance property values in the
vicinity by converting an under utilized vacant site into a retail center.
SA-A06-071.doe
•
City of Renton PI8/PW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
6. Safety and efficiency of Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation;
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06471, SA·A
Page 9 0'24
The proposed project would have direct access onto Logan Avenue N, N 10th Street, N 8th Street, and
Park Avenue N. Additional access would be provided off of Entertainment Blvd, an internal private street.
Access would primarily be taken from N 1011> Street or Park Avenue N. Access onto Logan Avenue N has
been minimized, with only two proposed, due to its classification as a High Visibility Street. Access to the
project s~e off of N 8th Street would be primarily truck traffic accessing the docking and loading areas for
the retail buildings located on the southern portion of the site. A network of pedestrian walkways are
provided within the site, connecting the various retail areas as well as connecting the site to the sidewalks
within the existing rights-of-way of Logan Avenue N, N 10th Street, N 8'" Street, and Park Avenue N. The
pedestrian walkways are distinguished from the vehicular drive aisles through the use of distinctive paving
patterns and raised walkways.
7. ProviSion of adequate light and air;
The proposed building Is designed appropriately to allow adequate light and air circulation to the building
and the site. The design of the building will not result in excessive shading of the property. In addition,
there is ample area surrounding the building to provide for normal airflow. The City's lighting regulations
required that all building lights be directed onto the building ~self or to the ground Immediately below and
that the light emissions not be visible above the roof line of the building; and that lighting within parking lots
shall be non-glare and mounted no more than 25 feet above the ground. A lighting plan was submitted
with the site plan materials. The lighting plan indicates that the intent of the lighting for The Landing would
be to highlight architectural elements as well as maintain overall light levels that allow for comfortable
visibility during night hours and provide adequate safety and security. Glare control was a consideration in
the selection of appropriate lighting fixtures. The surface parking lot and pedestrian light fixtures would be
full cut·off luminaries which allow for maximum light control and minimum glare and the parking lot fixtures
are proposed at no more than 25 feet above the ground. The proposed lighting plan complies with the
City's lighting regulations.
8. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions;
The proposal is not expected to create any harmful or unhealthy conditions. Noise, dust, and odors, which
may result from the temporary construction on the site, will be m~igated by the applicant's construction
mitigation plan and code requirements for the use of Best Management Practices.
The proposal may generate some noise and odor that do not currently on the subject property. The noise
and odor generated would be that which is typically associated with a large scale retail development with
the food preparation at the new eating and drinking establishments. Any air emissions generated by the
proposal would be governed by federal and state clean air regulations. Noise generated by the project
would be governed by the City's noise regulations.
9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use;
There are no existing utilities or street improvements on this sne. City and other franchise utilities are
available to the subject site. Installation of water main, fire hydrants, sewer, storm drainage, and erosion
control will be required on site as part of the development. Separate civil plans prepared according to City
of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer will be required. System Development Charges
for water and sewer will be required to be paid at the time the utility permit is issued for construction. The
proposed buildings will be required to comply with the CIty's fire flow requirements. Separate fees and
permits are required for water meters, irrigation meters, side sewers, storm connections, and backfiow
devices. On site drainage shall comply with the 2001 Department of Ecology Manual. A drainage report
will be required with the Utility Construction Permit application.
The City's police and fire prevention staff have reViewed the proposal and Indicate that sufficient resources
exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the.installation of Code required
improvements and the payment of fees.
10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight.
No deterioration or blight is expected to occur as a result of the proposal. The site will be developed with
The Landing, a vibrant, destination-oriented retail center. Parking would be provided for the patrons of
The Landing in a 679 stall, four level parking garage located on the northern portion of the project s~e and
two surface parking lots located towards the center of the proposed development on either side of Park
SA-A06-071.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
The Lanciing
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
. LUA06'()71, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006 Page 100124
Avenue N. Distinctive architectural design, theming, landscaping (including scored paving and street
furniture, etc.), and signage have been coordinated to create a cohesive design.
11. Review of Compliance to Design Guidelines for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
The Landing project site is located within District C of the Urban Center Design Overlay. The Director of
Development Services shall have the authority of approve, approve with conditions. or deny proposals
based on the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Director will consider
proposals on the bases of individual merit. will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and
guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design
regulations.
Site Design and Building Location
SI1e Design and Street Pattern:
The Site Design and Street Pattern standards require the provision of a network of public and private
streets within and surrounding the development. The following hierarchy of streets shall be provided (from
graatest in size to smallest): high visibility street, arterial street, pedestrian-oriented street, intamal or local
roads (public or private), and drive aisles.
The full hierarchy of street types is provided either around the development or within the development.
Logan Avenue N would be a high visibility street and is located on the north and west side of the project
site; Park Avenue N is an arterial and a pedestrian-oriented street (particularly along the northern porlion
of the project); N 10'" Street is a pedestrian-oriented street; N 8'" Street and Ganden Avenue N are
arterials; Entertainment Blvd is a private internal road; and drive aisles would be provided within and
around the surface parking lots.
Building Location and Orientation:
Buildings on pedestrian-oriented streets are required to provide pedestrian-oriented facades and shall
contain pedestrian-oriented uses. If the buildings do not have pedestrian-orlented facades, they shall
have substantial landscaping at least 10 feet in width between the sidewalk and the building. Parking
between the building and a pedestrian-oriented street is prohibited.
N 10'" Street and Park Avenue N are pedestrian-oriented streets. The buildings fronting on N 10'" Street
between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, and the north portion of Park Avenue N (buildings 100,
101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108, 109, 302, 303, 304, and 306) would have pedestrian-oriented
facades and would contain pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses. The sidewalk widths along N 10'"
Street vary, but are no less than 12 feet. Entry canopies and building mounted weather protection are
proposed and would also add to the pedestrian friendly environment.
The buildings located along the southern end of Park Avenue N (buildings 407 and 202) would have a
parking area with two rows of parking located between the buildings and the sidewalk. The Development
Services Director has the authority of modify the minimum standards of the design regulations provided
that the modification complies with RMC 4-9-2500 and the following criteria: the project as a whole
complies wKh the intent of the design standards, the modification doesn't have an adverse impact on
surrounding properties, the modification would allow for the highest quality design, and the modification
enhances the pedestrian environment. The proposed development would comply with the intent of the
design regulations through the creation of a retail development with pedestrian-oriented elements.
Pedestrian access to the buildings located along the southern portion of Park Avenue N would be provided
via pedestrian pathways. The pedestrian walkways would be distinguished from the vehicular drive aisles
through the use of distinctive paving within crosswalks. The proposed paving method would include a 2 Y,
foot by 2 Y, foot square score pattern with a medium broom finish in a pewter color. If the buildings were
required to abut the sidewalk along Park Avenue N, a large gap would be created between buildings,
which would not be beneficial to pedestrians walking within the development. In addition, the building
along the west side of Parking Avenue N has been reconfigured to provide retail store fronts facing Park
Avenue N. Therefore, due to the provision of pedestrian pathways to the sidewalk along Park Avenue N,
the provision of store fronts facing Park Avenue N, and the desire to not have a large gap between
buildings within the development staff recommends approval of the modification to the design standards to
allow the proposed parking areas between the buildings on the south end of the project site and Park
Avenue N.
SA-A06-071.doc
,
•
•
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Building Entries
Adminislralive Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
Pag. 11 0124
The primary building entries (buildings 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 302, 303, 304,
306, 202, and 407) along pedestrian-oriented streets (N 10" Street and Park Avenue N) are oriented to
face the street. The bunding entries located along non-pedestrian-oriented streets are prominent, visible
from the street, and are connected to the sidewalk via a pedestrian walkway. The building entries are
demarcated through entry canopies, signage, building mounted weather protection, and accent
landscaping.
Service Element Location and Design
Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize impacts on the pedestrian environment,
concentrated, and located where easily accessible to service vehicles. In addition, to the enclosure
requirements addressed in the development standards (see above discussion under Screening/Refuse
and Recyclable Areas) the design regulations required that service areas be enclosed on all sides
including the roof to prevent the attraction of birds to the servIce areas.
The proposed service areas are not located directly on pedestrian-oriented streets. Small service areas
that do open to pedestrian-oriented streets are concealed behind doors. The applicant has also indicated
they have worked with Waste Management to ensure that the proposed service area locations would be
accessible to the service vehicles. The applicant has requested a modification from the requirement for a
roof over the service area. In order for Waste Management's front loading trucks to empty trash from
roofed enclosures, the enclosures would need to be 12 feet high with 12-foot high doors, which is twice the
height required by City code. Waste Management standards would require the width of the enclosures to
be 23 feet, which would result in the service enclosures looking like small buildings, rather than service
areas that are intended to remain inconspicuous. Since the primary consideration for the roof requirement
is to prevent the attraction of birds to the service areas, the applicant proposes to impose stiff tenant
requirements for keeping the dumpsters closed at all times. The applicant contends that these
requirements would achieve the same result of deterring birds as an enclosed roof.
Staff concurs that the 12-foot tall by 23-foot wide service areas would not be desirable throughout the
project site for aesthetic reasons. The applicant's proposal to impose stringent tenant requirements for
keeping the dumpsters closed at all times would comply with the intent of the service area requirements as
~ would achieve the same goal of deterring birds from the service areas as would the requirement for a
roof over the service area. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested modification to not
have to Install a roof over the service area enclosures.
Gateways
A gateway element as identified on the approved Conceptual Plan is required at the intersection of Logan
Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The proposed gateway element is located at the intersection of Logan
Avenue N and Park Avenue N and is distinguished through the use of distinctive paving at the intersection
consisting of 5-foot by 5-foot square score paving within the vehicular portion of the intersection and a 2 Y.
foot by 2 Y. foot square score pattern within the pedestrian crosswalks; and a district identifier sign, which
would be located at the northeast corner of the cinema.
Parking and Vehicular Access
Location of Parking
Parking areas shall be located at the side or rear of a building, all parking lots located between a building
and a street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Surface
parking lots shall be designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development.
The proposed site plan locates surface parking areas towards the center of the project site. The parking
surface parking would be located to the rear of the buildings proposed on the north end of the project site
and in front of the buildings located on the south end of the project site. The surface parking areas have
been consolidated towards the center of the project site to allow for future infill development and parking
structures. A minimum of 10 feet of landscaping is proposed where the surface parking area would abut a
public right-of-way.
The Landing proposal complies with the intent of the parking location requirements as an active pedestrian
environment would be created along streets, particularly on the northern portion of the project site. In
addition, pedestrian pathways are proposed through the surface parking lots connecting the retail areas on
SA-AOS-071.doc
,
,
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17. 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
Page 12 of 24
the north end of the sHe to the retail areas at the south end of the site. Due to the project's ability to
maintain and active pedestrian environment and the consolidation of surface parking areas for future retail
and structured parking developmenL staff recommends approval of a modification to the design
regulations allowing surface parking to be located in front of the retail areas located on the south portion of
the site.
Design of Surface Parking
Surface parking lots shall be designed such that the parking lot lighting shall not spill over onto adjacent
properties and the parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact. The lighting plan
submitted wHh the project application proposes to install 25-foot taillight fixtures within the parking lot with
full cut-off luminaires to prevent light from spilling onto adjacent properties. The landscape plan submitted
with the project application proposes to install landscaping within the parking area and around the
perimeter of the parking area where adjacent to a public right-of-way. A minimum of 10-foot landscaped
visual buffer is proposed between the parking lot and the surrounding public streets.
Structured Parking Garages
When fronting along pedestrian-oriented streets, parking structures shall provide space for ground-floor
commercial uses at a minimum of 75 percent of the frontage width. Where the proposed parking garage
fronts on pedestrian-oriented streets 100 percent of the fac;:ade is provided for ground-floor commercial
uses, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 75 percent.
Parking structures fronting on non-pedestrian-oriented streets shall be setback a minimum of 6 feet from
the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. Landscaping shall include a combination of evergreen
and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet along high
visibility streets. The rear of the parking garage would face Logan Avenue N, a high visibility street. The
proposal indicates a minimum lO-foot landscaped setback between the rear of the structured parking
garage and Logan Avenue N. The landscaping would consist of a mix of evergreen trees which would be
planted at a minimum rate of 1 tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage and would have a minimum mature
height of 35 feel Shrubs would be planted at a rate of 1 per 20 square feet and ground cover would be
planted in sufficient quantities to provide 90 percent coverage within 3 years of installation.
Staff has reviewed the submitted landscape plan for compliance with the above regulations. The
proposed species and planting rate for the trees and ground cover would provide appropriate screening of
the rear of the parking garage from Logan Avenue N. Staff was unable to determine if the proposed shrub
species would provide adequate screening of the parking garage due to the mature size differential
between the different shrubs listed on the plant schedule under 'evergreen screening shrubs". Staff
recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan showing the location of the
individual plant species be submitted with the building permit application.
Vehicular Access
Access to parking garages shall be provided at the rear of the building or from non-pedestrian-oriented
streets when possible. Driveway access to surface parking lots is prohibited off of pedestrian-oriented
streets and shalf be limited to 1 access point per 500 linaal feet along high visibility streets.
The primary access to the proposed parking garage located at the corner of Logan Avenue Nand N 10th
Street would be provided off of Entertainment Blvd. which is an internal private street. It was determined
by the applicant that access to the parking garage off of Logan Avenue N would not be feasible as n would
result in unacceptable traffic congestion.
The driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots would be off of N 10th Street, Park Avenue N,
Logan Avenue N, N 8th Street, and Garden Avenue N. The intent of prohibiting driveway access to surface
parking lots was to maintain a contiguous. uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, or
eliminating access off of pedestrian-oriented streets. The location of the surface parking lots at mid block
and the consolidation of the surface parking areas to allow for further structured parking and retail
development requires that some access to the parking lot be provided off of pedestrian-oriented streets (N
10th between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N) and Park Avenue N. The consolidation of the surface
parking areas also allows for consolidation of the access points to the parking lot as access is provided to
a central area as opposed to several decentralized parking lots that would each require access. Due to
the consolidation of the surface parking areas, which would facilitate the future construction of structured
parking and retail development, into the center of the project site and the consolidation of access points to
the parking area staff concurs that driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots is unavoidable.
SA·AO~71.doc
•
•
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17. 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06"(}71, SA-A
Page 130'24
Staff recommends approval of a modification to the vehicular access requirements to permit the proposed
driveway access points onto pedestrian-oriented streets as show in the site plan (Exhlbtt 3)
The parking lot entrances off of Logan Avenue N. which is a designated high visibility street are spaced
more than 500 lineal feet apart.
Pedestrian Environment
Pathways through Parking Lots
Within surface parking lots, clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be
provided. Pedestrian pathways shall be located perpendicular to the applicable building far;ade at a
maximum distance apart of 150 feet. The submitted site plan proposes three 8-foot wide raised pedestrian
pathways through the eastern surface parking lot and three pedestrian pathways through the western
parking lo~ which would have the following widths 11 feet, 10 feet, and 18 feet. A private street
(Entertainment Blvd) is also proposed through the western parking lot and would provide sidewalks on
both sides of the street. The pathways would be clearly delineated sidewalks, raised above the general
parking level and landscaped. The proposed pathways would exceed the minimum distance required of
150 feet.
The applicant has requested a modification from the 150-foot spacing required between pedestrian
pathways. The applicant contends that the proposed pedestrian pathway alignment reflects the natural
pedestrian connections between the north and south retail centers. If the 150-foot spacing were
implemented on the site plan it would result in an unnatural distribution and would degrade the pedestrian
experience, but making it more difficult for pedestrians to circulate around the site. Staff has reviewed the
applicant's request and concurs that the proposed pedestrian connection spacing would reflect the natural
pedestrian connections between the north and south retail centers. The applicant's proposed pedestrian
connection layout complies with the intent of providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections
throughout the development; therefore staff recommends approval of the applicant's proposed
modification.
Pedestrian Circulation
A pedestrian circUlation system connecting buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent
street sidewalk system shall be provided. Sidewalks located between the buildings and streets shal/ be
raised above the level of vehicular trevel. Pedestrian pathways through parking lots shall be differentiated
by material or texture from the parking lot material. Sidewalks provided along the facades of buildings
shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. Sidewalks along the facades
of buildings 100 feet or more in width shall provide minimum 12-foot wide sidewalks with an 8-1oot wide
unobstructed walkway and street trees.
The proposed site plan includes a pedestrian circulation system, which would be comprised of pedestrian
pathways through the parking lots, sidewalks along the private street (Entertainment Blvd), sidewalks
along the building facades, and pedestrian connections to the adjacent sidewalks within the public rights-
of-way. The sidewalks between the buildings and streets are raised above the vehicular travel way and
the pedestrian pathways through the parking lots would be raised above the parking lot. Distinctive paving
is proposed at crosswalks to alert vehicular traffic of the pedestrian walk way and to be aesthetically
pleasing. The proposed paving method in the crosswalks would include a 2 Y. foot by 2 Y. foot square
score pattern with a medium broom finish in a pewter color.
The sidewalks proposed along pedestrian oriented facades of buildings fronting on N 101h Street between
Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, Entertainment Blvd and the north portion of Park Avenue N
(buildings 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 300, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306,307, and 308)
would be a minimum 12-foot wide sidewalk with a minimum 8-foot unobstructed walkway and street trees.
The sidewalks proposed along the pedestrian-oriented facades of buildings located on the south portion of
the project site fronting on the surface parking lots (buildings 200, 201, 202, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405,
406, 407) would provide a minimum 8-foot sidewalk and landscaping. The Sidewalks proposed along the
non-pedestrian-oriented facades of buildings within the development would be a minimum of 4 feet in
width. The sidewalks proposed within the rights of way of Logan Avenue N, Park Avenue N, and N 81h
Street are designed to be 5 feet in width and would be constructed by the City of Renton.
SA·A06-071.doc
•
,
•
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17. 2006
Pedestrian Amenities
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-C71, SA-A
Pag.14of24
Along designated pedestrian-oriented streets overhead weather protection in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, or building overhangs shall be provided. These elements shalf be a minimum of 4 Yz
feet wide along a minimum of 75 percent of the building far;ade facing the pedestrian-oriented street and
shalf range in height from 8 to 15 feet above ground level. Sitfl furniture providfld in public spaces should
bfl durable and should not impede pedestrian access to the public spaces.
The submitted building elevations provide awnings, marquees, canopies, or building elevations, which
comply with the minimum width requirements of 4 % feet and are located along a minimum of 75 percent
of the fayade facing a pedestrian-oriented street and would be within the required height range of 8-15 feet
above ground level. The proposed site furniture would be comprised of a mix of seatwalls and
freestanding benches throughout the development. It is anticipated that tables and chairs associated with
restaurant tenants would also be provided, however the exact locations of the restaurant outdoor seating
areas are not known at this time. The seatwalls would be composed of concrete. 70 backless benches
and 30 benches with backs are proposed throughout the development along pedestrian-oriented streets
and within the plaza proposed south of the cinema. The proposed benches would either be metal with a
Sliver Powder coat color or would have wood seats. The locations of the site furniture would not impede
pedestrian access to the public spaces.
Landscaping/Recreation Areas/Common Ooen Space
Landscaping
All pervious areas are required to be landscaped and the landscaping shalf be consistent with the deSign
intent of the development and shalf rflinforce the concept of the deve/opmflnt. Street trees are required
and shalf bfl instelffld with tree grates along pedestrian-oriented streets.
A landscape plan was submitted with the application materials. The applicant indicates that the proposed
landscaping has been designed to create an inviting and dynamic character for The Landing through the
use of native and drought tolerant plantings intermixed with ornamental plantings that would change with
the seasons and provide Interest throughout the year. The proposed landscaping would reinforce the
architecture and help frame building entries, guide pedestrian and vehicular circulation, soften paved
areas, create pocket garden spaces, and provide climactic relief in parking lots and along sidewalks.
Street trees are proposed along all pedestrian-oriented streets and would be installed with tree grates. A
water feature is proposed within the main plaza south of the cinema. The water feature is proposed as an
inground Interactive water feature/waterfall.
All pervious areas are proposed to be landscaped. The rear building elevations and truck docking and
loading areas located along N 8 111 Street are proposed to be landscaped such that the landscaping would
provide screening from the abutting pubic right-of-way (N 8th Street), except along the south fac;:ade of
building 200. It appears that additional area is available along the south fac;:ade of building 200 for
landscaping to screen the rear building fa9ade and truck docking and loading area from view, therefore
staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised landscape plan be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit for building 200 showing additional landscaping along the south fayade of
building 200 to screen the rear of the building and the truck docking and loading area from view.
Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping to redur;e the views of parked cars from the
surrounding streets. The landsr;aped are shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be planted as
follows: trees shall be planted at a rate of 1 tree per 30 faet of lineal street frontage, species selected shall
either be a minimum height of 8 feet or have a minimum caliper of 2 inr;hes at planting and shal/ rear;h a
mature height of at least 35 feet; shrubs shall be planted at a minimum rate of 1 per 20 square feet of
landsr;aped area and shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height of between 3 and
4 feet; and ground r;over shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage
within 3 years of instal/ation.
The submitted landscape plan provides a minimum 10-foot landscape strip between the surface parking
lots and surrounding streets. Along Logan Avenue N, Park Avenue N, and Garden Avenue N the 10-foot
landscape strip is located on the project site. Along N 10th Street, and N 6 th Street 5 feet of the landscape
strip is located on the project site and the other 5 feet is located within the public right-of-way. Along
Logan Avenue N. Park Avenue N, Garden Avenue N, N 10th Street, and N 8'" Street, Street trees planted
30 feet on center are proposed to be installed within the landscape strip and the plan indicates that shrubs
would be planted at a rate of 1 per 20 square feet of landscaping area and ground cover would be planted
SA-A06-071.doc
City of Renton PIBlPW Department
The Landing
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06~71, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006 Page 15 of 24
in sufficient quantities to provide 90 percent coverage within 3 years. However, the submitted plan does
not delineate the location of the specific shrubs or identify the species that would be used, therefore staff
was unable to determine if the 1 O-foot wide landscaped area would provide adequate screening of the
surface parking lot. Staff also has concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed street trees within
the 10-foot planting area to the street trees that would be installed within the Logan Avenue N and Park
Avenue N rights-of-way by the Cny of Renton. It appears that due to the proposed triangulation of the
street trees within the 10-foot planting area to the street trees within the right-of-way that the trees within
the 10-foot planting area would be located approximately 20 feet from the street trees. Staff has concerns
that the 20-foot spacing between trees that would reach a mature height of 35 feet would result in
unhealthy tree conditions. Staff recommends approval of a modification to the requirement for the
Installation of trees within the 10-foot landscape strip that would reach a height of 35 feet at maturity to
instead permit the installation of one of the accent/flowering omamental trees listed on the plant schedule,
which would reach a mature height of between 20 and 25 feet.
The proposed surface parking lots shall provide a minimum of 35 square feet of landscaping per parking
space and shall not include the perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. The planting requirements for the
parking areas area as follows: trees shall be planted at a rate of 1 tree per 30 feet of lineal street frontage,
species selected shall either be a minimum height of 8 feet or have a minimum caliper of 2 inches at
planting and shall reach a mature height of at least 35 feet; shrubs shall be planted at a minimum rate of 5
per 100 square feet of landscaped area and shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature
height of between 3 and 4 feet (up to 50 percent may be deciduous); and ground cover shall be planted in
sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage within 3 years of installation. Parking stalls
shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any landscaped area. The landscape analysis identifies a total
of 1 ,765 surface parking spaces; however the submitted site plan identifies 1,955 total surface parking
stalls. Based on the proposal for 1,955 parking spaces, a total of 68,475 square feet of landscaping Is
required within the parking area with a total of 326 trees and 3,424 shrubs. The applicant's landscape
analysis indicates that a total of 130,500 square feet of landscaping is proposed within tihe parking area
with 450 trees. The total number and location of shrubs proposed was not identified. Staff is unsure if the
proposed landscape area excludes the perimeter parking lot landscaping areas, which may reduce the
proposed landscape area within the parking lot to below the 68,475 square feet required.
Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised landscape plan be submitted with the building
permit application for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. The
revised landscape plan shall comply with the detailed landscape plan requirements ouUined in RMC 4-8-
1200.12 including the species location and species name within the planting areas for the proposed trees
and shrubs. In addition, the plant schedule shall be revised to indicate the quantity of each plant that
would be used in the landscaping areas. A revised landscape analysis shall be submitted, which identifies
the correct number of parking spaces proposed and the corresponding amount of landscaping that would
be required. The analysis shall also distinguish the area of perimeter landscaping provided around the
parking lot from the area of landscaping provided within the parking lot to ensure that the area of perimeter
landscaping has not be included in the landscape area provided for the surface parking lot. If the applicant
plans to submit the revised landscape plans in phases, a phasing plan shall also be submitted with the first
building permit applied for to ensure that staff is able to review the revised landscape plans for the entire
site.
Regular maintenance of landscaping shall be provided by the applicant to ensure that plant materials are
kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Underground, automatic irrigation
systems are required in all landscaped areas.
Additional landscaping is proposed to be installed within the Logan Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8111
Street, and N 10111 Street rights-of-way by the City of Renton abutting the project site. The landscaping
installed by the City of Renton is proposed to complement The Landing development, therefore staff
recommends as a condition of approval that all landscaping within the public right-of-way abutting the
project site be maintained by the applicant to ensure that the plant materials are kept healthy and that
dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Recreation Araas and Common Open Space
The area of pedestrian-oriented space required is 1 % of the lot area + 1 % of the building area. To qualify
as pedestrian-orlented space visual and pedestrian access (including barrier free access) to the abutting
structures from the public right-of-way or a non-vehicular courtyard; paved walking surfaces of either
concrete or other approved unit of paving; on-site building-mounted lighting; and at least 3 feet of seating
SA·A~71.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department
The 'Landing
Administrative Sffe Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF AiJgust 17. 2006 Page 16of24
area or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space shall be provided. The required
amount of pedestrian-oriented space for the proposed project Is 22,454 square feet (1 % of lot area is
16,727 sJ. + 1 %of the building area is 5,727 s.f. = 22,454 square'feet). To be counted as pedestrian-
oriented space, the space shallinciude access from all structures to the public'right-of-way, paved walking
surfaces, building-mOunted lighting, and seating.
A 17,771 square foot large plaza is proposed south of the cinema, and an approximaiely 6,200 square foot
smalle~ plaza is proposed along the, northeast porti.en of building 200 for a total of 23,971 square feet of
pedestrian-6riented ,spac,e, which exceeds the minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space required.
Based on the requirement for 22,454 square feet of pedestrian oriented space, 1 ,122 lineal feet of seating
area would be required. The applicant has indicated that a total of 1, 177 lineal feet of seating would be
provided throughout the development, which exceeds the minimumamourit oheating required. The
amount of seating proposed by the applicant does not take into consideration the add~ional outdoor
seating, which would be provided by individual restaurants, cafes, or coffee shops, Therefore, the amount
of seating th~tWould jXltentially be provided throughout lne proposed developmen,t would weli exceed the
m1ni,mum amount of seating required., •• , .
Building Architectural Design
Building Charact~r and Ma;sing ,
All building facades shall Include measures to reduce thlNJpparent scale of the building and add visual
interest. All buildings shall be, artiCUlated with one or mora of the following: defined entry features, window
treatment, bay windows and/or balconies, roofline features, or other features approved by the
De ve/oriment SerVices Director. •
, , ... !\' ~. " .• : .. ,' . .. . ; " .'. " --" .. '"~
The submitted building elevations indicate that ali of the proposed building ,facades would be modulated
and articulated through offset~ .anl;! height differences. :rhe rooflines would be,enhanced through the use
of metalparapetcaps throughoutfhe site and the use of a variety of roof liries including fiat roofs, curved
roofs~~nd sloped roofs. Buildlng~,100, 101, 1 02",and 1 O~have roofs that extend over the pedestrian
sidewalk area, which creates aQ interesting roofiineand would provide added we!!ther protection. The
heights of the buildings and roomnes vary from building to building as well as withiri each building.
~ 'r .
Buildingeriiries are defined through the use of a va'riety of elements. Entrie~ to theiarge majority of
buildings;;re identifiabl,e by ihe placement of canopies over the door and entri~sai'e generaily the areas
where display windqws Jilre most concentrated on .the fayade. ,Entries can also be identified throughout the
project as the a'rea located at the base of the highest point of the building. These defined entries have ail
bee~designed to draw people into the individual iimant spaces.
The submitted elevations comply with the intent of the building character and massing requirements.
1 .
Ground-Level Details
Untreated blank walls visible from public streets. sidewalks, or interior peCJestfian pathways are prohibited.
Where blank walls are unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: a
planting bed at least.5 feet In width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover,orvines adjacent to
the blank wall; trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; architectural detailing such as
revea/~" contrasting materials, or other special detailing meeting the intent; flrtwork; or a seating area with
landscaping. Human scale elements including lighting fixtures, trellis, or othar land§cape feature shall be
provided along the favade's ground floor, Facades on pedestrian-oriented streets shal!have at minimum
75 percent of the linear ground floor favade comprised of transparent windows and/or doors~ Display
windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise and are not permitted to eontain tinted or
dark glass or highly reflective glass. ", I
.' '",' .":/ .~._ .,>. _. .~" • ", -:."' ; i -:', _ '
VVhere blank wails visible from pedestrian-oriented streets appear within the ,development, the applicant
has proposed treatment of the blank walls utilizing minimum 5-foot planting ,beds with trees and ground
cover, treliises, arChitectural detailing, and contrasting materials or some combiliafion of each. A vertical
'green screen' welded trellis is proposed along the bottom third of the north fa9adeof the parking garage.
The upper two thirds of the parking garage are treated with expressed steel columns spaces
approximately 20 feet apart. The blank wall along the north fayade of the cinema (building 300) would be
treated with three large mOVie posters. . '.,
SA-A06-071.doe
,
•
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
Page 170f24
Three vertical 'green screen" trellises and contrasting material are also proposed to treat the north and
east facades of building 200 as shown on page 39 of Exhibit 2. The trellises are proposed to be located
on the expressed 12 inch split face 'castle white' concrete masonry unit (emu) panels, which would be
highlighted by red steel I-beams. The south and west elevations of building 200 are treated with
contrasting materials. A red stripe or band is shown along the lower facades of both the south and west
building elevations. Above the stripe on the west elevation Is 8 inch smooth face "mesa tan" emu. The
bottom third of the south elevation, above the red stripe is 8 inch smooth face 'mountain brown' cmu.
Above the mountain brown cmu is the 8 inch smooth face 'mesa tan' cmu on the west half of the fao;:ade
and 8 inch smooth face 'castle white" cmu on the east half.
The specifics of the proposed landscaping treatments for the blank walls were not provided in the
submitted landscaping; therefore staff was unable to determine if the proposed treatments for the blank
walls would be acceptable. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the detailed landscape plan
required with the building permit application include specific landscaping treatments for the treatments of
the blank walls visible from pedestrian-oriented streets.
Building Roof Unes
Buildings shall include one of the following to create varied and interesting roof profiles: extended
parapets, feature elements projecting above parapets, projected cornices, or pitched or sloped roofs. In
addition roof-top mechanical equipment shalJ be located such that It is not visible from 150 feet of the
structure when Viewed from the ground. The roof-top mechanical equipment shall be the same color as
the roof color to minimiZe the visual impacts when viewed from above.
The proposed project incorporates extended parapets, projecting comices above parapets, and pitched or
sloped roofs to create a varied and interesting roof profile. The roof heights vary from building to building
as well as within buildings to provide further interest and provide the illUSion of two or thnee story buildings
within the development although the proposed buildings are primarily single-story. All of the building
heights proposed combined with the parapet heights screen the roof-top mechanical equipment from view
up to 150 feet away from the building. The roof color proposed for all of the buildings is white, and the
applicant indicates that all roof-top mechanical equipment will be matched to the proposed white roof
color.
Building Materials
All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all
sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with matenals of the
same quality. Buildings shall employ material variatIons such as colors, brick or metel banding, patterns,
or textural changes. The building materials that would be used throughout the project include concrete
masonry units (emu), brick, metal siding, steel cable guardrail, corten steel, glass curtain wall, metal mesh,
metal louvers, metal canopy, canvas awning. "green screen' welded wire trellis, exposed steel 1-
Beam/column, standing seam metal roof, aluminum storefront, aluminum panel, aluminum window, cast-
in-place concrete base, precast concrete panel, concrete fiber board, and stucco. All sides of the
buildings, which would be visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space would be finished
with complementary materials and colors and would be consistent with the overall design intent of the
development. The lower levels of the building facades include large display windows and the upper
portions would be composed primarily of solid building materials. The proposed elevations indicate that a
variety of building materials would be utilized throughout the development adding visual interest.
Air of the materials proposed would provide variations in color, pattems, and textural changes, which
complies with the intent of this requirement.
Signage
Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. Prohibited signs include pole
signs, roof signs, and back~it signs with letters or graphics on a plastiC sheet (i.e. can signs or illuminated
cabinet signs). Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs,
shall be limited to 5 feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include
decorative landscaping to provide seasonal interest in the area sunrounding the sign. Entry signs shall be
limited to the name ofthe larger development.
The signs anticipated within the proposed development include a combination of district Identifier signs,
directional signs, tenant signs, wall signs, and blade signs. The applicant has requested a modification
from the signage requirements to permit pole signs and to exceed 5-foot height limit required for
SA-A06-071.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
The Landing
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006 Page 180124
•
freestanding ground-related monument signs. The proposed signs include 1 large project identification
sign that would be located on a tower totaling 88 feet In height with a circular band identifying the project
totaling 704 square feet at a height of 58 feet; one gateway sign identifying the project, which would be
affixed to the northeast corner of the cinema building and would total 100 square feet.!;'er face with 2
faces; one monument project identification sign located wtthin the roundabout In N 10 Street that would
total 24.5 square feet in area with a height of 2 feet; 3 monument project identification signs which would
total 40 square feet in area with a height of 16 feet; one large project identification wall sign located on the
northwest wall of the proposed parking garage, Which would total 1,260 square feet in area; 2 parking
garage entrance signs each totaling 288 square feet; 7 vehicular directional pole signs each totaling 72
square feet; 5 project directories each totaling 160.125 square feet; 4 tenant identification pole signs each
totaling 82.25 square feet per face with 2 faces; and 2 tenant identification monument signs each totaling
128 square feet in area. All the proposed signs and their proposed locations are identified on pages 58 to
67 of Exhibit 2. Staff has reviewed the proposed signs and the modification request. The proposed signs
comply with the intent of the design regulations signage requirements as they provide a means of
identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; are clear and appropriate for the
scale of development; and are quality signs that contribute to the character of The Landing development
as a whole. As the proposed signs meet the intent of the design regulations, staff recommends approval
of the applicant's modification request to permit pole signs and to allow freestanding signs to exceed a
height maximum height of 5 feet. Staff recommends approval of the signage proposed for The Landing
development as shown on pages 58-67 of Exhibit 2.
Additional wall and blade signs would be permitled by the individual tenants. Back-lit signs with letters or
graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs) are prohibited. Future proposed wall
andior blade signs will be required to be integrated into the design approach for the building on which they
would be located and the development as a whole. To ensure that the size of any wall signs proposed is
not out of character with the rest of the development, the wall sign area shall not be permitted to exceed
20 percent of the fayede on which they are located. Staff recommends as a condttion of approval that any
proposed wall signs be limited to no more than 20 percent of the fayede on which they are located.
Lighting
Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site.
Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and
secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian-oriented spaces.
A lighting plan was submitted with the site plan application and is shown on pages 86-94 of Exhibit 2. The
proposed parking lot light fixtures and pedestrian light fixtures would be lighted with full cut-off luminaries
for maximum light control and minimum glare. The location of the luminaries Is such that light will no
directly project off-site onto adjacent properties. The lighting plan also identifies pedestrian-scale lighting
that would be provided throughout the project. Pedestrian-scale lighting would be composed of a
combination of street lights, bellards, building mounted sconces andlor pendants, and in ground lighting.
In addition, a lighting plan was submitted for the large project identification sign (shown on page 92 of
Exhibit 2). Staff has concerns that the proposed lighting for the project identification sign may appear
camival in nature and therefore take away from the development as a whole. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that additional information regarding the lighting proposed for the large project
identification sign be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
It appears that the proposed lighting plan would comply with the intent of the lighting requirements of the
design regulations.
12. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable.
The submitted site plan is consistent with the previously approved Master Site Plan dated May 19, 2006,
Which was determined to be consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004 In a
Planned Action determination dated May 12, 2006.
SA-A06-071.doc
•
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
Pags190f24
13. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets
the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Urban Center North Comprehensive
Plan designations.
As indicated in the above discussion under Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, it's Elements and
Policies the proposed site plan would create an urban development that complies with the Comprehensive
Plan,
14. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that Is internally consistent, and provides
quality development.
The proposed site plan would result in an urban design concept through the provision of pedestrian-
oriented spaces within the development and pedestrian pathways through the development with
connections to Sidewalks surrounding the development. The proposed design Is Internally consistent
through the use of the similar building materials and scored paving throughout the development. Street
trees are proposed throughout the development providing separation from the pedestrians and vehicular
traffic, Coordinated design elements such as container plantings, seat walls, tree grates, awnings, paving,
and benches are also proposed, which would add to the urban feeling of the development.
The signage proposed throughout the development would provide directional assistance to drivers and
pedestrians through directional signs and development directories, Pedestrian scale lighting consisting of
post lights, bollards, inground lighting, and building-mounted lighting would be provided throughout the
development to provide security as well as comfortable light levels to pedestrians during non-daylight
hours.
The site plan, building elevations, signage plan, landscaping plan, and lighting plan have all been reViewed
to ensure that the proposal would result in a quality development.
15. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and
active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems;
The proposed site plan has been reviewed to ensure that Sufficient pedestrian-oriented open space has
been provided throughout the development. See previous Recreation Areas and Open Space discussion
under Review of Compliance to Design Guidelines for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
16. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline and Mt. Rainier where applicable;
The proposed site plan would result in the construction of single story buildings that range from 18 feet to
45 feet in height and are not likely to impact any existing views to the Lake Washington shoreline or to Mt.
Rainier.
17. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas.
Not applicable.
18. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural
features, or other Items.
Distinctive focal points provided throughout the development include a plaza located on the north end of
the site just south of the proposed cinema, a roundabout located within the N 10th Street right-of-way at the
intersection of N 10"' Street and Entertainment Blvd, the district identification sign located in the central
portion of the site within a surface parking lot, and a small plaza proposed northeast of building 200. In
addition Market Lane would be a flexible outdoor space where a portion of the surface parking area
SA-A06-071.doc
,
,
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
Page 200124
located on the east side of Entertainment Blvd could be converted for community and seasonal events that
could take place.
19. Public andlor private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property
and supports the land use envisioned;
The public and private streets proposed throughout the development would provide reasonable access to
the property and would support the proposed land use. See previous discussions above under Safety and
Efficiency of Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation and Vehicular Access under Review of Compliance to
Design Guidelines for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
20, The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of
transportation.
The proposed site plan does not preclude transit access to and through the development. The site plan
does promote pedestrian access throughout the site, see previous discussions under Safety and Efficiency
of Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation and the Pedestrian Environment under Review of Compliance to
Design Guidelines for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
21. The plan conforms to the approved conceptual plan required by development agreement for the
subarea In question, if applicable.
The proposed Site Plan is consistent with the Master Plan that was approved May 19, 2006. This decision
and approval determined that the Master Plan was consistent with the Conceptual Plan dated December
3, 2003. Therefore, the Site Plan is consistent with the Conceptual Plan.
22. The plan conforms with the Intent and the mandatory elements of the design guidelines located in
RMC 4-3-100. The Master Plan clearly identifies the urban design concept for each district
enunciated in the Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan policies.
The proposed plan complies with the intent and mandatory element of the design guidelines, except where
modlfl8d. See previous discussion under Review of Compliance to Design Guidelines for Development in
the UC-N1 zone.
23. The proposed Interconnected circulation network must demonstrate the function and location of
required circulation elements required in RMC 4-3-100. Internal or local roads shall provide
adequate edges and buffers to parking lots. A sufficient number of pedestrian-oriented streets are
designated to implement the vision of each district In the Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan
designation.
The proposed Site Plan complies with the circulation elements described in RMC 4-3-100. See above
discussion under Review of Compliance to DeSign Guidelines for Development in the UC-N1 zone.
24. Gateways are deSignated consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and conceptual plans for the
gateway demonstrate the design concept for gateway treatment and identify significant gateway
features to be provided.
A gateway comprised of special paving and a sign identifying the district is proposed at the intersection of
Park Avenue N and Logan Avenue N. The proposed gateway is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
Conceptual Plan dated December 3, 2003, and with the Gateways seelion of the Urban Design
Regulations. See previous gateway discussion under Review of Compliance to DeSign Guidelines for
Development in the UC-N1 zone.
SA-A06-071.doc
,
•
II
City of Renton PIllIPW Department
The Landing
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006 Page 21 0(24
25. The Master Plan includes a sequencing element that explains what phases of the Master Plan will
be built-out first, and in what order the phases will be built, and an estimated time frame,
A sequencing element was previously reviewed and approved under the previous Master Plan approval
dated May 19, 2006.
26. The plan conforms to RMC 4-3-020: Airport Compatible Land Use Restrictions.
The proposed Site Plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Airport Compatible Land Use
Restrictions and it has been determined that the project would comply.
xx Co ies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File.
Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.
. O. Findings
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following:
1. Request: The Applicant has requested Site Plan Approval for The Landing project, File No.
LUA06-071, SA-A.
2. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for
information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits
No.2 through 7.
3. The applicant has proposed to exceed the maximum 5-foot front and side yard along a street setback
requirement
4, Parking Modification: The applicant has requested a modification from the Parking Standards to
reduce the standard stall length by 1-foot The applicant's request qualifies for consideration under RMC 4-9-
2500.
5. Design Regulation Modifications: Seven modifications were requested from the minimum
standards of the Design Regulations. The requested modifications qualify for consideration under RMC 4-9-
250D and 4-3-100L.
6. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
deSignation of Urban Center -North (UC-N).
7. Zoning: The Site Plan as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development
standards of the Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1) Zoning deSignation and the District C Design Regulations,
provided all conditions of approval are satisfied.
8. Existing Land Uses: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Urban Center -North 2
(UG-N2) zoning; East: Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1) zoning; South: Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1)
and Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning; and West: Urban Center -North 2 (UC-N2) zoning.
9. Environmental (SEPA) Review: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed in
October of 2003. A consistency analysis was prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., dated May 8, 2006,
which reviewed the project's consistency with the EIS, and concluded tihat it met the conditions and calculated
impacts associated wHh the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
E. Conclusions
1. The subject complies with the poliCies and codes of the City of Renton, provided ali conditions of approval
are satisfied.
2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Center -North (UCN) and the
Zoning deSignation of Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1).
3. The proposal to increase the maximum 5-foot front and side yard along a street setback requirement
complies with the orHeria outlined in the InterpretationIPolicy Decision issued by the Development Services
Director (Exhibit 15) and is recommended for approval.
SA-A06-071.doc
•
City of Renton P,13/PW Department
The Landing
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006 Page 22 0124
F.
4. The modification of the Parking Standards requested, which would reduce the minimum standard stall
length by 1-loot complies with the criteria outlined in RMC 4-9-250D and is recommended lor approval.
5. The seven modifications requested from the minimum standards of the Design Regulations comply with
the criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-1 OOL and RMC 4-9-250D and are recommended for approval.
Decision
The requested modifications and Site Pian for The Landing project, File No. LUA06-071, SA-A, is
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The total area dedicated for refuse and recyclable deposit areas shall be submitted with the building
permit applications lor review and approval by the Development Services Division project manager.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted with the building perm~ application for review and
approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. The revised landscape plan shall
include the following: additional landscaping along the south fayede of building 200 to screen the
blank wall from view of the public right-of-way, and specific landscaping treatments for the treatments
of the blank walls visible from pedestrian-oriented streets.
3. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements outilned in RMC 4-8-1200.12 including the
species location and species name within the planting areas for the proposed trees and shrubs shall
be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Development Services
Division project manager. if the applicant plans to submit the detailed landscape plans In phases, a
phasing plan shall also be submitted with the first building permit applied for to ensure that staff is able
to review the revised landscape plans for the entire site.
4. A revised plant schedule indicating the quantity of each plant that would be used In the landscaping
areas shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the
Development Services DiviSion project manager.
5. A revised landscape analysis shall be submitted, which identifies the correct number of parking
spaces proposed and the corresponding amount of landscaping that would be required. The analysis
shall also distinguish the area of perimeter landscaping provided around the parking lot from the area
of landscaping provided within the parking lot to ensure that the area of perimeter landscaping has not
be included In the landscape area provided for the surface parking lot.
6. Landscaping within the public right-of-way abutting the project site shall be maintained by the
applicant to ensure that the plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are
replaced.
7. Additional wall signs shall be limited to no more than 20 percent of the fayede on which they are
located.
8. Additional information regarding the lighting proposed for the large project identification sign shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sign to the Development Services DiviSion
project manager for review and approval.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: August 17, 2006
SIGNATURE:
;r /7 Z ',' 17 fic;-,j., c t.~.
I '
Neil Watts, Development Services Director Date
SA-A06-071.doc
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
The Landing
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006
TRANSMITTED this 1f1' day of August, 2006 to the owner:
Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore, LLC
8214 Westchester Drive, ste 650
Dallas, TX 75225
TRANSMITTED this 1f1' day of August, 2006 to the applicant:
Nicole Hernandez
W&H Pacific
3350 Monte Villa Pkwy
Bothell, WA 98021
TRANSMITTED this 1f1' day of August, 2006 to the contact:
Rob King
Harvest Partners
20503 88 th Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
TRANSMITTED this tf1' day of August, 2006 to the parties of record:
Jerome L. Hillis
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson Law Offices
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
•
Claudia M. Newman
Bricklin, Newman, & Dold, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1001 Fourth Avenue ste: #3303
Seattle, WA 98154
Peter Buck
Buck & Gordon, LLP
2025 First Avenue ste: #500
Seattle, WA
TRANSMITTED 1 f1' day of August, 2006 to the following:
Jennifer Henning, Development Planning
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Larry Warren, City Attorney
S. Engler, Fire Prevention
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
South County Journal
Administrative Site Plan Staff Report
LUA06'()71, SA·A
Page 230'24
Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
PM August 31, 2006.
If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the
required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8·110.E. Additional information
reolardlinathe appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
SA·A06-071.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Department
The Landing
Administrative SHe Plan Staff Report
LUA06-071, SA-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF August 17, 2006 Page 240(24
Notes to Applicant:
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental
determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal
process for environmental determinations.
Planning
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division.
2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restrlcted to
the hours between seven o'ciock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on
Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work
shall be permitted on Sundays.
3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground
cover over any portion of the site that Is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work
will occur within ninety (90) days. Altematlve measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in
the current King Counly Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be
proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's
approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
Fire
1. The preliminary fire flow ranges from 2,000 to 4,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are
one hydrant required w~hin 150 feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the
structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm, and will be required for most
buildings proposed.
2. All buildings are required to have complete fire sprinkler and fire 'alarm systems. All buildings over two stories are
required to have an approved standpipe system, Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of
systems through the Renton Fire Department.
3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exteriors.
Roadways are required to be minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45-foot outside and 25-foot inside.
Some areas within the surface parking lots do not meet these turning radius requirements. Fire lane signage is
required per City ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways. Minimum vertical height for fire
department access is 13 feet 6 inches.
4. For pre-fire planning purposes an electronic copy of your individual building site plans shall be submitted to the
Renton Fire Department
Plan Review -General Comments
1. Installation of water main, fire hydrants, sewer, storm drainage, and erosion control will be required on site.
Separate civil plans prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer
will be reqUired.
2. System Development Charges for water and sewer will be required to be paid at the time the utility permit
is issued for construction.
3. Applicant will be required to meet fire flow requirements.
4. Separate fees and permits are required for water meters, irrigatlon meters, side sewers, storm
connections, and backflow devices.
5. On site drainage shall comply with the 2001 Department of Ecology Manual. A drainage report will be
required.
SA-A06-Q71.doc
-
•
• i
j
·300
• CINEMA
54K
107
.DCTAII
tilt
t
f\l
~:r.s.
8
.' .. . -.D
;! "i: :! ~::
:::~::
IE!;;;,
.. ft'S;;; .. ..
iI •• ~ .. ..
; .. . ::
~ ! s; ~
!H ... ~~i ...
ell
z~ --'0 a. ·z:
c~ .... z
o • w~ I ..
:Z:~
t-
til
.r-t '~j:" ~ ~":~tir""J~:'~~' ~ ~::.\. I,: \.~""" "
1 .. -"'"
404
FITNESS
4ZK
405
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
15.5K
403
RETAIL
11.4K
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
16.5K
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
1B.SK
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
30.3K
I~~ !
\~ ,
! ~'l
407
RETAIL
1BK
-
·t
N
N. T. S.
_r._
~ •
i 5:: 11 "'oa
iii:~;;
iI iIo .: ... n~:~;:
~
.~ t!~ 1:a ",. i!!
I" .....
~!!
~
z· 0
-~ a~ I ~ z" w c< . ~
~z
0 Ii III~ z
:z:~ ...
...
g 111111111
I~ i~ a
• ..
I
I
3nN3AI:I >I/:Jl:ld = ---
•
...J
~
0: ..
w
~ ,
z o
~ ~
I !~ ~ ~
z •
w •
• •
,"'..Q" T.OA
te:1\ NORTH ELEVATION -BLDG 103
\!!7_ .......
o 8' 18' 32'
/,,,l
l I R --+--+--+--+--+--+~ I \
~ liM 1\ -+--t---t--+--+=-~i=~
• L ----... ,
I +----"--..
i i \ I 11 •
-------+ i • I r-----..... ..--.. ----!---___ -il f------..:: E ---i ~ __ ! Ii __ ~ ~ --i ._----
~
''.../ ----' ..
',-
":'!' .... < ••
~">
.;; .;.
,~i;!
~C:L
CALLI5!~N
<.;
,,-, . ',.-.,'
MATERIAl S I FGEND
1. eMU
2. BRICK
J. METAL SIDING
•. SttEl CAPl£ GUARDRAIL
S. CORffN STEfL
6. GLASS CURTAIN WALl.
1. METAL-MEStf
8. METi\L.\.OUVERB
9. METAL-CANOPY
to. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREBr'WBDED
", .. mews
12. EXPOseD STEEl
I-8EAM1COU1MN, T\'P.
1:5. STNCIING S~ METAl.. ROOF
14. Al..1NNlaISTOREFRONT
15. AUJMINUN PANE\.
111. Al.l.IMNUM WINDOW
17. CAST.JN.I>lACE CONCRETE BASf ,I. PRECAST CONCRETE PNla.
til. CClNCRE1E F1BER BOARD
----
•
\.
j--r r--T
I ==1' I '-::±It -4 , , , -.
j
, ,
.1
1 ,
, ,
I : k -~ ~ ~;l4 "01! 1: j = -f-l
""-0" T.OA lit
'8'-D" T.O.R. •
(j'"
~~ . .. ~ ..
CAlll~O:N
{.::--f':
~
'~~.
MATERIALS LEGEND
1 eMU
2. BRICK
3. METAlSIOTNI3
4. STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL
S. CORTEN STEEL
6 GlASS CURTAIN WAll
1. MfTALMESH
II. METAL. LOuveRS
I. METAL CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
1'."1lREEN SCREEN" waoeo
WlRETREWS
12. EXPOSED STEB.
I-II~.TYP .
11B~NQS~UETALROOF
14. AlUMINUM STOREFRONT
11lALUMIMJM PANEl.
16.AlUMINUM WINDOW
11. CAST.foI...PI..ACE: CONCREI"e BASE
11. PRECAST CONCRETE PNEl.
18. CONCRETE FIBER 8OMO
,
•
•
z
o
.~
< u
I!
"'.' "I • "
· ~:.' .
~'" V"j,'f.
.': ..
J,;L1i"""'"
~ .. :t .. ':~" .' '.,;;',
~t'~ · -::; . . "; .. '
, ...• \ .\
~ > ~
T ••• ,':
•
•
z
Ii
8§ ..
"
-"1
I
r
1
.I
~
1 •
--i
I ,
I
I
I
I
r
--~
-I-,
4
. ~ .. " . "'~~:'t:
.. ~ :~:; f~r~:
::,.' .' f.'. .. ,~ '~~,~~J
.: . -: ":",
.' '. . .
. ~' . '.'.";.>.,'
•
r - ---
L
)
ARVEST.,.;;.:.,.
. , ,. .~ ", ... ,'!!). \l;~',.. TRANswE$h!RN
I A. k.,.j; Ft,~,~·,s· ...... ~ .••• u ••• •
: ~\''-\lf~.{.~[~t>;,'.~!.! .t"_ •
/;'-~':
:"'., ") \; (-:':~'~~;; .~-~
-
-- - --1-_ ,
~I·N· '0' ·INhi. ~~: .... : .. ,,~.--: .
~.~:oa .u;21~:~ .8P\f_..f'I8n~
. .. ~c:~';'
""c~L
•
<i
CALLISON
!J'.9" •
MAJERlALS lEGEND
1. CMU
2-9RlCK
3. METAL SIDINO
~ STEEL CABLE GUAAOIVt.IL
5. COR~N STEEL
8. GlASS CURTAIN WI\U.
1. METAL MESH
8. Ma~L LOUVERS
g, METAl CANOPY
10. CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN SCREEN" WELDED
WIRE TREUIS
12. E)IJ>OSED 8TU:L
l-8eAlMCOl.UMN. TYP.
13. 8To\NIlINQ SEAMM~FlOOf
'4. AlUMINUtd 8TC1R£fRONT
lS.11iJJM1NUM PANEL
111. AUI,.4INl.,. WINDOW
17. CAST-IN-f'lACE CONCRETE BASE
1111. PREC,UiT CONCAETE PNI!L
111. CONCReTE FI8ER BOARt
'.-.~ :
,.
. "'~ST;)':'
.. ;:,.'\,;,.s .'.~~~~!!
" ,-::-~~{~,~, .;:;;\ y,
C::l.\!G~)"J ',i
r
•
-\-- - --1
I
1111 A'N' .... '.'N··'fti" .. · "R~:' ili#: . _~~+, ,>;
··~~f"·;.,-:~·:',;:::/L.
;./?:.::.; ....
'. f~'i.;'\
;,~~.?'~.
.~ .
tilt
• CALLUGN
MATERIAlS LEGEND
1. eMU
2. BRICK
3. METAl SIDING
4. STEELCAllLE GUARDRAIL
5. CORlEN .sTEEL
II. GlASS CURTAIN W .... Ll
7. METAL MESH
8. METAL lOUVERS
9. METAL CANOPY
10, CANVAS AWNING
11. "GREEN aCReEN"WElDED
WIRe mEWS
12. E»'OElED STEeL.
I-BEAMICOlUMN, TYP.
13. STANDINO seAM METALROOF'
14. ALUMIIIUM STOR!FROIIf
•
D4 • 5 T23N R5E W 112
\ ,
\
~ ;:;a
r>:I
~
~
f-o .... z
12 C1J
~
UC-Nl
-= co
tlll
0
.....:I
.-f
Z
~th S
u
U -Nl
~ I ~ 1°) d, u UC-N
I z
C1J >
UCf-
2
)
~ ZONING o = TBCHNJC,\L IBJ.VlCII
F4 • 17 T23N R5E W 112
- - --Rell.ioD. CIlty Uadt.
.-,/ >~
~:;~\ ; ,-.
." . " ", 1,' , \'
\\~ \ \/ ,\ \
\ \\ .. -\\\
,/ \\\.-
\......-: 0 \ \
('l \ V ---~ \\ tH. I/. \ , ...
;...-'\ \ \.-------
~3 \\\
'., \ \ , ' \ \ \ \ \ ' ,
\ \ \
\ \ \
" \ N 8th 5it. \
R \
B T23N RSE W 112
5308
•
•
MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION:
. REFERENCE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND!
. ClTYOFRENT-ON..
. .DEVELOPMEmSERv:ICES,.DMSIDN
lNTERPImTATlONJPtJUC'i DECrSION
RMC Section 4-2-120E
Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations.
NA
Maximum Setbacks Required in the Urban Center -North I Zone
JUSTIFICATION: The regulations regarding maximum setbacks in the Urban Center -North 1
(UC-NI) zone, RMC 4-2-120E, require a maximum setback for front and side
yards along streets of 5 feel There are no provisions to modify the maximum
front and side yard along a street setbacks except through the Variance process.
The maximum setback requirements established on other commercial zones, in
particular the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and Center Village (CV), can be
modified through the site plan review process provided the proposed site plan
meets the following criteria under RMC 4-2-120C.15:
1. Orients development to the pedestrian through such measures as providing
pedestrian walkways beyond those required by the Renton Municipal Code
(RMC), encouraging pedestrian amenities and supporting alternatives to
single occupant vehicle (SOy) transportation; and
2. Creates a low scale streetscape through such measures as fostering distinctive
architecture and mitigating the visual dominance of extensive and unbroken
parking along the street front; and
3. Promotes safety and visibility through such measures as discouraging the
creation of hidden spaces, minimizing conflict between pedestrian and traffic
and ensuring adequate setbacks to accommodate required parking and/or
access that could not be provided otherwise.
Alternatively, the Reviewing Official may also modifY the maximum setback
requirement if the applicant can demonstrate that the preceding criteria cannot be
met; however, those criteria which can be met shall be addressed in the site
development plan;
4. Due to factors including but not limited to the unique site design
requirements or physical site constraints such as critical areas or utility
easements the maximum setback cannot be met; or
5. One or more of the above criteria would not be furthered or would be
impaired by compliance with the maximum setback; or
• •
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS SETILEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this ltf'Jday of December, 2006, by and between
TRANS WESTERN HARVEST LAKESHORE LLC, a Delaware Limitefuability Company ("Harvest"); ALLIANCE FOR
SOUTH END, a Washington non-profit corporation ("ASE"), and Brad Nicholson, an individual ("Nicholson") (collectively,
"Appellants"); WEA SOUTH CENTER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Westfield"), the CITY OF RENTON, a
municipal corporation organized under the laws of Washington ("City"), and TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation
("Target").
RECITALS
A. Harvest has filed for approvals related to a mixed-use commercial and residential project known as The Landing in
Renton, Washington, which includes retail, omce, entertainment,restaurant, hotel and residential uses with associaleu parking on
approximately 47 acres ofland within the City of Renton, Washington, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("The Lanuing Project"). The Site Plan for The Landing Project contains
Quadrants A, B, illld C, as depicted on Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
B. On May 12,2006, the City of Renton Development Services Division issued a determination designating Harvest
Partners' application for Administrative Master Site Plan approval for the Landing Project as a Planned Action ("Director's Planned
Action Decision"). On May 19,2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public Works issued a decision
approving the Master Site Plan for The Landing Project (File No. LUA-05-136, SA-M) ("Director's Master Plan Decision").
C. On or about May 26, 2006, ASE filed appeals of the Director's Master Plan Decision and the Director's Planned
Action Decision (collectively, the "Master Plan Aplleals"). On September 6, 2006, the Hearing ExaOliner issued 8 decision
dismissing the Master Plan Appeals. ASE's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision is currently pending before the Renton City
Council.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE I of 11 y:\WP\ASE\SI!TTlEMENTWESTING SETILEMENT AGREEMENTS\120"06\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 120606FINALDOC
•
•
D. On July 17,2006, the City Development Services division issued an administrative determination relating to
modification of setbacks in the Urban Center-North I Zone ("Director's Administrative Zoning Interpretation"). The Landing
Project is located in the Urban Center-North I Zone.
E. On August 17,2006, the City'S Development Services Director issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The
Landing Project (LUA-06-071, SA-A) ("Director's Site Plan Decision").
F. ASE and Nicholson filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan Decision and the Director's Administrative Zoning
Interpretation. These appeals, currently pending before the Renton Hearing Examiner, together with the Master Plan Appeals, are
collectively referred to herein as the "Appeals".
G. Target has applied for a building permit to construct a retail store in Quadrant C of The Landing Project, which is
depicted as Building 100 on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference ("Qnadrant C Site
Plnnn). TargeCs plans include construction ora principal use store, roads, driveways, access ways, utilities, street improvements ..
drive aisles, parking, and loading as may be required in Targers reasonable discretion to construct, occupy and operate its retail store,
all as shown on Exhibit D (collectively referred to herein as ''Target's Landing Project"). Harvest has applied for building permits
to construct additional retail structures in Quadrant C, including Buildings 103 and 104 as depicted on the Quadrant C Site Plan and
Targct considers iluildings 103 and 104 to be critical to the success of Target's Land ing Project. Target's Landing Project and
Buildings 103 and 104 are collectively referred to herein as the "Vested Developments" and are shown on Exhibit D, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
H. Target desires to proceed with the development of Target's Landing Project, and desires assurances that development
of Target's Landing Project and Buildings 103 and 104 may proceed in accordance with the Director's Site Plan Decision, the
Director's Plmmed Action Decision, the Director's Master Plan Decision, and the Director's Administrative Zoning Interpretation
(collectively, the "Director's Decisions") notwithstanding the outcome ofthe Appeals or any mture actions or challenges that may be
brought by Westfield and Appellants.
I. Target believes that Ihe Target's Landing Project and Buildings 103 and 104 are generally in conformance with
applicable laws and regulations and Westfield and Appellants are supportive of Target IHoving forward with the Target's Landing
Project without waiving any oftlleir rights with respect to the remaining portions of The Landing Project.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 2 of II V:\WP\ASBSETTLEMENT\VESTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS\l204~\ASET"'RGET SETTLEMENT 120606 fINAL.OOC
1. Recognizing the costs and inherent risks of litigation, the parties desire to resolve and settle Appellants' claims insofar
as they affect Target's Landing Project.
AGREEMENTS
Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual promises and the payment by Target to Westfield and Appellants
or One Dollar ($1.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. VESTING. The parties hereto agree (a) the Vesled Developments are deemed to be vested as of the date of filing of
their respective building permit applications and will not be subject to any appeals by Appellants; and (b) Target and Harvest may
pursue their building permits and apply for any and all other necessary construction and occupancy permits and approvals for the
Vested Developments, and the City may issue such permits and approvals, in accordance with the Director's Decisiolls, no matter the
outcome orany of the Appeals or any future appeals or challenges related to The Landing Project. Simultaneous with the execution of
Ihis Agreement, the parties shall execute and file a Stipulation and Order in each orthe Appeals substantially in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit E, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
2. No APPEALS. Neither Westfield nor Appellants will appeal, challenge, contest or oppose, or provide support or
nlllding lor any other person or entity to appeal, challenge, contest or oppose, the approvals for the Vested Developments or the
issuance of any building permits or any other construction or occupancy permits or approvals for Ihe Vesled Developments.
3. RELEASE OF CLAIMS AS TO THE VESTED DEVELOrMENTS. With respect to Ihe Vested Developments, Westfield and
Appellants on their own behalf and 011 behalf of any oftheir respective members, predecessors, successors, affiliated entities, agents
and assigns, hereby release any claims and forever discharge Target, Harvest and the City and their respective members, predecessors,
successors, affiliated entities, agents and assigns from any and all liabilities, demands, damages, claims, actions or causes of action, at
law Or in equity, ofwhnlever kind or nature, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which Westfield or Appellants have or
may have, now or any time in the future, by reason of any acts or omissions occurring prior to Ihe date this Agreement is executed.
With respect to the Vested Developments, Target, Harvest and the City on their own behalf and on behalf of any of their respective
members, predecessors, successors, affiliated entilies, agents and assigns do likewise release and forever discharge Westfield and
Appellants and their respeclive members, predecessors, successors, affiliated entities, agents and assigns from any and all liabilities,
demands, damages, claims, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, of whatever kind or nature, known or unknown, suspected
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 3 of II Y:\WP\ASE\sETTLEMENT\VESTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS\120<lUfi\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 120606 FINALpOC
--
or unsuspected, which Target, Harvest and the City have or may have, nOW or any time in the future, by reason of any acts or
omissions occurring prior to the date this Agreement is executed.
4. RESERVATION OF CLAIMS. Westfield and Appellants reserve all of their claims as 10 all portions of The Landing
Project other than the Vested Developments, including without limitation Buildings 101 and 102 as depicted on the Quadrant C Site
Plan and Quadrants A, B, and D.
5. No ADMtSSION. This Agreement is the compromise of a disputed claim affecting a subset of the area of The Landing
Project and does not preclude or diminish any of the pal1ies' claims, defenses or arguments in any current or future appeals orthe
remaining portions of The Landing Project. All parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted to
preclude or diminish any of the parties' claims, defenses or arguments in any current or future appeals ofthe remaining portions of
The Land ing Pro jeet
6. No OBLIGATION. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted to obligate Target to oblain a building
permit or otherwise proceed with construction or operation of the Target's Landing Project, nor shall anything in this Agreement be
construed to require the City to issue a building permit.
7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter
hereofand may be modified only by a written document signed by all parties.
8. BINDING EFFECT. The parties recognize that this is a binding settlement agreement made by the parties and is intended
to be binding upon Appellants, ASE, any and all members of ASE, Westfield and any and all affiliates of Westfield, Target and any
nnd all affiliates of Target, Harvest and any and all affiliates of Harvest, the City and Nicholson; and shall inure to the benefit ofthe
parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
9. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement has been made in the State of Washington and shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action arising out ofthis Agreement shall lie in King County Superior Court.
10. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 4 of II Y.\WP\ASE\sETTlEMENnVESTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS\121l406\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 120606 FINALDOC
--
• ... ~ .... --.... ~ ............ " .. -..
11. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE. Each of the parties and their representatives executing this Agreement represent and
warrant that they are authorized to execute this Agreement, on their own behalf and on behalfoftheir members, predecessors,
successors, affiliated entities, agents and assigns.
EXECUTED as of the day and year first above written.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TRANS~ERN~VEST~AKESHORE
BY~_~ __ ~~~O~~~~~ ____________ _
No",. lii.oi:J'J -:Darnelr
Tille MliiY\il1; OfJrwest /YIe.il t am m ittC'::"
ALLIANCE FOR SOUTII END
By
-N~a-'-lIe----------------------------------
Title
BRAD NICHOLSON
By
~N~an~,~.--------------------------------------
WESTFIELD
By
-cN~a-nl-'--------------------------------------
Tille
PAGE 5 of I) Y~\WP\ASE\SErrLEMENT\VESTING SEDLEMENT AGREEMENTS\120406\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 120606 FINALDOC
11. AUTIIORITY TO EXECUTE. Each ofthe parties and their representatives executing this Agreement represent and
warrant that they arc authorized to execute this Agreement, on their own behalf and on behalf of their members, predecessors,
successors, affiliated entities, agents and assigns.
EXECUTED as oflhe day and year fIrst above written.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TRANS WESTERN HARVEST LAKESHORE
By -M"a-.-'.--------------------------------
TIde
Name l 'Yi CI C9 Ct _rz=t'd --....; \:""" LJI ! \..-.r
• \ :;:::& TiJle ~ -
BRAD NICHOLSON
By ~~--------__ ================= -Name
WESTFIELD
By~-----------------------Nanre ____________________________________ __
Titl.
PAGE 5 of II Y:\WP\ASffiSEITLEMENTWESTING SETTLEMENT AOREEMENTS\I20406\ASETARGET SETTLEMENT 120606 FINAL.DOC
--
11. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE. Each of the parties and their representatives executing this Agreement represent and
warrant that they are authorized to execute this Agreement, on their own behalf and on behalfortheir members, predecessors,
successors, amliated entities, agents and assigns.
EXECUTED as of the day and year first above written.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TRANSWESTERN HARVEST LAKESHORE By
~Na-'-lIe--------------------------------
Tille
ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END
I:ly
~------------------------------Name
Tille -----------------
~ ~.-z.«' < ---'--<
ollie &AD LLh.o I <;on
WESTFIELD
By~~------------------========= Name ________________ -====
Tille
PAGE 5 0 f 1 1 V:\WP\ASE\sETTLEMENTWEST1NG SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS\12Q406\ASE T AROET SETTLEMENT 12U606 FINALDOC
-
• .----
II. AUTIIORITY TO EXECUTE. Eaeh oflhe parties and their representatives executing this Agreement represent and
warrant thallhcy arc authorized to execute this Agrccmcnl. on their own behalf and on bchalfoflhcir members, predecessors,
successors, affiliated enlities. agents and assigns.
EXECUTE[) as orthe day and year firsl above wrillen_
TRANS WESTERN HARVEST LAKESHORE
By
~M~a-m-e-----------------------------
Tille -----------------------
ALLIANCE FOR SOUTH END
By
-Nua~"~"----------------------------------
Tille
BRAD NICHOLSON
By
-MM.a=n= .. -------------------------------
vJU, SOUTliLE.vKA. ~
{\,',;\ WESTFlI;LD A-<"'O-M L.;;Mr::<!iA. • ~rhf'
I!\ ~ Vf ,rra.IA:t1 ,.1-v_A p{.-;j , tA-'-
Name ~ !',-UkJ<V=1 C
Till. ~~. ~x t..!'3-i: p.Jtfll:'S~Nr
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 5 or II Y;\WPV\SE\sETTLEMENnVESTING SETTl£MENT I\GREEMENTS\12{)40(1'u\SF.T"RG~'" SETTLEMENT 121]('06 FINAL.DOC
• -"",._-•
TARG/ET CO~=m:
By ,llz-~-" N~me ~
11 I MBre-Stetldm8nn------
" e Via;. P/:9siQoot-t _____ _
CITY OF RENTON
Talf}et Corporation
By~ ___________________________ __
Name ___________________ _
Tille
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 6 of 11 y,IIVI'IASElSETTlE.,ENTIVESTINO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTSII~O'06IA-'E TARGET SETTLEMENT 110506 RNAl.DOC
••
TARGET CORPORATION
By~~ __________________________ __
Name ____________________________________ __
Title
CITY OF RENTON
By ~t!f;!!:::: J
Title Mayor
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 6 of] 1 Y~\WP\ASE\SETILEMEmWESTING SETTLEMENT AOREEMENTS\1204C16\ASETAROET SETTLEMENT 120606FINALDOC
EXHIDITA
LEGAL DESCIUPTION OF LANDING PROJECT
Lot 2A and Lot 3A of Boeing Lakeshore Landing Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-06-004, recorded May 10,2006 under Recording
No.2006U510900003;
Together with Lot lA and Lot 4A Boeing Lakeshore Landing Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-06-057-LLA, recorded August 8,2006
under Recording No. 2006080890000 I;
Situate in the County of King, State of Washington.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 7 of II Y:\WP\ASE\SETTLEMENnVESTrNG SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT$\12041.16\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 120606 FINhL.OOC
-
• -
EXHIDITB
LANDING SITE PLAN
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
\ , ,
\
...
~
C.ALLISON
,
...
\ , ,
"'-~'::'
. ~': i .•.. · .. · .. ·:.:.:.: .. J .·.:,:': .•. ':".:~.'.:':.' .... ' , .. .. "" ',:"'"" ..
'; !'; :--~; .-:
'::'-"';-'-,:, .:
.. RETAil. ~ORS
III RET'-'IL SHOPS
• fHEAIRE
.. I"AftKINO $TnUC:TU"C
.;~"
PAGE 8 0 r I I Y:\WP\ASE\SETILEMENTWESTING SEITLEMENT AGREEMENTS\120406\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 110606 FINAL.DOC
--
--
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT
--
EXHIBITC
QUADRANT C SITE PLAN
15 1 _----;' ---,\ ;--;-:-~j. --~-..---.
" i i _ .... -I"I!' __ :;.;"';:':'~. \
) i _---~1" ~ _.~::f'r·~· cI.t.., ... r-,) .~-.... ! .. I :-x ...... j .... '"~ .,', \ --"~, \ ----, ..... --::f.J _. ,::~ "-\~; • ~.. ,.;-...... "<l...""i:JJ;;.>'.~ ~-\f' ", -\\ \.
=~~\ -'~;;;:?"~;\\". -:f. ~. .'{\. :0.;; 'Co? "\t. \.
, I Q \.. 1 .... _ .\." .' ~ ~I" :;. ~. ' JI) -= 'Il ~ ~l'l(. n'. '~.-. "" . .jl", '-' . .;... (I),., ':...~ -! ........ ""' • ...-"':...--;"""'...;;. b [~'. ,i.'r ~! .:.~ ='''' \ -'I ~ l'~'l-J~ ,.".""{,. ~\ ~,> ,,".-~\ \
oe ,q 0: ~ ."-,\-• r~ 1',..-.. \.,.
" I ,}wi \ \. ,\.,;::.:" ': I. . ... j I.,: \ j, ~ f: ,1_ L '" . ". '''''. " ... \, ,'" _, \\ \ U.I>: I I. !l r-l..1 . r. (, -" . :-? . 'I} ..... _
\ ,!" "" '~; \\ ,\~ 2? ''\ \i' ~,:>~~1, / --'II Ii ~[-'\ ' '.'" ~,t ',-", 1, '-". ""',, "I' II \ ~, 6:' f', l~\\.~ ('-=1 ,}' __ ;7," 11 \ " J. >1 \ '.\ --~; }:. 0-.i~;~-=-__ .. __ --=---,/ , __ 1 il, \ I I ~ \ ' ~? -' -_r-----,______ _ ~ I .~ .... 1 .. _ , ~ -"' " .. ,,,,--------t __ ~. !
\ 'J.' :~. 'I j ; ( ']-.~' lll,~ 1!',~ !~.:!. :~ I 11 II !.It~.!.<OCfI ~,!!O I) I! 'I -i /\1''' ;c... ; .' ~' I t: Ji ~I-~'iL. J I .,J ~;~~:~,,-r\Lg"~,,_,c~~,--I 1\ =ti-
-\ ('--,--_._--.------.... /-
~I i .~--
PAGE 9 of II Y:\WP\ASE\sETTLEMENT\VESTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS\120406\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT Il0606 FINAL-DOC
---
EXHIBlTD
THE VESTED DEVELOPMENTS
l -~, _0 I,
.,..--""---r.·f1£t. _--.'~'''y,.\ '
.$>""_-•• ' ;~"., ._.:.:::~:.:1\, -~ -, '.\ \ ~_--!II")o" .....,..-:-;~.:7"-.-) ~ _-? r':,\,\ "
1 :;::I':j6.,,-,>-" a .;:>. \' ~~ \j ~_ l~-::I • _ .:\ \
_ r~'-'-----t" _" c,-:'II -, -, \'1 ' ;! . \~-.. to-~ \ \ " ,:~ t:.\,\ \
11' 103 \\ ", " ~\?..--.,~ --.... }\ \ g --~ ,-' '\ ' ... -, ~ 1 ---";'".::::':'. -~::, r::::.:"l -~ l'f" \ ;.-.~.-.y'.. \\
II' ~.. '" \ - \ \ -l;"'--Y ~ 1104 f f '9 \\ ..,.., \'0 ~>'\ .. \ \ ~ ! _ InJ=-~_oS~:~\ jc: C"~<'~\:1c c <;\ \
: ! _ 0 \'" \ 1,-:1 r.-; ~'P ".J. "\ }
UlililiL'S Ii.lr all ofOuadrunl C
I.":\t:l:pt lllilit:-, l:tlllll"ctilln~ ltl
lluiltlings lUI & 1U2 ili':
nllls;tk'r~d P;II"I oflhC'
'1 '[ ~\ II \ )\, ... , '-'" \\. c.'" . ,',,',
, . _ "\ ' .. , "., I' '.'" -.:\\ f
I \',; 2~~":,? \"l~~~'-'\ ,\\~ ~/\\ \, _"
r ", ~ .... __ ~"'\ .......... -~\ t t fU:,s-luatt:lnng 111 purklllg nn;d.."i ~ t~---:;_. / 1 \ Il i,s not in~nd~ 111 pn.:ludc
VL'Stl."ll Dc:\"clnl)llll:nls.
I /. 1.' lire mSmllaUlQlllll.'l.Irn sKJcw(llk. i ~ ; ... ,/,:: 1 00 ~! ur lilIul.t;c;,ping inlhuS!! 1lre'.J.'i..
I ~ I ! ;//,-i J ,i.~. Ii! 11 [ ~ hd .. lcd ""''' I'e""" t . \ ~ lh:n~"If'IIIdIl!O
'IT t; : ... ----',~."" .... 'w£' J '., __ _
.,-
SETILEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 10 of II Y:\WP\ASE\sETTLEMENnVESTING SETTLEMENT AGIlEEMENTS\I20406\ASETARGET SEITLEMENT 120606 FlNAL.OOC
tit
• •. __ ....
EXHIBITE
STIPULATION AND ORDER
[PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK; SEE AlTACHED STIPULATION AND ORDER]
SElTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE II of II Y:\WP\I\SE\SETTLEMENTWESTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS\120406\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 120606 FINAL DOC
•
.,
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
811 In the Maner of the Appeals of )
)
911 All iance for South End (AS E) re: )
)
10 If The Director's Administrative Decision )
Designating The Landing Master Plan )
I I If Application a Planned Action )
)
12 II The Director's Master Site Plan Approval )
) 1311 --------------)
Alliance for South End CASE) and )
1411 Brad Nicholson re: )
)
15 II The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval)
and Interpretation/Policy Decision )
1611 )
NO. LUA-05-136, SA-A, SM
NO. LUA-05-136, SA-M
NO. LUA-06-071, SA-A
STIPULATION AND ORDER
17
18
I. RECITALS
1. Applicant Harvest Partners has applied for approvals related to a mixed-use
19/1 commercial and residential project known as The Landing, which includes retail, office,
20 entertainment, restaurant, hotel-and residential uses with associated parking on approximately 47
2 I acres of land within the City of Renton, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A, which is
22 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("The Landing Project"). The Site Plan for
23 II The Landing Project contains Quadrants A, B, and C, as depicted on Exhibit B, which is attached
2411 hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
25 2. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation ("Target"), has applied for a building
26 II pennit to construct a retail store in Quadrant C of I.he Landing Project, which is depicted as Building
STIPULATION - I
Y:\WP\ASE\sETILEMEN1WESTING ScliLEMENT AGREEMENTS\l2Q4DG\ASE TARGET
STIPULATION 120406 fINAL.DOC
Buck 0 Gord on ccp
2025 Fiq;t AV81"1ue. SUite SOO
58i5[1.1., WA 96121
(206)la2·9540 'I
100 on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference (the
211 "Quadrant C Site Plan"). Target's plans include construction of a principal use store, roads,
3 II driveways, access ways, milities, street improvements, drive aisles, parking, and loading as may be
411 required in Target's reasonable discretion to construct, occupy and operate its retail store
511 (collectively referred to herein as "Target's Landing Project"), all as shown on Exhibit D, which is
611 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
7 3. Harvest Partners has applied for building permits to construct additional retail
811 structures in Quadrant C, including Buildings 103 and 104 as depicted on the Qtladrant C Site Plan.
9 4. Target's Landing Project and Buildings 103 and 104 are collectively referred to herein
10" as the "Vested Developments" and are shown on Exhibit D hereto.
1 I 5. All of the parties hereto have entered into a separate settlement agreement of even
1211 date herewith ("Settlement Agreement") related to the Vested Developments.
13
14
15
6. The above entitled causes have the potential to affect the Vested Developments and
the parties want to avoid any such effect.
7. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the parties desire to enter this
16 II stipulation related to the above entitled causes.
17 n. STIPULATION
18 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their
1911 counsel of record, that:
20
21
22
?" _0
24
25
26
I. The above entitled causes and allegations therein do not pertain to and shall have no
effect upon the Vested Developments. The Vested Developments are hereby deemed vested as of the
•
date of filing of their respective building permit applications, and may proceed with the building
permit process and, thereafter, to construction, occupancy and operation regardless of the oLltcome of
the above entitled causes; and
2. ASE and Nicholson reserve all of [heir claims as to all portions of The Landing
Project other than the Vested Developments, including withoullimitalion Buildings 101 and 102 as
STIPULATION - 2
Y:IWI'IASEISE1TLEMENTlVESTING SIo-nLEMENT AGREEMENTS\12D<06'ASE TARGET
STIPULA1'ION 1"0406 FINALDOC
Buck ~ Gordon u.p
20:25 First A ... enu •. SUI\~ 500
Seilttle, WA 9a 121
1206) 382·9540
•
•
'I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
depicted on the Quadrant C Site Plan and Quadrants A, B, and D, The Parties all agree that the
Settlement Agreement and this Stipulation and Order shall not preclude or diminish any of the
parties' claims, defenses or arguments in any current or future appeals of the remaining portions of
The Landing Project and no party shall assert any position to the contrary,
/ -cz:;..
DATED this (p day of December, 2006
CITY OF RENTON
/~q\ '7f~ "1' .
.By Jc,~' .~
( . ~~~ L. Fontes, WSBA #9604
'v'stant City Attorney
BUCK & GORDON, LLP
By (SEE ATTACHED)
Peter S. Buck, WSBA #5060
Attorneys for Petitioners
Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End
(ASE)
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P,S,
By . (C'EE A'l'TACHEDl
Jerome L, Hillis, WSBA #1704
T. Ryan Durkan, WSBA #11805
Karen D, Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners
[REMAINDER OF PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
STIPULATION - 3
y,l WPlASElSETILEMEN1IVESTING SETT~EMENT AGREEMENTS\ 12M06\ASE TAROET
STlPULATlON 120406 FINALDOC
BuckG!oGordon L~P
2025 First A".nu .. , Suite SOO
Seattle. WA 9S'Z1
1206) 362-95.:;0 •
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?' -)
24
25
26
depicted on the Quadrant C Site Plan and Quadrants A, B, and D. The Parties all agree that the
Settlement Agreement and this Stipulation and Order shall not preclude or diminish any of the
parties' claims, defenses or arguments in any current or future appeals of the remaining portions of
The Landing Project and nCl.party shall assert any position to the contrary.
DA TED this rl;Of December, 2006
STIPULATION - 3
CITY OF RENTON
By (SEE ATTACHED)
Zanetta L. Fontes, WSBA #9604
Assistant City Attorney
BUCK & GORD6:Jtp '/
,Ihfibu #'
By t }\~J .
Peter .Bu~k, WSBA #5060 --
Attorneys for Petitioners
Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End
CASE)
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S.
By (SEE ATTACHED)
Jerome L. Hillis, WSBA # 1704
. T. Ryan Durken, WSBA #11805
Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners
[REMAINDER OF PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
Buck ~ GOI"don LLP
Y:IWPIASElSETILEMENTlVESTING SETILEMENT AGRESMENTSII20406IASE TARGET
20,S Flrs\ A\le,.,ue. Suil!!' SOO
Seattle. WA 9B121
12061l82-954Q STIPULATION 120406 FINAL.DOC
•
,
•
depicted on the Quadrant C Site Plan and Quadrants A, B, and D. The Parties all agree that the
2 Settlement Agreement and this Stipulation and Order shall not preclude or diminish any of the
3 parties' claims, defenses or arguments in any current or future appeals of the remaining portions of
4 The Landing Project and no party shall assert any position to the contrary.
5
611 DATED this __ day of December, 2006
7 II CITY OF RENTON
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?' -~
24
25
26
By (SEE ATTACHED)
Zanetta L. Fontes, WSBA #9604
Assistant City Attorney
BUCK & GORDON, LLP
Bv (SEE ATTACHED)
" Peter S. Buck, WSBA #5060
Attorneys for Petitioners
Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End
(ASE)
HILLIS CLARK MARTJN & PETERSON, P.S.
By U'r \
Jerome L. iIlis WSBA 1704
T. Ryan Durk , WSBA #11805
Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant Harvest Partners
[REMAINDER OF PAGE IS rNTENTIONALLY BLANK]
STIPULATION - 3
Y:\WPIASE'SEn"LEMENTlVESTING Srrr~EMENT AGREEMENTSlll0406\ASE.TARGET
STlrU~ATloN 120406 FINAL. DOC
Buck Cl Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
SaanJtI, WA 981Z1
(206) 352·95·10
•
III. ORDER
JAN 1 9 2007
BUCK & C:,,);.:,cL,
2 II Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:
3 1. The above entitled causes and allegations therein do not pertain to and shall have no
411 effect upon the Vested Developments. The Vested Developments are hereby deemed vested as of the
5 II date of filing of their respective building permit applications, and may proceed with the building
611 permit process and, thereafter, to construction, occupancy and operation regardless of the outcome of
7 the above entitled causes.
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2. ASE and Nicholson reserve all of their claims as to all portions of The Landing
Project other than the Vested Developments, including without limitation Buildings 101 and 102 as
depicted on the Quadrant C Site Plan and Quadrants A, B, and D. The Settlement Agreement and
this Stipulation and Order shall not preclude or diminish any of the parties' claims, defenses or
arguments in any current or future appeals of the remaining portions of The Landing Project and no
party shall assert any position to the contrary.
-4(/ ... \-rb ~D(il ..... \, \
DONE this ~ day 0 ~ ~Qg&:
w
City of Rento
STIPULATION - 4
Y;IWPIASElSEITLEMEN1WBSTING SEITLEMENT AGREEMENTSI120'06IASE TARGET
STIPULATION 120406 FINAL.DDC
'i..-
Bucke Gordon llP
2025 FirSt Avenue, Suile 500
Seanl., WA96121
£20o} 382-9S40
I
•
I ,
'I
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCR[PTlON OF LANDING PROJECT
Lot 2A and Lot 3A of Boeing Lakeshore Landing Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-06-004, recorded May 10,2006 under Recording
No. 20060510900003;
Together with Lot lA and Lot 4A Boeing Lakeshore Landing Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-06-057-LLA, recorded August 8,2006
under Recording No. 20060808900001;
Situate in the County of King, State of Washington.
y \WP\ASE\5ETTLEJ,.'Et.'TWESTlNG SETTLElL1arT A{iItEEA1EN'T511 !CI_\snrULA nON ANO ORnER E"lIlDITS DOC
• . ...... _--, .. ,,''''''-',_ •.. , .-_._-•
•
•
o
z
•
•
•
,
)
•
i.
, U
.:.; i ,i
~. I : 'f!
I~"?C f
..... -.-----
.----\ ~
c .'
• ,'I'
I
... [ 0
0
~--.-
THE LANDING: SUMMARY OF SITE PLAN APPROVALS
SITE PLAN
• Site Plan Review Package submittal-July 21, 2006 ("Site Plan")
• City Approval of Site Plan -August 17,2006 ("Site Plan Decision")
UPDATE A
• Update A submittal-Dec. 29, 2006 and March 2, 2007 ("Update A")
• Update A details: Reconfiguration and change in building design for the senes
buildings; building 400 now abuts Park; Entertainment Boulevard now connects to North
8th via pedestrian-walkway only.
• City Approval of Update A -March 13, 2007 ("Update A Decision")
• Per stipulation of parties, Update A to be included in March 27 hearing.
UPDATE B
• Update B submittal-March 13, 2007 ("Update B")
• Update B details: Revisions to parking garage building (Building 30 I).
• City Approval of Update B -March 19,2007
• Per stipulation of parties, Update B to be included in March 27 hearing.
UPDATEC
• Update C submittal -Feb. 5, 2007 ("Update C")
• Update C details: Increase in size of Building 201 (formerly 104) and decrease in size of
Building 203 (formerly 108); change to parking and service areas around Buildings 20 I,
203, and 202 (formerly 105).
• City Approval of Update C-Feb. 8,2007 and Feb. 15,2007
• No appeals filed of Update C approval
• Per stipulation of parties, Update C to be included in March 27 hearing.
UPDATE D
• Update D submittal-Feb. 13,2007 ("Update D")
• Update D details: Increase in size of Building 102 (formerly 202); change in building
fayades for Buildings 102 and 101 (formerly 201). More significant entry feature added to
north fayade of Buildings 101 and 102.
• City Approval of Update D -March 7, 2007
• No appeals filed of Update D approval
• Per stipulation of parties, Update D to be included in March 27 hearing.
Comprehensive Plan
CITY OF RENTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Page 1 of 1
Renton's Comprehensive Plan, adopted November 1, 2004, as part of the required 2004 Growth Management
update, is available in PDF format below.
If you prefer a hard copy, irs available through the Finance Office, 1 st Floor, Renton City Hall for $55.00 or you
can order one by calling 425.430.6575 (plus $5 for postage). You can also purchase a CD for $10.00.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planning Process [78 KBJ
Introduction [18 KB[
Vision [27 KBJ
Capital Facilities. [6.25 MBJ
Community Design [82 KBJ
Economic Development [64 KB]
Environmental Policies [109 KBJ
Housing [140 KBJ
Human Services [47 KB]
Land Use {3.05 MB]
Parks [68 KBJ
Transportation [6.42 MBJ
Utility Services [8.26 MB]
Glossary [70 KB]
SUPPLEMENTS, approved December 12,2005
Instructions [28 KBJ
Introduction·[108 KB[
Vision [27 KB]
Land Use [4.95 MB]
Utilities [4.43 MBJ
Glossary [73 KBJ
If you have any questions about the Comprehensive Plan Update or development regulations, please call 425-
430-6575.
[Economic Development. Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Home Page]
'R~ home page
http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/compplan.htm 8128/2006
~l
!
City of Renton
Comprehensive Plan
Supplement No. I
12112105
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Looseleaf Supplement
This Supplement is a reprint of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, adopted November I, 2004
as amended. The enclosed revisions reflect the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, approved
December 12, 2005.
Insert the amended pages. You may wish to maintain this instruction sheet and the removed pages for
future reference.
Remove old pages
The Planning Process
Pages i-I through i-lO
1. Introduction"
Page I-I
II. Vision"
Pages II-I through II-3
IX. Land Use Element"
Pages IX-I through IX-76
XII. Utilities Element"
Pages XII-I through XIT-46
Xill. Glossary'
Pages XITI-I through Xill-12
*Chapters are removed and replaced in its entirety.
Supplementl.doc\
Insert new pages
I. Introduction*
PagesI-1 through 1-16
II. Vision"
Pages II-I through II-3
IX. Land Use Element"
Pages IX-I through IX -70
XII. Utilities Element'
Pages XII-I through XII-39
Xill. Glossary"
Pages Xill-l through XITI-13
Strategic Planning
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
(425) 430-6575
Amended 12112105
CITY OF RENTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
INTRODUCTION
It is the City of Renton's primary responsibility to provide public services and facilities,
develop policies, and adopt regulations that ensure the public health, safety, and welfare
of its citizens. The City government is also charged with directing the growth of the City
so that quality of life of the community and opportunities for its citizens remain high.
The guide for Renton's growth and development is the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act
The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is in compliance with the Washington
State Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA). The GMA requires cities and counties
in rapidly growing areas to adopt Comprehensive Plans that include policy direction for
land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, and transportation. All parts of the Plan
must be consistent with each other and with adopted statewide, regional, and countywide
planning goals.
Statewide planning goals include provisions that discourage urban sprawl, support
affordable housing, protect the environment, and support provision of adequate urban
services. In addition to these requirements, plans must be designed to accommodate 20-
year growth forecasts, determined by regional agencies and local jurisdictions, within
well-defined ''urban growth areas."
Regional or countywide planning has defined "urban centers" in locations where
concentrations of people and uses that can be served by transit are desirable. Cities and
counties have worked cooperatively to identify where the provision of urban services
may be appropriate (the Urban Growth Areas), and where rural levels of service,
agriculture and low-density population and low intensity uses will be situated (Rural
Areas). Regional policy provides for "urban separators" between and within urban areas
to define and shape communities, to protect significant environmentally constrained
lands, and provide urban open space.
The Plan is a broad statement of community goals, objectives, and policies that directs
the orderly and coordinated physical development of the City. Renton's Plan anticipates
change and provides specific guidance for future legislative and administrative actions. It
is the result of citizen involvement, technical analysis, and the creativity and experience
of decision-makers in City government.
The vision, goals, objectives, policies, and maps of the Plan provide the foundation for
the regulations, programs, and services that implement the Plan. The Plan serves as a
guide for designating land uses, infrastructure development, and community services.
The Plan is designed to be a functional document that guides Renton's future
development and fulfills the City's regional responsibilities toward state-mandated
growth management.
j·1
Amended 12/12105
The Plan contains background infonnation on Renton's history and profile, citywide
trends, and local and regional growth projections.
The Plan summarizes a Vision for Renton that has been 'endorsed by the commurtity. The
chapters or "Elements" of the Plan contain goals, objectives, and policies that further the
evolution of the City toward attaining that Vision.
The Comprehensive Plan includes the following State mandated "Elements":
• Capital Facilities
• Housing
• Land Use
• Transportation
• Utilities
Renton also includes the following Optional Elements:
• Commurtity Design
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
• Human Services
Sub-Area Plans and Neighborhoods
The Comprehensive Plan is a citywide document that provides policy guidance based on
specified issues, topics, and land use designations. The many neighborhoods within the
City are not differentiated except for the South Renton portion of the Urban Center-
Downtown. The Plan includes a sub-area plan for the South Renton area, adopted by the
City Council in 2002. A sub-area plan for the Highlands area is currently under
development with adoption anticipated in 2006. The Cedar River Corridor sub-area is
prioritized for consideration of a sub-area plan in the 2006 work program. The sub-area
plans provide a focused vision for the geographical area, additional policy direction on
land use, capital improvements including transportation, and utilities. They also inclnde
prototypical redevelopment and concepts for housing and street improvements.
\-2
Amended 12112/05
The Planning Process
Renton residents, business owners, and City staff work together to shape the future of the
community through the ongoing development of the Plan. The planning process provides
an opportunity for individual citizens to contribute to this effort by attending community
meetings to identify, study, and resolve issues of concern or by serving on committees,
task forces, boards, or commissions that function as citizen advisors to the City Council
(Council).
Because public input is vital to effective planning, community groups, businesses, and
individuals are invited and encouraged to work with City staff to identify and achieve
community goals. The following principles should guide the planning process:
• Encourage and facilitate public participation in all phases of the planning process.
• Work to ensure that the planning process is accessible to all citizens, that it is
consistent, timely, and can be widely understood by all potential participants.
• Base land use decisions on the interests of the entire community and the goals and
policies of the Plan.
• Demonstrate that proposed land use change responds to the interests and needs of
the entire City and the neighborhoods directly impacted by the project, as well as
the property owner and the project proponent.
• Balance the interests of commercial and residential communities when
considering modificatious to zoning or development regulations.
• Encourage and emphasize open communication between developers and
neighbors about land use issues.
• Strive for compatibility ofland use within the City.
The primary responsibility for formulating the Plan rests with the Planning Commission
(Commission). The Commission is a committee of citizen volunteers, appointed by the
Mayor, to make recommendations to the Council for land use policy changes to the Plan.
Before making a recommendation, the Commission conducts public hearings on behalf of
the Council. The Commission weighs information and comments presented by individual
citizens and community organizations as it prepares Plan revision recommendations to
the Council.
The Council makes the final planning decisions. The Council is responsible for initiating
plan reviews, considering Commission recommendations, and adopting amendments to
the Plan. To implement the Plan, the Council is also responsible for adopting the City
budget, regulations and programs, levying taxes, and making appropriations.
1·3
Amended 12112/05
Changing the Comprehensive Plan
Because the City is constantly evolving, it may be occasionally necessary to make
revisions to the Plan. These changes are in the form of amendments to the Plan. The
Council considers amendments to the Plan, based on recommendations made by the
Commission, once a year (unless in the case of an emergency). The Mayor, Council,
Commission, or private parties may submit proposed amendments.
Implementing the Comprehensive Plan
After adoption of the Plan, the next step toward realizing the City's Vision is
implementation. The Plan is implemented through a variety of programs and functional
systems plans including water and sewer plan, parks, recreation and trails plan, transit
and transportation corridor studies, human services programs, the City's housing repair
program, and the Capital Improvement Plan. The City's subdivision and zoning
regulations also implement the plan. Figure I illustrates the Comprehensive Plan
Elements and implementing plans and programs.
'-, ..... "..~-
PIan'01·'Q6
"'""' """" ......... -' ..... ........ --'"""""""'" ,.,." --._ ....
"'" ---
""'""" , ....
"~ ......... ... ""'" Fadh ... PI., "-Capllal FadIIMs .... --CapitalF ....... "-... """,
FadI1l_PIs>
Figure 1
Proposed
GMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND IMPLEMENTATING PLANSIREGULAll0NS
....... ---"'--..... -
1
..-....... ....... t-=
r:so.,....,PI:\1
MayCt_Sasm ....
"'"
~narl
~ .... ,o;;""i
~RllgulaI1On',
WFlIA Plans
r"':\ ~I
I
i.
Hc"';ng 'I "-" .. =
1-4
AirpanL.andlJ. ---'---......--p ..... ~, ._-........ -'-0., ..... -"''''",...." ....
T .... ~PIan ..,., ,... _.
.....-...... ........ .. _----...-""" ......
... ",
Airpar ...... PI .. ------""w_ -"'" .,,-'--'""""",d ........ --w_ ........ ...
.surta.c..w",_ -........
---------....
Amended 12112105
CITY OF RENTON BACKGROUND
Location and Physical Setting
Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington on the edge of metropolitan and
rural King County. Renton covers more than 17 square miles of land and is bordered by
King County, Kent, Tukwila, Newcastle, and Bellevue with Seattle nearby.
Its location, approximately equidistant from the central business districts of Seattle and
Bellevue and within proximity to Tacoma, places Renton in the center of a region that is
the economic hub of the Northwest The City is at the crossroads of a regional
transportation network where seven state and federal highways converge and is central to
regional, national, and international air traveL
The natural features that define the edges of the City and its neighborhoods include the
lake, hills, plateaus, stream corridors, and river Valleys. While development over time
has changed the appearance of the community, the natural features have generally
remained constant.
Abundant, green wooded areas characterize the hillsides encircling the downtown and
along the Cedar River, May and Honey Creeks. The topography and location of the City
afford beautiful views of a variety of significant natural features including Mt. Rainier,
Lake Washington, and the Olympic and Cascade Mountains.
Renton's residential areas have traditionally been organized around schools, parks, and
other institutions. Both new and existing neighborhoods offer diverse housing stock that
is wide-ranging in unit size, style, type, and price. Although it is one of the older cities
within the region, Renton still has vacant and underused land in many neighborhoods,
including the downtown, that offer an opportunity for growth.
Renton's Past
Duwamish Native Americans were the earliest known people to live in what is now
Renton. The Duwamish had their village near the confluence of Lake Washington, the
Cedar and Black Rivers, at the base of Earlington HilL
In 1853, east coast entrepreneur Hemy Tobin arrived, and recognizing the advantages of
the physical location, laid claim to the area near where the Cedar entered the Black River.
Being at the confluence of two rivers near a large lake was thought to be ideal for siting a
future city for industrial and commercial growth, with the opportunity for navigable
transportation nearby. Officers of the Renton Coal Company formally established the
City of Renton in 1875 with the filing of a plat. That plat included what is now the
downtown core. 1
Early industries and businesses included coal mining, lumber harvesting, brick making,
and rail and freight transportation. Earl y grocery stores and other family-run stores were
located in what is presently downtown Renton. Both the Walla Walla Railroad and the
\·5
Amended 12112/05
Puget Sound Electric Railway linked the downtown core to other communities. In its
early days, Renton had many businesses including banking and drug, hardware, junk,
grocery, clothing, and home furnishings stores. In 1901, upon incorporation, the City had
a total area of one square mile. Since then, incremental annexations have increased the
size of the City to encompass approximately 17.3 square miles.
Employment in Renton was dominated by industry from when the City was first settled in
the mid 1800's. Because of the nearby forests and proximity to water for transport, the
fIrst local industry was timber harvesting and processing. Beginning in the 1870's and
continuing through the 1940's, Renton was known for its coal mining and brick making
operations. Other industries included production and transport of lumber, and the supply
of steel, pig iron, and equipment to railroad companies. During this period, the City
established itself as an important industrial center.
The identifIcation by the US Navy of Renton's location on Lake Washington as ideal for
production of a "flying boat," prior to the nation's entry into World War II, was a
signifIcant turning point in the history of the City. Only one was actually produced, but
that project led to what became the home of future aircraft that changed the aviation
industry.
The Navy transferred the land to the US Army and The Boeing Company Renton Plant
subsequently produced the B-29 high-altitude bomber for the Army Air Corps.
Renton has also been the location of PacifIc Car and Foundry (PACCAR) since the
beginning of the twentieth century. During World War II, PACCAR transitioned from
building railroad cars to Sherman tanks.
The Boeing Company's manufacturing and assembly plant at the south end of Lake
Washington dramatically influenced the City's future. Rapid growth of The Boeing
Company and PACCAR accelerated the City's rise as a regional industrial and
employment center. In the decade from 1940-1950, Renton was transformed from a
small town of 4,500 to a thriving city with a population of 16,039.
With the shift away from rail, toward automobile and truck transportation in the 1940s
and 1950's, a new type of regional transportation hub was created in Renton. Two major
freeways (Interstate 405 and SR 167) and three State highways (SR 900, 515, and 169)
augmented and replaced the rail system. This road system was developed to provide a
regional network allowing access around Lake Washington to serve the Renton industrial
area. During this period, the transportation demand shifted from exporting raw materials
to importing a major work force.
The industrial employment centers developed at the same locations formerly occupied by
extractive industries--perhaps in part because the transportation network to serve these
sites was already well established. This became important because the industrial area
remained in the heart of the City and was served by a transportation network that
converged on the downtown area.
Amended 12112105
As the twenty-fust century begins, Renton is again experiencing transition of its
downtown industrial area, as the Boeing Renton Plant within Renton's Urban Center
becomes available for redevelopment as mixed-use residential, retail/commercial, office,
and light industrial uses. Once again, the transportation network will further the
transition.
Community Protue
Renton has grown from a single square mile on the shore of the lake, to over 17 square
miles spread across the Cedar and Green River Valley floors and onto the adjacent hills.
Once separated by rural areas and open space, Renton and its neighbor cities are growing
together and have become part of the larger Puget Sound metropolitan region.
Incorporated in 1901, Renton is fifth oldest of King County's 39 cities and ranks fifth in
the County in population size.2 Renton is the fourteenth most populous city in the state3
and King County is the seventeenth most populous county in the nation?
The 2000 U.S. Census indicated that Renton had a population increase over the previous
ten years of more than 20 percent. Only 1.5 percent of the increase is attributable to
annexations. An increase in population of almost 10 percent between 2000 and 2003
indicates that Renton has become one of the fastest growing cities in King County.3
Renton is currently home to 54,900 people: In Renton, the largest age group of the
population are people of working age (18 to 64 years) at 34,016, five to seventeen year-
olds number 7,392, those sixty-five and over number 5,123, and 3,521 are under five. 2
The median age is 35.7 years.
As the popUlation of the City grows, it also becomes more diverse. The 2000 census
indicated that 68 percent of the population considers itself as white, a change from 84
percent from the previous census. Both the AsianlPacific Islander and HispanicJLatino
populations more than doubled during the 1990s and the number of Hispanic students in
Renton schools increased by 379 percent.3
An additional 63,600 people live in the unincorporated area surrounding the City in the
Fairwood area (40,600), on West HilllBryn Mawr/Skyway (14,300), and on the East
Plateau (8,700):
The median household income in 1990 of $32,393 increased almost 30 percent by 2000
to $45,8202. The average wealth of Renton households is $226,395.5 Approximately 8.5
percent of the working age population (18 to 64) lives below the poverty level 2 . The
assessed value of Renton's land area (in thousands of dollars) is 6,272,632.6
Almost 52,000 people work for 2,312 employers5 and at 1,517 businesses in Renton.
These jobs are divided into sectors by type. Manufacturing, with almost 21,000 jobs,
remains Renton's largest sector. This indicates that The Boeing Company and PACCAR
remain major players in the local and regional economy. The next most significant
sector, with 11,413 employees, is the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and other Services
sector.2
[·7
Amended 12112105
Additional information summarizing Renton population and household characteristics is
available in the document 'The Changing Face of Renton" prepared by the City Human
Services Division of the Community Services Department. This document summarizes
the 2000 Census data for the population within Renton's year 2000 city boundaries and is
available on the City's website at www.ci.renton.wa.us. Additional information about
populations in the unincorporated areas surrounding the City is available from the King
County Annual Growth Report available on the County website at www.metrokc.gov.
TRENDS
Renton, historically, has been a small town and in many ways it still resembles a small
city. But several factors place it on the threshold of change: the continuing transition of
Renton's industrial sector; regional population growth; and its location at the crossroads
of local, national, and international transportation. These factors foreshadow a new role
for Renton as an important metropolitan center in the region.
Renton, along with the rest of the Northwest, has been experiencing an increase in
professional and service jobs over the past few years. Boeing's related research and
development facilities in and around Renton were a major factor in the development of
office parks south of the downtown and at the north end of the Green River Valley. At
the same time, there has been increased demand for goods and services as evidenced by
the number and types of commercial businesses in the City.
Vacant land remains scattered throughout Renton, but as infill development continues,
land will become an increasingly scarce resource. Some vacant land, located outside of
the Urban Center, may be environmentally sensitive and not suitable for full
development. As annexations occur, more undeveloped land will become available. In
2005, there are approximately 975 acres of vacant and developable land within the City
of Renton. Of this, the largest blocks of vacant land are generally found in Renton's
outlying areas. Smaller parcels that are available for development can be found in the
City's existing neighborhoods. {Note: For a discussion o/trends in residential land use,
see the Housing Element o/this Plan]
The challenge for Renton is to manage growth in a manner that maintains the desirable
features of the City while being flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities for
change.
Urban Center
As the twentieth century closed, development occurring outside of the City affected the
character of Renton. Regional shopping centers competing with Renton's downtown
retail core resulted in a shift in marketable goods in the downtown from general
merchandise to specialty items. In response, several significant developments were made
to begin the transition from a stagnant small town core to a new urban center. City-
initiated redevelopment of the Piazza area, including a central park, multi-story public
parking garage, a transit center, and performing arts center enhanced several privately
initiated mixed-use residentiaIlcommercial developments.
1·8
Amended 12l12J05
In addition to this energetic infusion of creative energy and financing in the Urban
Center-Downtown, changes in The Boeing Company business plan resulted in a concept
for the Urban Center-North, comprised of almost 300 acres of the Boeing Renton Plant
site. This is the first step toward transition of an area used for industrial manufacturing
for over sixty years into an urban mixed-use neighborhood.
Within the next few years, as the first redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant area
occurs, it is anticipated that major national retailers will locate in Renton providing
additional economic development for the City, and a wide range of goods and services
within Renton's Urban Center. As this change occurs, it is anticipated that Renton's
historic downtown will be rejuvenated as a mixed-use specialty retaiU residential area
while the Urban Center-North will become a new urban community incorporating
employment, retail, residential and entertainment sectors.
Commercial Corridors
Due to relatively low land cost, a number of low intensity, suburban-type commercial
areas exist along Renton's commercial corridors. This pattern of development willlike\y
continue until land values rise. Evidence of this development pattern can be seen along
Rainier Blvd and NE 4th Street. Strip commercial is another common result of low
intensity development, especially along principal and major arterial routes; one example
is along both sides of Benson Road, south of Carr/SE 176th. The Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element sets a policy directing transition of these areas away from strip
commercial development patterns in the future. The objective is to use site planning
tools to connect businesses and residential areas as well as promote more attractive
vehicular corridors and parking areas. The City is undertaking several major corridor
studies anticipating boulevard treatments encompassing improvements in transit
accessibility, pedestrian use, traffic flow, efficient business access and corridor
landscaping. It is anticipated that the major commercial corridors will be evaluated for
boulevard treatments over the next several years.
Institution
The expansion of the Valley Medical Center is expected to continue, although like
Renton Technical College, available land is limited. As both of these institutional uses
grow to serve the region, they will need to expand beyond their current boundaries or
intensify land use within existing campuses.
Industrial
Industrial employment, especially manufacturing, is declining nation-wide. In the Puget
Sound region, while the proportion of jobs in the industrial sector is projected to decline,
the number of manufacturing jobs in this area is expected to remain relatively stable, at
least through the year 2020.
In Renton, the most noticeable changes are occurring in the mix and type of industrial
activities within the City. Most noticeable is a trend away from heavy
industrial/manufacturing toward medium and light industrial uses. Although
manufacturing is expected to remain stable and industrial jobs are expected to decline, the
1-9
Amended 12112105
number of light and medium industrial jobs in wholesale/transportation/communications!
utilities is projected to nearly double in the Renton area through 2020. Renton sees itself
as an ideal market area for uses based on the biotechnology industry. hI addition to
Renton, several Puget Sound Region urban areas are competing for this niche market.
Changes are expected to occur in Renton's heavy industrial employment incrementally
over a long period of time. Some heavy industrial areas, such as the Boeing Renton Plant
in North Renton, are being redeveloped into other uses that will largely replace industrial
employment with other types. Other City heavy industrial sites subject to redevelopment
may have inadequate infrastructure or high costs of hazardous material cleanup that could
limit redevelopment or delay it until land value and demand increases. hI other cases,
viable heavy industrial uses exist and will continue to operate for several years, but
property owners may anticipate a change in use over the long term. Although the rate of
change in industrial lands is slow, it is significant because if too much land is converted
to non-industrial uses, it could have a detrimental effect on retaining the industrial base.
Within the Green River Valley, land use policy changed over the last ten years to allow a
market-driven transition from industrial and warehousing uses to general commercial and
retail. While existing industrial businesses are encouraged to operate and expand, they
are no longer protected by an industrial-only protective zoning policy.
Office
hI Renton, commercial uses and services were adversely affected by the downturn in the
information technology industry in the late 1990' s. The biggest impact of this event
however, was on office vacancies, which rose significantly and at mid-decade, were just
starting to turn around. This situation slowed the demand for office and service uses,
which until then were healthy indicators of the regional and local shift from an industrial
base to a service base.
Another trend is a blurring of land use category descriptions as technology changes the
way work is done and more activities include office and computer components. This
change is manifested by an increase in the mixes of uses, either within one company or
within one building or complex. For example, many businesses are constellations of light
industrial, manufacturing, research and development, and office uses. The ideal situation,
in terms of regional needs (reduction of traffic on arterials for example), may be to add
residential uses to that mix.
Annexation and City Boundary
Regional planning policies envision urban developed areas becoming part of cities
throughout King County, and stipulate that the County will become a regional rather than
local service provider. Over the last ten years, many previously unincorporated areas
were either annexed into existing cities or incorporated into new cities. King County is
increasing unable to provide local services to the remaining unincorporated urban areas
due to budget constraints. The trend toward transitioning urban areas into cities is
expected to accelerate over the next several years as King County implements the
envisioned change in its governance responsibilities. It is anticipated that decisions will
1·10
Amended 12112105
be made over the next ten years affecting each of the remaining unincorporated urban
areas.
In. 1995, as part of review and ratification of the Countywide Planning Policies, Renton
identified several of these unincorporated areas as places where the City could logically
provide services over the next 20 years and designated them as Renton's Potential
Annexation Area (PAA). These areas are included within Renton's Comprehensive Plan
and the policies and land use designations of this Plan will be applied upon future
annexation. Renton's PAA includes the East Renton Plateau, FairwoodlCascade Vista,
and the Sierra Heights neighborhood between Renton and Newcastle. In. addition, the
West Hill area, while not formally part of the PAA, has many connections to the City
through the Renton School District, commercial shopping patterns and park/recreation
usage. The City will consider inclusion of the West Hill in the 2005 work program.
Currently residents of the Fairwood area are considering an incorporation petition that
would form a new city including Fairwood and a portion of Cascade Vista.
It is anticipated that annexations within these P AA areas will significantly increase the
land area and population of Renton over the next ten years. There are three types of
annexations that may be initiated by property owners or by the City: 1) annexation of
large, undeveloped parcels that can now be provided with City of Renton utility service,
2) annexation of smaller infill parcels that are already developed at urban densities, but
lack urban levels of services such as sewer, and 3) annexation of commercial areas andlor
residential neighborhoods that have already developed in King County to county
standards.
Schools
The City of Renton is presently served primarily by the Renton School District, although
a small area at the City's eastern boundary is within the Issaquah School District. The
PAA is served by Renton School District (Cascade Vista, Sierra Heights, West Hill), the
Kent School District (Fairwood), and the Issaquah School District (East Renton Plateau).
Following its peak in 1970, Renton School District enrollment declined at the rate of 15
percent during the 1970's and 10 percent during the 1980's. Enrollment increased,
however between 1990 and 2000, by 18 percent. The Renton District currently has
adequate capacity for growth within its attendance area and has not requested that the
City collect school impact fees on its behalf. In. the future, however, larger enro11ments
and an increased need for facilities in the district is anticipated based on projected
population growth within the city and the P AA.
The proportion of Renton residents served by the Issaquah School District on the East
Renton Plateau will increase as lands within the P AA come into the City. Expected
population growth in the area served by the Issaquah School District is expected to
support expansion of school facilities in this area. Renton is currently collecting impact
fees for the Issaquah School District and expects to continue doing so. Renton will ortly
be served by the Kent School District if the Fairwood portion of the P AA eventually
annexes into the City.
1·11
Amended I2I12J05
Religious Centers
The trend over the past few decades has been for religious groups to provide a wider
range of services to their members and the public at large. Food banks, teen clubs, adult
day care, and K through 12 schools are a few of the faith-based functions now offered by
the religious community. These services require additional land and facilities for
classrooms, gymnasiums, offices, parking, and social services. Hours of worship, once
primarily limited to the weekend, have expanded to include other activities on weekdays
and evenings. As a result, these facilities are having a greater impact on adjacent
neighborhoods and the existing infrastructure but are also providing local based service
and facilities serving a broader population.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Renton has a well-designed and maintained parks and recreation system serving the needs
of residents of the City and PAA. City facilities and programs are currently planned to
accommodate a mix of resident and non-resident participants. Additional parks facilities
are anticipated within the City to continue to provide neighborhood parks in developing
areas. At the present time, City recreation programs and facilities are open to non-city
residents on an increased fee basis. If growth occurs in the city limits without
annexation, existing facilities will be increasingly unavailable to non-residents. The
anticipated trend in parks services is for Renton to take over County developed parks and
undeveloped future park sites as annexation occurs. Expansion of parks facilities will be
required to keep pace with popUlation growth. Renton supports an ambitious open
space/greenway acquisition program, preserving natural areas in an urban environment,
and ensuring public access to these areas with limited development and disturbances. It
is expected that many of the sites acquired will remain relatively undisturbed, while
wildlife and habitat areas that are less fragile will be more developed with park and
recreation facilities and allow greater public use.
Transportation
There is one unchanging transportation trend within the region: traffic is increasing.
Several factors are responsible for this: the growth in popUlation, jobs, and housing; an
increase in people commuting by single-occupant vehicles within the region and making
longer trips; the location of employment and price of housing, which influences the
length and type of trip made; and new housing development that is occnrring on vacant
land in outlying parts of the metropolitan area rather than on land closer to traditional
urban centers (again, a function of the cost of housing and its relationship to the scale of
wages; and the relocation of employment areas to suburban areas (frequently a function
ofland and transportation costs).
The cumulative effects of these factors are more cars on the road and greater traffic
congestion. One measure of this is the average length of commute time, which has
increased countywide since 1990 by 2 to 3 minutes to 30.4 minutes. The total round-trip
commute between Tukwila and Bellevue at AM and PM peak times has increased from
50 minutes in 2000 to 55 in 2002. Interestingly, while the AM peak commute from
Auburn to Renton via SR-167 took 3 minutes longer in 2002 than in 2000, the reverse
trip during the PM peak took 2 minutes less.
1-I 2
Amended 12112105
At the same time, transit ridership decreased in the King CountylPuget Sound Region by
5 percent since 2000. This may be attributable to the downturn in the economy and
corresponding job loss in the group of people who depend on public transportation. If
this is the case, as econoIllic recovery occurs, ridership should increase.
In Renton, the South Renton Park and Ride Jot is used at the rate of 102 percent. This
indicates that vehicles are parked outside of and adjacent to the lot for the purpose of
using the transit system.
Although a small number, the fact of its increase in the decade of the '90s makes the 8
percent of people who walk or work at home significant. This is a trend that is expected
to continue as more people telecommute and/or develop home-based businesses that are
dependent on the internet. There has also been an increase in the number of people who
commute by bicycle. Planning for improved and safer bike lanes may contribute to this
trend.
Road condition in terms of the need for overlay, re-pavement, or reconstruction is another
factor affecting the City's ability to maintain an efficient and safe transportation system.
Using the Overall Condition Index as the rating scale (Centerline Software from
Measurement Research Corporation), Renton has 29.0 lane miles in need of
repaving/rehabilitation out of a total 450.7 lane miles. At an estimated cost of $75,862
per lane mile, 57.3 percent of the amount needed was budgeted in 2004.7
Significant improvements are planned for the Interstate-405 corridor. The City of Renton
is working closely with the Washington State Department of Transportation on the 1-405
Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects. The smaller "nickel" project is funded
through the nickel gas tax of 2003 to fund highway improvements in Washington State.
Three projects were funded on 1-405, including a South Rentonffukwila project, which
will add one new northbound lane from SR 181 to SR 167, and one new southbound lane
from SR 169 to SR 167. The project also improves SR 167 near the interchange with 1-
405.
Preliminary design for future project phases is also moving forward. These project
phases are not fully funded, but ultimate design would include two new lanes in each
direction on 1-405, auxiliary lanes where appropriate, and improved interchanges,
including the SR 16711-405 interchange. These are long-term improvements that
represent the ultimate build-out or Master Plan of 1-405. The Implementation Plan also
includes two new lanes in each direction but is an interim level of improvements,
particularly for the SR 16711-405 interchange. As part of a long-term strategy, the Master
Plan builds on the Implementation Plan.
Most economic and growth trends will be impacted by the ability to physically move
through the City and Region and get from one place to another. Therefore, transportation
remains a key element in the overall economic picture.
1·13
Amended 12112105
Airport
The Renton Municipal Airport is a heavil y used facility and demand on the Airport
continues to increase steadily. This is primarily due to the Airport's function as a
"reliever" facility for air traffic from the SeattlefT'acoma Airport. The other nearby
reliever airport, Boeing Field (the King County International Airport), is frequently
unavailable because it is functioning at about 98 percent capacity.
Closure of other general aviation airports in the region such as those tbat were at
Bellevue, Issaquah, and Kent also increased the demand for small private planes and
corporate jets use in Renton. In addition, there is increased activity at the Will Rogers /
Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base due to closure of similar facilities elsewhere in the
region.
The expected trend is continued demand at the Airport. This demand may be balanced,
somewhat, by a corresponding decrease in Airport use by The Boeing Company as it
changes the nature of its business in Renton. For example, 2004 saw the closing of the
Boeing 757 production line. Since the Renton Airport is the existing facility used for
Boeing aircraft following assembly, this change and other Boeing corporate changes will
undoubtedly affect the Airport. The timing of anticipated changes, however, remains
unknown to the City.
Public Facilities
In Renton, the late 1990' s and early part of the next decade saw a significant increase in
the inventory of major public facilities. These include the development of a "central
park" (the Piazza in downtown), a public parking garage, a transit center, a performing
arts center, a skateboard park, and a new public water park. This trend is expected to
continue as Renton develops its Urban Center and as population growth continues.
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment forecast growth for the
City over the twenty-one-year interval from 2001 to 2022 is an increase of 9,723
households, and 33,600 jobs, Growth targets adopted by the Growth Management
Planning Council anticipate 6,198 households and 27,597 jobs. Both forecast growth and
targets are well within the City's estimated land capacity of 11,261 units and 32,240 jobs
established through the Buildable Lands requirements of the Growth Management Act
(GMA). Renton is planning for its regional share of forecast growth over the next 20
years at the high end of the range, and the adopted target at the low end of the range. In
the first 9 years of growth management actual growth in Renton exceeded targets, but
was within the range predicted by the forecast growth assumptions. With external
factors, including the regional economy, state/federal transportation funding and the
GMA regulatory environment remaining constant or improving, Renton's growth is
anticipated to continue.
1·14
Amended 12112105
The following chart summarizes Renton's forecast growth, largets and land use capacity.
Incorporaled Adjusted Target/Capacity Annualized
Renton Reflecting Growth! Estimate
2001-2022 AnnexationlLand Use
(21yrs) Changes in 2001 and
2002
Forecast 9,723 units None 463 units
Growth 33,6oojobs 1,6oojobs
22,266 (21 yrs)
population
Growth 6,198 units 4,523 units 238 units
Targets 27,597 jobs 26,736 jobs 1,407 jobs
14,194 (19 yrs
population* adjusted for
remaInmg
larget)
Capacity 1l,261 uIrits 9,634 units NA
established by 32,240 jobs* 30,699 jobs Buildable
Lands 25,788
population*
.. Addillonal zoned capaCIty established for the Urban Center~North through the Boemg ComprehensIve Plan
Amendments in 2003 of 10,600,000 square feet of employment uses, 360 hotel rooms. and 3.225 units is not yet
incorporated into the Buildable Lands database.
The economic downturn between 2000 and 2002 resulted in a loss of about 6 percent
(3,120) of the 2000 total jobs (52,000). As a result, initial job growth during the
planning period is expected to replace jobs first, rather than fulfill the promise of new
jobs predicted by the employment forecast data. In a relatively small city, such as
Renton, where there are a few large employers, such as Boeing, the employment rates are
subject to wide fluctuations. In order to get a sense of the long-term projection of
employment growth, it may be valuable to look at what is expected to occur on a larger
scale. The average annual growth rate between 1970 and 2003, statewide, was 2.4
percent. It is expected that this rate will decrease to about 1.1 percent for the years 2003
to 2030. It is predicted that a higher rate, 1.4 percent will occur from 2003 to 2010, then
that rate will slow to about 0.9 percent between 2010 and 20308 .
The reasons for this decline may be seen locally as well as stalewide, or even nationally.
The population is aging and birth rates are declining. There are possibilities that the rate
could be influenced by factors such as a workforce made larger by a greater number of
immigrants, should immigration regulations be relaxed, or by workers staying in the
workforce beyond the traditional retirement age range of 62 to 65. The latter situation
may be caused by disincentives to retirement caused by changes in pension plans or an
increase in the Social Security retirement age and other changes to that program.
\·15
Amended 12J12I05
1. Renton. Where the Water Took Wing, David M. Buerge
2. "The 2003 King County Annual Growth Report," Office of Management and
Budget
3. "The Changing Face of Renton," City of Renton, Department of Community
Services, Human Services Division Washington State, Office of Financial
Management
4. City of Renton, Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and
Strategic Planning
5. Renton Chamber of Commerce
6. King County, Office of Management and Budget and King County, Department
of Assessments
7. "Benchmark Report, September 2004," Transportation and Environment, King
County, Office of Management and Budget
8. "The 2004 Long-Term Economic and Labor Force Forecast for Washington,"
Washington State, Employment Security Department and the Office of Financial
Management
'·16
Amended 12112105
LAND USE ELEMENT
GOALS
1. Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed growth
forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as detennined through
implementation of the Growth Management Act.
2. Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and for
aircraft occupants.
3. Actively pursue annexations.
4. Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately
recognizing its historic andlor archaeological sites.
5. Pursue the transition of non-conforming uses and structures to encourage more
conforming uses and development patterns.
6. Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi-public service needs of
present and future employees.
7. Maintain the City'S agricultural and mining resources as part of Renton's cultural
history.
8. Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that:
a) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity;
b) Are walkable places where people can shop, play, and get to work without
always having to drive;
c) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and
make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure;
d) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and
lifestyle;
e) Are varied or unique in character;
1) Support "grid" and ''flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where
appropriate;
g) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live;
h) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and
i) Provide a sense of home.
9. Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and
residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region.
IX·l
Amended 12112105
10. Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for new
commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use
residential uses that enhance the City's employment and tax base along arterial
boulevards and in designated development areas.
11. Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial, high technology, office, and
commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a
strengthening of Renton's employment base.
lX·2
Amended 12112105
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Regional Growth Policies ............................................................................................................ IX-4
Airport ......................................................................................................................................... IX-8
Annexations ................................................................................................................................. IX-ll
Historical and Archeological Resources ..................................................................................... IX-15
Non-Confonning Use .................................................................................................................. IX-16
Public Facilities ........................................................................................................................... IX-18
Resource Land ............................................................................................................................. IX-22
Residential Policies ..................................................................................................................... IX-24
Centers ......................................................................................................................................... IX-36
Commercial ................................................................................................................................. IX-54
Employment Areas ...................................................................................................................... IX-74
IX-3
Amended 12112105
IX. CENTERS
Goal: Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office,
office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and
the region.
Discussion: The Centers category of land use includes two areas of the City, the Center
Village in the Highlands and the Urban Center located in the historic downtown and the
employment area north to Lake Washington. The Urban Center includes two sub-areas:
Urban Center-Downtown (220 acres) and the Urban Center-North (310 acres). Together
these two areas are envisioned to evolve into a vibrant city core that provides arts,
entertainment, regional employment opportunities, recreation, and quality urban
residential neighborhoods. The Renton Urban Center is envisioned as the dynamic heart
of a growing regional city. Renton's Urban Center will provide significant capacity for
new housing in order to absorb the city's share of future regional growth. This residential
population will help to balance the City's employment population and thereby meet the
policy directive of a 2: I ratio of jobs to housing.
The Center Village designation is envisioned as a revitalized residential and commercial
area providing goods and services to the Greater Highlands area. The area could
potentially become a focal point for a larger area, the Coal Creek Corridor, connecting
Renton to Newcastle to Issaquah. While development is envisioned at a smaller scale
than expected in the Urban Center, the Village Center will still focus on urban mixed-use
projects with a pedestrian oriented development pattern.
Objective LU-MM: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at
sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a
viable district.
Policy LU-193. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and
discourage the development of strip commercial areas.
Policy LU-194. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support
economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to
achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives.
Policy LU-195. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria:
I) The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity;
2) Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills,
and significant stands of trees;
3) Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility
easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern.
Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels; and
4) As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance
from one or two focal points, which may be defmed by intersections, transit stops, or
shopping centers.
JX·36
Amended 12112105
Policy LU-l96. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics:
1) A nucleus of existing multi-use development;
2) Potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of
development;
3) Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes;
4) Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system.
Policy LU-197. Change adopted boundaries only in the following circumstances:
1) The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use
that would make implementation of the boundary illogical, or
2) The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range
and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center.
Policy LU-19S. Support new office and commercial development that is more intensive
than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create
more compact and efficient Centers over time.
Policy LU-I99. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban
densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development, or in the
Urban Center in districts designated for residential use.
Policy LU-2oo. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed-use
developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial
uses or lower density residential that is adjacent to Centers.
Policy LU-201. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed-use
developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and
retaiL
Policy LU-202. Locate and design commercial uses within a residential mixed-use
development in a manner that preserves privacy and quiet for residents.
Policy LU-203. Modify existing commercial and residential uses that are adjacent to or
within new proposed development to implement the new Center land use vision as much
as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscape, signage, and site plan as
redevelopment opportunities occur.
Policy LU-204. Consolidate signage for mixed-use development.
Policy LU-20S. Identify major natural features and support development of new focal
points that defme the Center and are visually distinctive.
Policy LU-206. Design focal points to include a combination of public areas such as
parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit
stops, or outdoor eating areas. These features should be connected to pedestrian
pathways if possible.
Policy LU-207. Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities to
create focal points.
IX·37
Amended 12112105
Policy LU-208_ Consolidate access to existing streets and provide internal vehicular
circulation that supports shared access.
Policy LU-209. Locate parking for residential uses in the mixed-use developments to
minimize disruption of pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project.
Policy LU-2l0. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design
features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces.
Objective NN: Implement Renton's Urban Center consistent with the "Urban Centers
criteria" of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to create an area of concentrated
employment and housing with direct service by high capacity transit and a wide range of
land uses such as commercial/office/retail, recreation, public facilities, parks and open
space.
Policy LU-211. Renton's Urban Center should be maintained and redeveloped with
supporting land use decisions and projects that accomplish the following objectives:
1) Enhance existing neighborhoods by creating investment opportunities in quality
urban scale development;
2) Promote housing opportunities close to employment and commercial areas;
3) Support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on
automobiles;
4) Strive for urban densities that use land more efficiently;
5) Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services;
6) Reduce costs of and time required for pennitting; and
7) Evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts.
Policy LU-2I2. Establish two sub-areas within Renton's Urban Center.
I) Urban Center-Downtown (DC-D) is Renton's historic commercial district,
surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. The UC-D is located from the
Cedar River south to South 7th Street and between 1-405 on the east and Shattuck
Avenue South on the west.
2) Urban Center-North (UC-N) is the area that includes Southport, the Puget Sound
Energy sub-station, and the South Lake Washington redevelopment area. The UC-N
is located generally from Lake Washington on the north, the Cedar River and Renton
Municipal Airport to the west, Sixth Street and Renton Stadium to the south, and
Houser Way to the east.
Policy LU-213. Maintain zoning that creates capacity for employment levels of 50
employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the
Urban Center.
Policy LU-2I4: Support developments that utilize Urban Center levels of capacity.
Where market conditions do not support Urban Center employment and residential1evels,
support site planning and/or phasing alternatives that demonstrate how, over time, infill
or redevelopment can meet Urban Center objectives.
Policy LU-2IS. Site and building design should be pedestrian/people oriented with
provisions for transit and automobiles where appropriate.
[){·38
Policy LU-2SS. Buildings along South 3rd Street between Main and Burnett Avenues
should retain a pedestrian scale by employing design techniques that maintain the
appearance and feel of low-rise structures to avoid creation of the "canyon effect" (e.g.
preserving historic fa\,ades, stepping fa\,ades back above the second or third floor).
Policy LU-2S6. Downtown gateways should employ distinctive landscaping, signage,
art, architectural style, and similar techniques to better delineate the downtown and
enhance its unique character.
Policy LU-2S7. Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and
other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses.
Objective LU-WW: Improve the visual and physical appearance of buildings to create a
more positive image for downtown.
Policy LU-2SS. Site and building designs, (e.g. signage; 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-2S9. 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
recoguize and foster unique identities for the different land use areas (i.e. South Renton's
Burnett Park subarea).
Policy LU·262. New downtown parks should complement existing park facilities and be
. compatible with planned trails. Trails should be integrated with the existing trail system.
Policy LU-263. Urban Center -Downtown development should be designed to take
advantage of existing unique downtown amenities such as the Cedar River, City parks
and trails, the downtown Transit Center, IKEA Performing Arts Center, and Renton High
School.
Policy LU-264. Public amenities such as art, fountains, or similar features should be
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
IX-43
Center is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban
Center-Downtown, dne to the large available land holdings under single ownership. In
addition, this 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 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-26S. 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. Allow hospitality uses such as hotels, convention and conference
centers.
Policy LU-269. Co-locate uses within a site andlor 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-27S. Support an expanded and extended public right-of-way in the vicinity of
the present Logan Avenue 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
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
as shown on the Urban Center·North Gateway Map.
Policy LU·279. Support private/public partnerships to plan and fmance 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-28I. 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 sign age, building height, bulk, setbacks, 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 LU-28S. Consider placement of structures and parking 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 regnlations to provide direction on site design, building
design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation.
Policy LU-290. Support a combination of internal and external site design features such
as:
1) Plazas;
2) Prominent architectural features;
3) Significant natural features;
4) Distinctive focal features; and
5) Gateways.
Policies for surrounding residential area (north Renton neighborhood south of N 61h
St)
IX-45
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 support 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 neighborbood-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-29S. Support a partnership with community stakeholders such as the Renton
School District 0 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 re-development 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 Compatibility 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 tenns of range, intensity and mix of uses. These
are District One, east of Logan Avenue, and District Two, west of Logan Avenue. The
implementation of plamting 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 Avenue, District One, has begnn.
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.
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
lX-46
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. 8th 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 parldng 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 Jarge-format, 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 [lISt phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail
center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially
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
rx·47
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,
wen-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 a1Iow 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 wen 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 win 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-YV; 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.
Policy LU-29S. 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-30l. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive,
urban-scale retail developments.
IX-48
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-30S. 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 market viable.
Policy LU-307. Support development of parking structures using private/public
partnerships when market will not support structural parking without subsidy.
Policy LU-30S. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of
blocks, screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers.
Policy LU-309. Consider pUblic/private participation in provision of structured parking,
to stimnlate 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 andlor building in order to
promote urban style mixed-use (commerciallretail/officelresidential) development.
Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads.
IX-49
Vision -District Two
Ongoing Boeing airplane manufacturing is supported 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 A venue, 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 City's Urban Center-North Airport 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 opporturdties 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
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. 8th 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
vicirdty.
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 Rairder
District Two Policies
Objective LU-AAA: Support ongoing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses.
IX·50
VIOLATIONS IN MODIFIED SITE PLAN*
, RMC 43'::lO.E.2.o
T Parking oetween bJI,dlngs & street
I RMC 4-3-1 00. F 1.b.i:
Street frontage.
* RMC 4-3-100.F.4.b:
Surface parking driveways.
...
* RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b
Adjacent to sidewalk.
* RMC 4-2-120.E
Truck loading areas.
+ RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i:
Parking on rear or side of building.
! RMC 4-2-120.E:
T Setbacks.
." '"
'" u
140'
• FULL SITE PLAN from modification
submittal dated March 2, 2007
(approved March 13, 2007)
,.?l
OO
' 0-\ \1"oo;\ta~e
---:\\ .-= 1\ ,--,
~ ,:0,. III L
') ~= .. ~
90'
I
EXHIBIT D
THE VESTED DEVELOPMENTS
l -~, _0 '.
_.----r.'("1!".~ _--... \ ~, ~---»-::~., .. :~:~:\~ -~'-~ -~~\ \
I' -ffi!~'-' _eO' .:-\:. \ >r;-~-:---::-::-::~ \.J <) c'-: '\\. .'. \\ ... f I \\ t.--: \\ ~~_, -:~? ::\\ \,
" 103 , ' .) \'''' >'.\ '
i g? --~::.= __ ~~~:. c::~~' ~J " _ r'~,~~ ~\. \
'-!." 't..~ -,\ .' -..'--~ , \., \
, i 104 r I" .: --\,"" Y'," '''. .. .. 1 \
5 : ' 'L:'.\ .\-0' ,~\ ~ .. c:,. \\:".:c q <\ \
1 !If ~\ -v C-c \. \~ _" 0"-C\\.' <:~)\ . ,
l ' '\ c-", I'. "'-~. \ [
I t. ' ~--' ~.. \.... _ \';r;' .--\\ " i . 2\? .... ?......-U _\::J :"-'\ (.~ " ~\ \
Ulililil!s I(lr all e>1"Omdrunl C
~'''L"1:rl uLjliL~ C(llllll'CliLlll:o hl
BuilllillJ;s 1U1 & 102 ill\.':
cllllsilkreu pari oflht:
V\.~h:lI D-.::~-cl\JllIUCIIIS. ~c I', ',", , -"'"" n . " •. -\.\ ,
I :, \\-~-? .\; ---.... h \ ~ 0 t._: __ ~ ....... ___ -~ ~ \ I l'russ-Imtl:hing in pLlfkil1~ ill'l .. wJ.. ..
~ t---..-'..-'~;; ... , / \ \ i.s not in~,,;:nde~ b11l[1.::ludL!
\1
"
, / 1 t II~ 1Il!iL:lllatlllll 01 ew-b. slLlcwalk.
"/ 1 00 :! , ..... Irnulra:aping ;lIlhl1$': illl!:l".
lfn Ii
! •• 'i''-,}:~r
I I·
I,
'.
~ 1: ... .::111(1.."111'",,,,\'.:'>1-.::,1
~ th:H'''l('IltI::ld!>
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PAGE 10 of 11 Y:\WP\ASE\"'''iETTLEMENT\VESTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS\I W406\ASE TARGET SETTLEMENT 1206D6 FINAL,DOC
;tJq
City of Renton
S.IC ~.Qntp1A flON HANDOUT
N't!fllember 8, 2(J04
Lakeshefe Landing Planned Action
For additional information, please contact: Jason Jordan, Proje<:t Manager; City of Renton
Services Division; (425) 436-7219
ISSUE:
The City of Renton's Development Services Division 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 of 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 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 (Center Oak Properties, LLC) begins to prepare
for the redevelopment of the 55-acre site.
Center Oak Properties has prepared two conceptual site plans (attached), which
depict two final retail build-outs ranging from 597,000 square feet to 800,000
square feet of gross leasable area. Bui/dings would generally range from 26 feet
to 58 feet in height, with a few isolated towers of approximately 85 feet in height.
Potential tenants may include a large format retailer, a specialty grocery market,
a movie theater, and a mix of high quality national, regional, and local specialty
tenants and restaurants.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Services Division is recommending that the City Council adopt
Planned Action legislation in order to use the existing Boeing Renton
Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS as the SEPA environmental document for
the redevelopment of the Lakeshore Landing site.
/D
•
z
j"" ----/.
_. "
/
( ,
\ \.
\ \ .,
UC-Nl
, .--I 'z
Po
th S.
-N2
F4 • 17 T23N R5E W l/1.
~ ZONING ~ =DOINJCAL_YKD
___ -a.. .... day UmitII
v1I> CA
"
/
/
\'::.-" " ,
• eo... E4 ,-
8 T23N R5E W 1/~
. \
,
"'-...
"-"-
SECOND FlMR-OFFJCE
"'-..
~
VICINITY MAPe
EXHIBIT "A"
"-
10/22/2004 I J
CONCEPTUAL SITE pl;t>.N
"-
"'-..
"-
"-
LAKE~HOR1<', LANDING
Renlon,\Vashlngton
597 K PLAN
MAJQRTfNAN'\
132,CQO S~
(-)
PROJECT SUMMARY
P ... RtE_L·)
"" ....
~ ..... --,-
PAlCEL·' .,,-..... -,----
PdCEI..·3 .,,---'----
I>ARCfl·4
""AA" """AA"
~AIO;KlIfO .. ~OftI
""''''''' """-"""'-.-,... .......
SITE SllMMARY .,,-
~1!fI"""'CI,.
c,o,w.oOlflC;lw
!OI .... 0l0U'<0 GI.o.
JNI)IIOItI'm .... GV.
lHO JTOFr OHICI ov.
IOT",,-'»0 POn OU\
00lAM)1OI' .... 00V0
~!0IMf!> ~ ... ~..o
~1_111»O$>1
""~<»-IO'IIOVIC)!tJ
• .JM ....... til7a,atO U)
"JIfJOI'
J'Olioll'io\.II~",
"ur _(n).'" ")
lI.1M1lU'
·$O~_I
<un ......... ,,·t1S11')
'.,.coo 5'
_llofo~1
IU.~' ...... nud $f)
"-"
11& ..... "'_)
m ..... ~)
'U~_(,I,Ol.u'~4f1
WJIfJOI' -" VILIDOI'
•• .=. ,.~.
_'.I/iXI~
• .ooo$M"'IAI'·~CX~
·S .... "I:I " ..... ~ .. c t .. lllA:ll)".,.C"
~'IJC"I"'"''''~''''O 1.l'?;j' ........ I .. ·.O" I~ • :w ,eYIU • lJC! ltv!.)
Ta' ...... " .... ". •• o\f\O(C! 1'10\'.<\'" :"'''0'1
r i i r i I ~I ).' () r-' Z«J J-
fro'
,
" SECOND FLl>QR.OfFICE
"-..
~
VICINIH MAP$
EXHIBIT "6"
10(2212004 I ~
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLlIN
•
"-..
"-..
LAKE!':HORF'hLANDING Renton,'Wa"s mgton
800 K PLAN
MAJOO ........
13Z.IXlOSf
(~ I
PROJECT SUMMARY
PARCEL·) , .. ---....... -,-
PARCEL·~ ... -.... -'--,........,
PARCEL·3 ........ ......... ._--
' .... RCft·4 "" ..... --,_~O -. ......... ""', .... .--..-
SITE SUMMARY M,_
IMOI.1NOlfI ..... OI.A
GItOI.Ml orn;~ GI,.o\ --'" 2ND 5fotY _rr ..... ou.
2ND $I0I'l' CI'fCI ou.
JOIAI :IND $lCII'r GIJ,
Q_DAl.OI.\. _ . .-
($"'*/JO:IOIII ,--
~~.a7"-")
"M1ODS'
]10_1~.
'047 """" I~U.tl" ff'l v_ .
fiO .... CANlMI
u'n~"I.'t2.'1
207.50011'
H(t_~)
'U)7 "-CUO...,1 ~
<It.JQOSf
Z]I_~I
"O*-~"'l
~1.lM ....... ,MU.'lII "1
..... :ICI)1I ...
uuml'
""'. --" IlUOI)l' _.
. ;.coa SlIoUJ wrtOtI
__ "'I~_ • ' .. "fI ... IlI .. ,.,.roKI
~'AoIIUIO I.22JII~IM"Q>:I 1OatIUND· UU\'tU • ~ I UVflJ
JOt .... '''''INONOYOeCI • l.I20SIA'1I W~'l
r I I .,,pl
f ; J-' 4r-6 o 1-~
, .'
• I. "":
u
~ on ~
.... 0 C/'J .~ ~
.~ '"'d ~ ..j..J ;....; 0 0 ~ .~ ~ ro ..j..J
~ () 0 <C ;....;
~ (]) '"d ~ $....( ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ro ;....; r:/J ~ ~ ~ (]) ..j..J
~ ~ ~ u ~ ;....;
0
~
..... ...-.-•. -.~-
~ -.,
1
F ..
,. () ;.j
'K E. t'1
Project History
• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was
completed in October 2003.
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment was completed
in December 2003.
• The City and Boeing established a Development
Agreement in December 2003.
• The Development Agreement included a
Conceptual Urban Retail Plan.
• The approved Conceptual Urban Retail Plan
includes approximately 53 to 55 acres.
Project Narrative Continued
• Approximately 8 acres could be utilized to
create new public streets and pedestrian
access ways including:
-Parkway design with landscaped medians/turn
pockets for the extension of Logan A ve. North.
-Realignment of Park A venue North.
-Extension of North 8th and North 10 th Street.
Project Narrative Continued
• High quality retail, office and residential
opportunities:
-Predominately retail.
-Project will be designed to Urban Center North
(UCN) Development Standards as envisioned
by the Development Agreement.
-Project will also be required to meet new Urban
Center Design Guidelines.
~ ro ,.......
~
~
0
0
~
Q)
8
~ c::r
C/'J
0
0
0 /
r-.'
,
t'--
,
0\
tn
, .
l
l
,. ,
" /
.I
~ /
.' .' -' l .' ~ . ..r
t
I ;,
/0 .r
-----' ,-
I
1'.
". ,,, .. z
..;:<
_...J
.. 0-......
-
800,000 Square Foot Plan
"'-, ...... ,~ c9.' ..
---..........
L£y~{J Cj'" -,. ~
. ~
"-'. . ------
"
. ,-..........
-"-"
.•..
'. ,
"
•• '\ \-., \, ' ....
/~1\. ~\\. \ '\ \ ·/-~\.\I l
e'
~ ,,\~.
-"
.--0:
\11
Q
--~
I • ~~:
. ,
~. )
~,
/
.~~
[;':Hle'c 'e'
lOl?2/2(X)4
I r;'i~~ Jl~ =~.~JllljJL[ J a i Ill,!
" '>,'
.• 'C::::."'.'c-;
C (-:-.1 r,J 1-[ C 7" ,_J ,t ••.
r
"Te of l
.' ,r -M, (\ h. I i' I ~ () I~, I ; ~,:' \'''/)1 " (;
Sc.x:: K P' ... .A, ~l
Potential Tenants Include:
-Large format retailer;
-Specialty grocery market;
-Movie theater;
-Mix of high quality national,
regional and local specialty tenants
and restaurants.
Potential Building Bulk, Size and Scale
• Range in height from 26 to 58 feet with a
few towers as high as 85 feet;
• Range in size from 4,000 square feet to
132,000 square feet;
• A mix of one and two stories structures
(with the exception of the parking garage).
•
The Planned Action Legislation
• Combined with the approved 2003 EIS and
Development Agreement.
• Streamlines the permitting process by utilizing
existing environmental documentation:
-Provides added entitlement and scheduling
predictability.
• Allowed under RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 297-
11-164, 168 and 315.
Staff Recommends
• The City Council Adopt the Planned Action
Legislation as drafted by the City Attorney.
-This allows the developer to utilize the existing
environmental documentation as redevelopment
of the site occurs.
-Requires the developer to comply with the
approved EIS, Conceptual Urban Retail Plan,
approved Development Agreement and UCN
development standards and design guidelines.
I INTRODUCTION
CITY OF RENTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• "The Plan is a broad statement of community goals, objectives, and policies that directs the
orderly and coordinated physical development of the City." (1-1).
• Trends in the Urban Center: "Within the next few years, as the fIrst redevelopment of the
Boeing Renton Plant area occurs, it is anticipated that major national retailers will locate in
Renton providing additional economic development for the City, and a wide range of goods
and services within Renton's Urban Center." (1-9).
I CENTERS
• "The Urban Center includes two sub-areas: Urban Center-Downtown (220 acres) and the
Urban Center-North (310 acres)." (IX-36).
• "Policy LU-194. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support
economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve
new development consistent with long term land use objectives." (IX-36).
• "Policy LU-2l3. Maintain zoning that creates capacity for employment levels of 50
employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the
Urban Center." (IX-38).
• "Policy LU-214. Support developments that utilize Urban Center levels of capacity. Where
market conditions do not support Urban Center employment and residential levels, support
site planning and/or phasing alternatives that demonstrate how, over time, infIll or
redevelopment can meet Urban Center objectives."
I URBAN CENTER NORTH LAND USE DESIGNATION
• Purpose Statement: "UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land
over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district." (IX-44).
• "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." (IX-44).
• "Policy LU-284. Allow phasing plans for mixed-use projects." (IX-4S).
• "Policy LU-28S. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial
redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities
over time." (IX-4S).
CITY OF RENTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
I URBAN CENTERNORTH DISTRICTS
• "The current supply ofunderutilized land north ofN. 8th 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 oflow-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." (IX-47).
I VISION -DISTRICT ONE
• "In its fust phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail
center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initiaUy
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." (IX-47).
• "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." (IX -48).
I DISTRICT ONE POLICIES
• Objective LU-YY: Create a major commerciaVretail 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.
• 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.
CITY OF RENTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
I DISTRICT ONE POLICIES, cont.
• Policy LU-30t. 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 market viable.
• Policy LU-307. Support development of parking structures using private/public partnerships
when market will not support structural parking without subsidy.
• Policy LU-30S. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of blocks,
screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers.
• 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.
• CITY OF RENTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
I DISTRICT ONE POLICIES, cont.
• 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 (commerciallretailloffice/residential) development.
• Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
~I
~~ en~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A'RV'RS.T , ~'" '-,<-----\"':m'~~ ... ~-. ,,'
A"I!:' T. N "l'tit
:iIi~::~y ""
,0-.:'
-~
PED.
~
TREE (;FATE. 'TYP.
ENTRY AND FEAnJRE~
LAN DS'CAPE WHH
SEASOtw,. PlANTINGS
401
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
18,SK
SHOWN fOR:
RILFERE~::E ONLY, SEE CfTY or RENTON ENGINEERlNG PlANS
lOIilll'C
SEA"m J i
ACCPH PAVING, NP ~ SEATWAU.
400
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
3O,3K
SITE UTILITIES SHOWN fOR
REFERENCE ONLY.
TRAS,
---
NORTH
SlREET TREES SHOWN
FOR R""RENC{ ONLY, ~:I1~='---~=tfftl==t:i"if-RI-+I, SEE CITY OF RENTON ' .' I
[t(;:INEERING PlJoHS " ,
PLANTING STRIP
407
RETAIL
18K
"l -~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..J
Iii w
I en
W
W en
<~~ ,
LANDSCAPE PLAN L 1,7
hj4' i T
stAl£o " • 'it -0' EB
.\
KEY PLAN
,
Brumbaugh & Associates
LOri dscc;) e: Architecture
600 North 8511'1 S~fHt . S"iie 102
SeeHlle. WA 9610J-J826
T~lY1on'll 205 7eO! JIS~O
rocli:mile 2~ 782 3575
Landscape Plans
~S'.~'",,,,,,,~,,,,·,,, ,,'
, :,tl.l~""
\~
II
THE LANDING
RMC 4-3-100.0.2.0
prohibits par~ng between the building
and pedGStiian-orlenled streets.
£ parkmg b ..... n building and T pedestrtan-onented street
This IS also a Violation of RMC 4-9-200. E.1 {at
which requtr9s Site Pfans to con'onn to the
CompreheoSlve Plan.
• Policy LU~2a7 of the ComprehensIVe
Plan states:
~DJsCOuragE p.Jf[(irlg Jots betweel1
slruclures and street nghf-of-WBY,"
RESPONSE
• Director granted modification -see
Site Plan Decision, p. 10.
EXHIBIT A
• If Building 200 was to abut Park
Ave., this would create a gap, and
disrupt the flow of pedestrian traffic.
• The parking area between Building
400 and Park Ave. has been
removed. See Update A, dated
3/2/07.
• No relief is possible regarding
parking area between Building 200
and Park Ave. N. See Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement
m\l\s
~
" o
w
r-~ I
/)
THE LANDING
RMC 4-3-100.F.l.o.1
requJres thai no more than 60 feet
of slreel frontage along a
pedestnarKmented street be
occupied by off-street parking
and vehicular access.
I more than 60 feet of street
frontage occupied by
off-Slreet parking
RESPONSE
• Director granted modification -see
Update A Decision, p. 4.
EXHIBIT B
• Consolidation of parking areas
necessary to allow for future intili.
See Site Plan Decision, pp. 8 and 12.
• Location of parking areas provides
convenient access to retail uses at
both ends of the development.
• No relief is possible for the Target
parking area in Quadrant C. See
Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement.
•• ru"" '"
"III
Iii
'" 'ir
1;
" !j! ..
g
" !!.
I
(
0\ \fO~W9'"
if:
~
THE LANDING
RMC 4-3-100.F4.b
prohibits surface parking dnveways
on pede.tflan-oriented streets .
... surface parking driveway on
designaled pedeslrian-
oriented .treel
RESPONSE
• Director granted modification -see
Site Plan Decision, pp. 12-13.
• Parking areas located mid-block and
consolidated to allow future intill.
• Consolidation of parking areas also
allows for consolidation of access
points, providing access to a central
area rather than requiring multiple
access points to decentralized lots.
• No relief is possible for the surface
parking driveways into the Target
lot in Quadrant C. See Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement.
EXHIBIT C
.;. 6 , ..
'Iii
'" .~ ..
''''
( ""--.r
THE LANDING
RMC 4·3·100.E.3.b
requires that on pedestnan--Ofisnted
streets, 1he primary entrance of each
buIldiog be-Iocated on ~he facadE!-
facing the street * primary entrance of building
not onented toward
PEtdestrian-onented titreet
This IS also a violation Of RMC 4-9-200,E.1(a),
'Ntl/ell reqUlf6S Site Plans to conform 10 lhe
Compr~enslva Plan.
~ Policy LU-288 of the ComprehensIVe
Plan slaws'
~Orienl b\Jildings to streets 10
emphaSize urb<J11 (;f1arCicter, maXimiZe
pedestnan <ldlvily <.lnd mmimlze
automobile use wlth!!l thu Distnct."
RESPONSE
• Director granted modification -
see Update A Decision, p. 4.
• Orientation of buildings toward
pedestrian walkways heightens
the pedestrian-friendly
environment.
• Orientation of Buildings 200 and
400 toward the pedestrian
walkway ensures the smooth
flow of pedestrian traffic.
EXHIBIT D
+
rJi!~~
i"ii
=11
4i '" ..... ....
r""~
f
THE LANDING
•
•
•
RMC 4-o3·100.E.Z,b
reqUIres buUdlngs on designated
pedeslnan-onented streets to be
located a<fjacent t{) the sidewalk.
elt(,'!pt wnere peGeslnan-onanletJ
space IS locewd be1Wtlen the
building and lhe' Sidewalk .
.. buiktlngs OIl designamd
ped$&lnan-orientad street not
located adja<:ent to the sIdewalk
TIlls IS <dso iii II'lotation of RMC 4--9-200.E.1(8J,
wfllcll rl!tQUlres SIte Pfam 10 conlorm to !he
Compr~henslve Plan
• Pullcy LU-28a of the CornpICIIUIlUl'lr.'
Plan S[ales"
"O(lent bUlldmgs to str8~1::: 10
emphns!ze urban charactel, mll)(lrm28
pedesWan ac\iYTty i;:jnd fillmrnrZtl
automobile IJse withm 1m) DIHlll:!'
RESPONSE
Director granted modification -see
Site Plan Decision, p. 10.
If Building 200 abutted Park Ave.,
this would create a gap between
buildings and disrupt the flow of
pedestrian traffic.
The parking area between Building
400 and Park Ave. has been
removed. See Update A, dated
3/2/07.
• No relief is possible regarding the
parking area between Building 200
and Park Ave. N. See Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement
EXHIBIT E
noIII.
'"
'" iii. 'iii
.. .. , ..
"::'
'i =1'1 ""11& -j .... 2;;0;
~il .~'~: I ",~,)I~
=i;5' ~!
,. ... = = ... ""
illm'nI 6f?fsmrn
..
=~
~
THE LANDING
RMC 4-2-120£
requires parking, docking. and
loading areas for truck traffic
to be oft-street and screened
from view of abutting public streets.
* unscteened docking & loading
area for fruck traffic abutting
public street
RESPONSE
• Truck docking and loading areas
along N. 8th are landscaped to
provide screening from the
street. See Site Plan Decision,
p.14.
• Appellant's exhibit incorrectly
labels certain areas as loading
areas (see X's). Actual location
of loading areas is shown on
Update A, dated 3/2/07.
EXHIBIT F
,~
7
'tb
~
THE LANDING
RMC 4-3·100.F.1.b.1
requires parting on designated
pedestrian-oriented sttgels
to be at the 81de and/or rear
of a bul/(ling
•
par1ting IOta located between
front of buDding and'
pedestrliln-orienled street
This 18 also a vlOlalion of RMC 4..s-200.E.1 Ca"
whiCh reqUires Site Pl80$ 10 conform to the
ComprehensIVe Plan .
• Pokey LU-297 of the Comprehensive
Plan states.
'Discourage oorklng lots between
structures and street right-of-way.'
RESPONSE
• Director granted modification -see
Site Plan Decision, pp. 11-12.
• Surface parking areas are
consolidated toward center to allow
for future intill development.
• Project complies with the intent of
the design requirements by
maintaining an active pedestrian
environment.
• Alleged violation limited to Target
lot, thus no relief is possible.
See Appellant's Reply, 2/2107, p. 16;
see also Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement.
EXHIBIT G
+ '" "" .. ....
~
THE LANDING
RMC 4·2·120.E
requires a maximum setback of five
feet for front yaros and side yards
along a street
.! setb~ck exceeding ffV81eet T maxunum
This IS also a VIOlation of RMC 4.9~200.E.1(a),
whiCh reqUires Site Plans. 10 conform to the
ComprehensiVe Plan .
• Policy LU·286 of the Comprehensive
Plan states:
~Onenl buildings 10 streets to emphasize
urbcifl character, maximize pedestrran
actiVity and I1lfOmllze aulomobile use
within the Dlstrlct"
RESPONSE
• Director granted modification -
see Update A Decision, pp. 3-4.
• Director's 7/17/06 Interpretation
Decision also permitted
administrative approval of
setback modifications.
See Site Plan Decision, p. 5.
• Project complies with intent of
development standards by
incorporating pedestrian-
oriented elements within and
around the development.
EXHIBIT H
70' 50' 75' 90' 70'