HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Development Committee - 08 Jun 2017 - Agenda - Pdf
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
3:00 PM - Thursday, June 8, 2017
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. City Center Community Plan Advisory Board Appointment
Bloch
a) AB - 1901 Mayor Law appoints Laura Bloch to the City Center Community Plan Advisory
Board to fill a term expiring on 4/30/2018.
2. 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
a) Presentation
b) Fairwood Wetland CPA and Rezone
c) Kennydale Neighborhood Market CPA and Rezone
d) Pointe Heron CPA and Rezone
3. Landmark Preservation
a) Presentation
b) Landmark Preservation Staff Report
4. Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Briefing
a) AB - 1920 Community & Economic Development Department recommends approval of
the land use applications (Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit),
subject to the condition in the Hearing Examiner's decision and approve a resolution
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a development agreement between the
City of Renton and Quendall Terminals.
b) Presentation
c) Letter from HCMP
5. Emerging Issues in CED
AB - 1901
City Council Regular Meeting - 05 Jun 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Appointment to City Center Community Plan Advisory Board
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Executive
STAFF CONTACT: April Alexander, Executive Assistant
EXT.: 6520
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
None
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Mayor Law appoints Ms. Laura Bloch to the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board for a term expiring
4/30/18 (position previously held by Doug Baugh).
EXHIBITS:
A. Recommendation memo
B. Laura Bloch application
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm Mayor Law's appointment of Laura Bloch to the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E MORAN D U M
DATE:April 25,2017
TO Den is Law,Mayor
FROM:C.E.“Chip”Vincent,CED Administrator //
SUBJECT:Appointment of Laura Bloch to the City Center
Community Plan Advisory Board
Doug Baugh served as a representative of PACCAR on the City Center Community Plan
Advisory Board since April 2012.He was a tremendous asset to the Board and he
consistently demonstrated a commitment to his position.Doug has requested that his
position on the Board be filled by Laura Bloch,who is an Assistant General Manager for
PACCAR Parts in Renton.She has worked for PACCAR in Renton for more than 10 years,
so she is very familiar with Renton and the City Center Community Planning Area.
I recommend that she be appointed to a one-year term,expiring on April 30,2018.
h:\ced\planning\community planning\city center\advisory board\appointments &reappointments\Iaura bloch
appointmentdoc
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
April Alexander
From:Iaura.bloch@paccar.com
Sent:Monday,May 22,2017 11:25 AM
To:April Alexander
Cc:laura.bloch@paccar.com
Subject:Application for boards,commissions,or committees.
The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website:
Data from form “Application for Boards,commissions,or committee&’was received on Monday,May 22,2017
11:24:44 AM.
Boards,commissions,committees
Field I Value
BoardsCömmissionsCommittees 1
Title_________________IMs.
Applicant’s phone 1425-254-4492
Applicant’s alternate phone
Renton Resident?j false
If so,since when
former Residence
.3.A.Economics,Grinnell CollegeEducationalBackgroundMBA,University of Washington
Occupation Assistant General Manager -Operations,PACCAR Parts.
j Member of Senior Leadership Team setting the strategy
‘and implementation plans for the Division
•Lead Operations for Americas of $33 Aftermarket Parts
Division including Distribution,Materials,Logistics,
.Customer Service,and ITOccupationBackgroundResponsiblefordistribution network expansion
strategy and execution
•Supplier management,forecasting and planning for
$150M of inventory
Employer PAC CAR
[Community Activities
‘R PACCAR has a long history in Rentonandl would like to helpeasonsjmaintainourinvolvementandengagementinRenton.I am
1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Field Value
specifically interested in the City Center Community Plan
Advisory Board,to replace outgoing member Doug Baugh.
Can attend day meetings true
Can attend night meetings true
Email “Application for boards,commissions,or committees.”originally sent to analexander@rentonwa.gov from
laura.bloch@paccar.com on Monday,May 22,2017 11:24:44 AM.The following were also sent a copy:laura.bloch@paccar.com.
2
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Laura I.Bloch
10428 NE 28th Place,Bellevue,WA 98004
lbloch@outlook.com
(425)208-2652
EXPERIENCE
2004-2017 PACCAR INc Bellevue,WA
2016-present Assistant General Manager,PACCAR Parts,Renton,WA
2015 Director of Operations,PACCAR Parts,Renton,WA
•Member of Senior Leadership Team setting the strategy and implementation plans for the Division
•Lead Operations for Americas of $33 Aftermarket Parts Division including Distribution,Materials,
Logistics,Customer Service,and if
•Responsible for distribution network expansion strategy and execution
•Supplier management,forecasting and planning for $150M of inventory
•Achieved operational records in all departments in 2016
2014-2015 Sales Operations Director,DAf Truck,Thame,UK
•Led teams of salespeople responsible for UK retail truck sales and repair and maintenance contracts
•Implemented new process for sales allowance requests improving turnaround by 20%
•Increased UK >16T truck market share from 19%first half 2014 to 26%second half 2014
•Achieved Repair and Maintenance Contract share of 46%against a goal of 37%
2011-2014 Parts Distributioti Center Manager,PACCAR Parts Materials Manager,Leyland,UK
•Executive Leader for all aspects of parts distribution center and logistics in the UK
•Redesigned picking and delivery for order delivery in less than 24 hours leading to incremental sales
2010-2011 Materials Manager,PACCAR Parts,Renton,WA
•Leader for Forecasting and Planning of $lOOM inventory in the 8 North American distribution centers
•Led team of 20 inventory analysts advising independent dealers of ordering decisions
•Implemented new metrics to incentivize dealers to stock a wider variety of product
2008-2010 Parts Distribution Center Manager,PACCAR Parts,Renton,WA
•Executive responsible for all aspects of Northwestern Distribution Center Operation
•Received award for being a top distribution center worldwide on cost,productivity,and quality.
2005-2008 Area Manager,Kenworth,Renton,WA
•Managed teams of 50-100 production workers to achieve production,quality,and safety results
2004-2005 PACCAR Leadership Development Program Participant,Bellevue,WA
•Completed 8 to 16 week projects throughout a variety of Divisions at PACCAR
2000-2002 ThEEHOUSE Seattle,WA
Development Associate for a mid-sized nonprofit organization serving foster children
•Procured $400,000 in foundation grants each year,including two $100,000 grants
•Produced all Public Relations and Marketing materials including brochures,newsletters,and the website
1998-2000 RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE Research Triangle Park,NC
Economist in the Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Group
•Conducted researched and economic analyses on industries and impacts of proposed EPA regulations
EDUCATION
June 2004 UNiVERSITY OF WASIUNGTON,Master ofBusiness Administration with honors Seattle,WA
December 1997 GRINNELL COLLEGE,BA.in Economics with honors,Phi Beta Kappa Grinnell,IA
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments with RezonesCity of Renton Planning and Development CommitteeJune 7, 2017Erika Rhett, AICP and Bryce Anderson, BERK ConsultingAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
2PurposeBriefing on three applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments with rezoneNo action is requested today2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
3Review Criteria – RMC 4-9-020•Evaluate the impacts and effects of the proposal upon: city growth, provision of public facilities, land values and housing costs, capital investments and expenditures, natural resources, and other considerations•Require consistency with: Renton Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Act, and Countywide Planning Policies•Must support or address City policies•Must comply with rezoning criteria2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Fairwood Park WetlandsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
5The RequestRezone 33 acres of landResidential Medium Density (RMD) to Residential Low Density (RLD) land useR-8 zoning to R-1 zoning2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
6Current and Proposed Land Use DesignationProposedCurrent2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
7Current and Proposed ZoningProposedCurrent2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
8VicinityFairwood Park neighborhood to the eastRenton Park neighborhood and Renton Park greenbelt to the westFairwood West neighborhood to the NorthLindbergh High School to the northwest2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
9Critical AreasMapped SlopesMapped Hydrology2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
10Critical AreasSite Delineated Hydrology2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
11Background InformationOriginally set aside for future development2016 delineation found that 85% of this site is wetlandsTwo streams: Molasses Creek and an unnamed tributaryLimited development potential on this site2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
12Review CriteriaThere is a small area for potential development on this parcelThe effect on rate of growth will be negligibleeffect on rate of growth, development, conversion of land2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
13Review CriteriaThe potential growth on this parcel, if any, would be covered within Renton’s growth projections.effect upon the rate and population and employment growth2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
14Review CriteriaProtects wetland and open spaces in accordance with policy:Goal L-U:Preserve, protect, and enhance the quality and functions of the City’s sensitive areas including: lakes, rivers, major and minor creeks, intermittent stream courses and their floodplains, wetlands, ground water resources, wildlife habitats, and areas of seismic and geological hazards.Policy L-31:Maintain or increase the quantity and quality of wetlands. Development activities shall not decrease the net acreage of existing wetlands.Policy L-32:Protect buffers along wetlands and surface waters to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for biological diversity, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat.Policy L-34:Acquire the most sensitive areas such as wetlands, flood plains, and wildlife habitat for conversion to parks and greenbelts. Pursue an overall net gain of natural functions and values by enhancing sensitive areas and providing incentives for the enhancement of functions and values through private development.whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met and remain desirable2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
15Review CriteriaGMA supports protection of the environment and critical areasThe Countywide Planning Policies Earth and Habitat policies support the protection of critical areas and wetlands.conforms to the requirements of GMA, the Comp Plan, and CWPPs2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
16Review CriteriaThe proposal would provide better protection for the site wetlands and streams by reducing the amount of development that could occur adjacent to these critical areaseffect upon critical areas and natural resource lands2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
17Review CriteriaDoes not fit RMD criteria emphasizing compact urban development in Policy L-16RLD criteria in Policy L-15: Place lands constrained by sensitive areas, those intended to provide transition to the rural area, or those appropriate for larger lot housing within the Residential Low Density land use designation to allow for a range of lifestyles.R-1 zone criteria in Policy L-15: Lands with significant environmental constraints, which may have the potential for development at a level of intensity that is compatible with that environment, or lands that provide urban separators should be zoned for Residential-1 (R-1). R-1 zoning is allowed in the Residential Low Density Land Use Designation.consistency with locational criteria of the Comp Plan2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
18Review CriteriaAll applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan;orThe request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; orThe request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; orThe request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council.RMC 4‐9‐020F.22017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
19Review CriteriaAt least one of the following circumstances applies:The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; orSince the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change.4‐9‐180F.1.b2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
20Staff RecommendationStaff recommends a change in land use from RMD to RLD and a rezone from R-8 to R-1Approve2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
21Questions and Comments2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
KennydaleNeighborhood MarketAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
23The RequestRezone 0.68 acres on N. 30thStreetResidential Medium Density (RMD) to Residential High Density (RHD) land useR-6 to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoningAccommodates expansion of the current use2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
24Background Information•Existing market will need to be removed with I-405 widening•Remove existing 8 units of multi-family on site•Keep gas pumps and canopy in the same location on adjacent site•Expand market from 2,500 to 10,000 square feet over both sites•Put 10-12 residential units above the marketConceptual Development Site Plan2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
25VicinityNorth – Single-family homes RMD/R-6West – Future home of new fire station and water reservoir (2019)South- Gas station and mini-market RHD/CNEast- I-405 2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
26Current and Proposed Land Use DesignationProposedCurrent2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
27Current and Proposed ZoningProposedCurrent2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
28Review CriteriaA slight increase in intensity in an area already used for commercial and multi-family usesThe conversion of strip commercial development to mixed use is envisioned and encouraged in the Comprehensive Planeffect on rate of growth, development, conversion of land2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
29Review CriteriaExisting development is already served by public facilities Proposed development should not increase demands significantlyeffect upon the capacity to provide adequate public facilities2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
30Review CriteriaHousing units may increase slightlyEmployment may increase slightlyScale of increase is anticipated in Renton’s growth and employment estimateseffect upon the rate and population and employment growth2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
31Review CriteriaComprehensive plan encourages the enhancement of neighborhood nodeswhether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met and remain desirable2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
32Review CriteriaThe proposal will allow retention of a small business despite plans to widen I-405whether capital expenditures and improvements are made as expected2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
33Review CriteriaSupports the expansion of urban levels of service within urban areasGMA goals supported: reduction of sprawl, concentration of urban growth, and economic developmentCountywide Planning Policies:EC-7 supports business retention and expansionDP-38 supports development of neighborhood centers and nodesconforms to the requirements of GMA, the Comp Plan, and CWPPs2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
34Review CriteriaPolicy L‐18: Commercial and Mixed Use – policy expands commercial opportunities along arterials to create business districts and to transform strip commercial patterns to mixed use. Emphasizes good site planning. , Commercial Neighborhood Zone–Zone lands Commercial Neighborhood (CN) that provide goods and services on a small‐scale to a surrounding residential neighborhood and that front on a street classified as a Principal arterial, Minor arterial, or Collector. Expanded CN zoning should only be where there is opportunity to provide small limited‐scale commercial opportunity to the immediately surrounding residential community that would not result in an increase in scale or intensity, which would alter the character of the nearby residential neighborhood. The CN zone implements the Residential High Density Land Use Designation.consistency with locational criteria of the Comp Plan2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
35Review CriteriaAll applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; orThe request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; orThe request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; orThe request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council.RMC 4‐9‐020F.22017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
36Review CriteriaAt least one of the following circumstances applies:The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; orSince the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change.4‐9‐180F.1.b2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
37Staff RecommendationStaff recommends approval of the applicants request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from RMD to RHD and rezone from R-6 to CNApprove2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
38Questions and Comments2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Pointe HeronAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
40The RequestRezone of 27.09 acres south of SW Sunset BoulevardFrom Employment Area (EA) to Residential High Density (HD) land useFrom Light Industrial (IL) to Residential Multi-Family (RMF)If not RMF, would also consider R-14 or R-102017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsSource: Google EarthAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
41Current and Proposed Land Use DesignationProposedCurrent2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
42Current and Proposed ZoningProposedCurrent2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
43Background Information2004 approval for Sunset Bluffs residential development2007 granted rezone of adjacent property for additional single-family development2009 initiated rezone to EA land use, included the Pointe Heron Property, plus two other pieces known as QIP and Virtu2010 amended rezone application to change the intended zoning – the rezone was approved, resulting in the current zoning2017 request to go back to residential land use2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
44VicinityNorth – SW Sunset Boulevard and single-family homesSoutheast – townhomes and apartmentsSouth- EA land use – supports BNSF rail line and the Black River Riparian ForestWest- EA land use with IL zoning and beyond Sunset View Apartments2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
45Review CriteriaPolicy L-17: Residential High Density –Designate land for Residential High Density (HD) where access, topography, and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of unit types, or where there is existing multi-family development. HD unit types are designed to incorporate feature from both single-family and multi-family developments, support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, have close access to transit service, and efficiently use urban services and infrastructure. Land designated HD is where projects will be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses.consistency with locational criteria of the Comp Plan2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
46Review CriteriaL-19: Employment Areas –Place areas primarily used for industrial development, or a mix of commercial and industrial uses such as office, industrial, warehousing, and manufacturing, with access to transportation networks and transit, within the Employment Area (EA) Land Use Designation. Employment Areas provide a significant economic development and employment base for the City. Maintain a variety and balance of uses through zoning which promotes the gradual transition of uses on sites with good access and visibility to more intensive commercial and office uses.consistency with locational criteria of the Comp Plan2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
47Review CriteriaLight Industrial Zone –Zone property Light Industrial (IL) where it is appropriate for very low-intensity manufacturing and industrial services. Uses and potential impacts of uses in the zone are fully contained within their buildings. This zone implements the Commercial Development and Employment Area Land Use Designations.consistency with locational criteria of the Comp Plan2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
48Review CriteriaAll applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; orThe request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; orThe request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; orThe request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council.RMC 4‐9‐020F.22017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
49Review CriteriaAt least one of the following circumstances applies:The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; orSince the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change.4‐9‐180F.1.b2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
50Review CriteriaRenton has capacity for approximately 110%-120% of its housing target of 14,050 new units, is oversupplied with multi-family outside Growth CentersRenton just barely meets capacity at 91-108% of its employment target of 28,755 new jobsRenton has only 34.88 vacant acres of IL land without critical areasRezoning this property would reduce the available stock of vacant IL land by 78%It would also reduce employment capacity by approximately 500 peopleOverall employment capacity would be reduced to 89%-106%The loss of employment could make achievement of growth target less likely and the housing is not neededeffect on rate of growth, development, conversion of land 2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
51Review CriteriaFor most utilities there is no difference in the ability to serve the property at HD or EA land useResidential uses typically generate greater demands for emergency response than light industrialResidential uses would result in a small increase in demands for parks and recreation and school facilitieseffect upon the capacity to provide adequate public facilities2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
52Review CriteriaRenton is under supplied with IL land and over supplied with lands for multi-family developmentComprehensive Plan prefers that new multi-family development goes into a designated growth centerwhether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met and remain desirable2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
53Review CriteriaUnlikely to have a significant effect on land values or housing coststhe effect upon general land values and housing costs2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
54Review CriteriaApplicant selected four GMA goals that apply to this proposal:Urban growth and transportation apply equally to HD or EA land useHousing- there is no specific support for increasing the variety or affordability of housingProperty Rights- the property is not subject to arbitrary land use actions, it has land use and zoning designations requested by property owners in 2010conforms to the requirements of GMA, the Comp Plan, and CWPPs2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
55Review CriteriaThe Countywide Planning Policies support: Development patterns consistent with new growth going primarily to designated centersAdoption of plans that meet growth targets for housing and employmentPolicy DP-39, which supports infill development adds the caveat where appropriate based on local plansconforms to the requirements of GMA, the Comp Plan, and CWPPs2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
56Critical Areas - MappedSteep SlopesHydrography2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
57Critical Areas – Site ReviewEastern portion of the siteWestern portion of the site2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
58Review CriteriaPortions of the Pointe Heron site may be subject to critical areas regulations and WDFW regulations at the time of development:Located immediately north, and upslope of the Black River Riparian Forest, a class I wetland and shoreline of the stateBRRF classified as a biodiversity area and corridor area by WDFWNot currently used by Bald Eagles or Great Blue Heron No difference in potential for impacts between HD and EA land useeffect upon critical areas and natural resource lands2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
59Staff RecommendationStaff recommends denial of this application for rezone. This application does not meet the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment with rezone.Deny2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
60Questions and Comments2017 Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsAGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Page 1 of 6
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
CPA #16-000805: Fairwood Wetland CPA and Rezone
Staff: Erika Rhett, AICP, Senior Associate, BERK Consulting
Date: April 25, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: Emmanuel IV, LLC
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description
The applicant seeks a rezone of approximately 33 acres of land on the Northwest corner of the
intersection of SE Petrovitsky Road and 134th Ave SE, as shown in Exhibit 1. The requested land use
designation change is from Residential Medium Density (RMD) to Residential Low Density (RLD), so that
the zoning may change from R-8 to R-1. The area is currently unused wetlands and there is no proposal
for future land use. Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 show the current and proposed land use designations, while
Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 show the current and proposed zoning. Staff recommends approval of the
proposal.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 - Aerial View of Property and Vicinity
Exhibit 2 - Current Land Use Designation
Exhibit 3 - Proposed Land Use Designation
Exhibit 4 - Current Zoning
Exhibit 5 - Proposed Zoning
Exhibit 6 – Mapped Hydrology
Exhibit 7 – Mapped Steep Slopes
Exhibit 8 – Site Delineated Hydrology
Background
The parcel for proposed rezone is mostly wetlands. After a wetland and stream delineation analysis in
February 2016, it was found that the parcel contained more wetland area than previously estimated.
Currently, the parcel is estimated to be covered by wetlands on approximately 85% of the site. Views of
the mapped wetlands and the site delineated wetlands can be seen in Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 8 . There are
also two streams located on the site, Molasses Creek and an unnamed tributary, which the wetland
maps display. There are limited utility facilities on the parcel, which are a sanitary sewer pipe easement,
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#16-000805 Fairwood Page 2 of 6 April 25, 2017
stormwater facility, and an access road from SE Petrovitsky Road. Given this information, the area is
being proposed for land use designation change from RMD to RLD. The proposal is a non-project action,
and no associated development is proposed.
The parcel is adjacent to residentially zoned properties, including the Fairwood Park neighborhood as
shown in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4. To the North and East of the site is RMD land use designation, with R-8
and R-6 zoning. To the South is more RMD, with R-8 and R-6 zones, with some RLD land use with R-4
zoning. To the West is more RMD with R-6 zoning, and RLD land use with R-1 zoning. The Eastern
portion of the parcel borders Renton city limits.
The Residential Medium Density (RMD) policies are intended for areas that can support compact urban
development, and are in areas with access to urban services. RMD land uses suitable for larger lot
development, infill, and developing single-family residences at urban densities. The implementation
policies for Residential Low Density (RLD) are intended for lands constrained by sensitive areas, or those
that provide transition to rural areas. They can be used for resource conservation areas that have
significant environmental constraints, lands suitable for conservation or restoration, or lands that
provide urban separators.
Due to the high percentage of critical areas urban development is not appropriate for the site, and an
RLD land use designation is recommended.
Review Criteria
RMC 4-9-020F Review Criteria or the Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process
lists three review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The criteria are:
1. All Comprehensive Plan amendments will be evaluated on their merits based upon the
following:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned
in the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities;
c. The effect upon the rate of population and employment growth;
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable;
e. The effect upon general land values and housing costs;
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being
made or completed as expected;
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is
internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-wide
Planning Policies for King County;
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands;
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#16-000805 Fairwood Page 3 of 6 April 25, 2017
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application
requirements established in this section;
j. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
2. All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
3. Proposals that include a concurrent rezone proposal shall also comply with the decision
criteria for a change of zone classification in RMC 4-9-180.
Analysis
Criteria 1
Criteria 1 of the Comprehensive Plan Review Criteria has been met. Parts a-h are addressed in the
impact analysis below. The Department of Community and Economic Development has not identified
any additional considerations as noted in part j. The proposal has met application requirements as noted
in part i. Part i also requires consistency with the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan.
This site is not compatible with its current RMD designation. The site is currently zoned in R-8 zoning
and is being proposed to be amended to R-1 zoning.
Policy L-16: Residential Medium Density – Place areas that can support high-quality, compact, urban
development with access to urban services, transit, and infrastructure, whether through new
development or through infill, within the Residential Medium Density (MD) Designation. Within the MD
Designation, allow a variety of single-family and multi-family development types, with continuity created
through the application of design guidelines, the organization of roadways, sidewalks, public spaces, and
the placement of community gathering places and civic amenities.
The amount of wetlands on the site constrain possible development, leaving a level of development
intensity that is not suitable under the above RMD. The site is not suitable to new urban development.
Staff recommendeds R-1 zoning as it is supported by Policy L-15. It describes the locational criteria for
Residential Low Density land use designations and the R-1 zone within it.
Policy L-15: Residential Low Density – Place lands constrained by sensitive areas, those intended to
provide transition to the rural area, or those appropriate for larger lot housing within the Residential Low
Density land use designation to allow for a range of lifestyles.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#16-000805 Fairwood Page 4 of 6 April 25, 2017
Residential-1 Zone – Lands with significant environmental constraints, which may have the
potential for development at a level of intensity that is compatible with that environment, or
lands that provide urban separators should be zoned for Residential-1 (R-1). R-1 zoning is
allowed in the Residential Low Density Land Use Designation.
The site is appropriate for a RLD designation due to the constraint of sensitive areas on the site. Within
the vicinity of the site are other developments, and the site may allow for a level of intensity compatible
with the wetland environment, as allowed in the R-1 zoning.
Criteria 2
This proposal meets criteria 2-a, supporting the vision embodied in the Renton Comprehensive Plan.
Renton’s vision is summarized in the tagline “The center of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region where
businesses and families thrive.”
Renton aims to achieve its vision through Land Use Goals. This proposal meets the following Land Use
Goal, which are set to fulfill Renton’s vision:
Goal L-U: Preserve, protect, and enhance the quality and functions of the City’s sensitive areas including:
lakes, rivers, major and minor creeks, intermittent stream courses and their floodplains, wetlands,
ground water resources, wildlife habitats, and areas of seismic and geological hazards.
Policy L-31: Maintain or increase the quantity and quality of wetlands. Development activities
shall not decrease the net acreage of existing wetlands.
Policy L-32: Protect buffers along wetlands and surface waters to facilitate infiltration and
maintain stable water temperatures, provide for biological diversity, reduce amount and velocity
of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat.
Policy L-34: Acquire the most sensitive areas such as wetlands, flood plains, and wildlife habitat
for conversion to parks and greenbelts. Pursue an overall net gain of natural functions and
values by enhancing sensitive areas and providing incentives for the enhancement of functions
and values through private development.
The proposal meets the above Land Use goals and policies. The site under consideration for a rezone is
85% wetlands, and contains two intermittent stream courses, which are sensitive areas. While Renton
grows, it also aims to protect and incorporate natural features into its neighborhoods. The proposed
rezone allows for the opportunity to protect the site’s natural features, and leave it available for future
use. Lower density development is most compatible with the Land Use policies detailed above.
The proposal also meets Renton’s vision through the following Parks, Recreation, Natural Areas, and
Trails Element Goals.
Goal P-A: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Areas provide the opportunity for the community to
connect to, participate in, support and encourage a healthy environment and active lifestyle.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#16-000805 Fairwood Page 5 of 6 April 25, 2017
Policy P-7: Protect, conserve and enhance the area’s diverse natural resources for the long-term
health of ecosystems, and for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.
The proposal fits the Parks, Recreation, Natural Areas, and Trails Element Goals and Policies stated
above. If the site were amended to R-1 zoning, it would fulfill the policies of promoting long-term
sustainability and healthy environments. Maintaining healthy environments is a goal for the City of
Renton because they support healthy lifestyles for residents. The protection of this site under R-1 zoning
would leave these natural areas available, while allowing for appropriate development that can
someday encourage residents and visitors to make use of as part of a healthy lifestyle.
Criteria 3
As a rezone proposal, criteria 3 requires compliance with RMC 4-9-180F.1 Criteria for Rezones Requiring
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The following findings shall be made:
The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and
a. Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b. At least one of the following circumstances applies:
i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area
land use analysis and area zoning; or
ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances
affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change.
Criteria 2 demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
In regards to the second test, this property was not specifically considered at the time of the last area
land use analysis or zoning, which was completed for the Comprehensive Plan update in 2015. The
amount of sensitive areas of the site were assessed in February 2016, after the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The amount of wetlands delineated are what is prompting this proposal,
information that was not considered at the time of the last land use analysis.
Thus, the proposal meets the findings in RMC 4-9-180 for rezones, thereby meeting the criteria 3 in RMC
4-9-020.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
The proposal has the potential to have a small effect on the amount of buildable lands within the City.
However, due to the amount of wetlands on the property, those critical areas are not appropriate for
development. The city has enough capacity to absorb projected growth, and the effect of this proposal
on the rate of growth will be negligible.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#16-000805 Fairwood Page 6 of 6 April 25, 2017
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
The site is already served by public facilities, due to the level of existing development around the site.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
Projected population and employment from this proposal is too small to have any significant effect on
Renton’s growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Renton’s Comprehensive Plan supports the idea of accommodating growth while implementing
sustainable and environmentally responsible development practices.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
In general, this project should not have a significant effect on land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
This impact is not applicable.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposal is consistent with GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies. Both documents support
protecting critical areas from development. From the Countywide Planning Policies, there are Earth and
Habitat policies that encourage the protection of wetlands.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed rezone is 85% wetlands and contains two intermittent streams. The proposal would
protect and conserve critical areas and natural resource lands. Any future development on the site will
need to comply with Renton critical area rules and to provide stormwater facilities and minimize
adverse impacts on the natural environment present.
Staff Recommendation
Staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and with the criteria for amendment in the Renton Municipal Code.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
City of Renton
Unincorporated King County
Unincorporated King County 140th Ave SE130thAveSE1
3
8th
Pl
SE
S E P e tr o v i t s k y R d129thAveSE
1 3 4 t h LnSE136thPlSESE 17
3
r
d
P
l
SE168th St
SE 170th St
SE 172nd St
SE 170th StSE167thSt
SE 166th Pl
SE 169th Pl
SE 169th St
SE 168th St 133rd Pl SE137th Ave SES E 1 7 2 n d S t
134thLnSE133rdLnSE135th
Ave
SE135thPlSESE 171st Pl128th Ave SE128t
h
AveSE139th Pl SE134
t
h
Ave SE
133rdPlSEPebbl
e CoveA pt AcRd132nd Pl SELindbergh HS AcRd130thAveSEStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 1
Vicinity
Source: Renton, 2017; NAIP (USDA), 2015.
Fairwood Park
Wetland
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
RHD
RLD
RMD
RMD
RHD
RLD
RLD
CMU
RMD
RLD
City of Renton
Unincorporated King County
Unincorporated King County 140th Ave SE130thAveSE1
3
8th
Pl
SE
S E P e tr o v i t s k y R d129thAveSE
1 3 4 t h LnSE136thPlSESE 17
3
r
d
P
l
SE168th St
SE 170th St
SE 172nd St
SE 170th StSE167thSt
SE 166th Pl
SE 169th Pl
SE 169th St
SE 168th St 133rd Pl SE137th Ave SES E 1 7 2 n d S t
134thLnSE133rdLnSE135th
Ave
SE135thPlSESE 171st Pl128th Ave SE128t
h
AveSE139th Pl SE134
t
h
Ave SE
133rdPlSEPebbl
e CoveA pt AcRd132nd Pl SELindbergh HS AcRd130thAveSEStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Land Use Designations
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Commercial Mixed Use
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 2
Current Land Use
Designation
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Fairwood Park
Wetland
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
RHD
RLD
RLD
RMD
RHD
RLD
CMU
RMD
RLD
City of Renton
Unincorporated King County
Unincorporated King County 140th Ave SE130thAveSE1
3
8th
Pl
SE
S E P e tr o v i t s k y R d129thAveSE
1 3 4 t h LnSE136thPlSESE 17
3
r
d
P
l
SE168th St
SE 170th St
SE 172nd St
SE 170th StSE167thSt
SE 166th Pl
SE 169th Pl
SE 169th St
SE 168th St 133rd Pl SE137th Ave SES E 1 7 2 n d S t
134thLnSE133rdLnSE135th
Ave
SE135thPlSESE 171st Pl128th Ave SE128t
h
AveSE139th Pl SE134
t
h
Ave SE
133rdPlSEPebbl
e CoveA pt AcRd132nd Pl SELindbergh HS AcRd130thAveSEStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Land Use Designations
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Commercial Mixed Use
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 3
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Fairwood Park
Wetland
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
City of Renton
Unincorporated King County
Unincorporated King County
R-10
R-4
RC
R-6
R-6
RC
R-8
R-1
R-6
R-4 140th Ave SE130thAveSE1
3
8th
Pl
SE
S E P e tr o v i t s k y R d129thAveSE
1 3 4 t h LnSE136thPlSESE 17
3
r
d
P
l
SE168th St
SE 170th St
SE 172nd St
SE 170th StSE167thSt
SE 166th Pl
SE 169th Pl
SE 169th St
SE 168th St 133rd Pl SE137th Ave SES E 1 7 2 n d S t
134thLnSE133rdLnSE135th
Ave
SE135thPlSESE 171st Pl128th Ave SE128t
h
AveSE139th Pl SE134
t
h
Ave SE
133rdPlSEPebbl
e CoveA pt AcRd132nd Pl SELindbergh HS AcRd130thAveSEStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Zoning Designations
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential - 4 DU/AC
Residential - 6 DU/AC
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 4
Current Zoning
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Fairwood Park
Wetland
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
City of Rent on
Unincorporated King County
Uni ncorporated King County
R-10
R-4
RC
R-6
R-6
RC
R-1
R-6
R-4 128th Ave SE140th Ave SE139th Pl SE134thAveSE130thAveSE133rdPlSE1
3
8th
Pl
SE
S E P e tr o v i t s k y R d129thAveSE
1 3 4 t h LnSE136thPlSESE 173rd Pl
SE168th St
SE 170th St
SE 172nd St
SE 170th StSE167thSt
SE 166th Pl
SE 169th Pl
SE 169th St
SE 168th St 133rd Pl SE137th Ave SES E 1 7 2 n d S t
134thLnSEPebbl
eCoveApt AcRd133rdLnSE132nd Pl SE135t
h Ave SE135thPlSES E 1 7 1 s t P l
Lindbergh HS AcRd130thA
v
e
SESE172nd St
Study Area
Parcels
City Limits
Zoning Designa tions
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential - 4 DU/AC
Residential - 6 DU/AC
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Reso urce Conservation
°0 250 500
Fee t
Exhibit 5
Proposed Zoning
Source: City of Renton; King County, 2017
Fairwood Par k
Wetland
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Exhibit 8 - Site Delineated Hydrology
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Page 1 of 7
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
CPA #16-0809: Kennydale Neighborhood Market CPA and Rezone
Staff: Erika Rhett, AICP, Senior Associate, BERK Consulting
Date: April 25, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: Emmanuel IV, LLC
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description
The applicants seeks rezone of approximately .68 acres on North 30th Street in the Kennydale
Neighborhood Area from the land use designation Residential Medium Density (RMD) to
Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) and a zoning change from Residential-6 (R-6) to Commercial
Neighborhood (CN). Currently the property is used as an eight-unit apartment building. If
rezoned the property owner plans to expand the market associated with the gas station use on
the adjacent property and build 10-12 residential units. The existing residential units would be
demolished. Staff recommends approval of this rezone with a change in land use to Residential
High Density (HD) with CN zoning.1
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 - Aerial View of Property and Vicinity
Exhibit 2 - Current Land Use Designation
Exhibit 3 - Proposed Land Use Designation
Exhibit 4 - Current Zoning
Exhibit 5 - Proposed Zoning
Exhibit 6 – Hydrography
Exhibit 7 – Steep Slopes
Exhibit 8 - Conceptual Site Plan for Proposed Development
Background
The parcel proposed for rezone is currently used for an eight unit, single-story apartment
building as shown in Exhibit 1. Since attached residential units are not currently allowed in the
1 Due to a table error in the Comprehensive Plan, which incorrectly places the CN zone under the CMU land use
designation, the applicant requested CMU land use designation. However, the land use designation that supports
CN zoning is actually HD (as noted in the policy text for the CN zone). HD land use designation with CN zoning is the
classification of the other properties in the Kennydale neighborhood node and is appropriate for this parcel as
well. A correction to the table error is docketed as part of this year’s clean-up amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#16-0809 Kennydale Neighborhood Market Page 2 of 7 April 25, 2017
R-6 zone, the structure is a non-conforming use. If the rezoning proposal is approved, the
property owner plans to expand the market associated with the gas station into the rezone
area. The current mini-market is 2,500 square feet and would be expanded to as much as
10,000 square feet. The existing eight-unit multi-family building would be demolished to
accommodate this expansion. However, there is a plan to construct 10-12 new units of multi-
family housing as a second story above the market. Parking for tenants will be located below
ground and market parking will be at surface level. The gas station pumps and canopy will
remain in the current location on the adjacent property. Exhibit 8 shows a conceptual site plan
for the proposed development.2
Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4 show the current land use designation and zoning of the site proposed for
rezone and of the properties in the vicinity. Proposed zoning is shown in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5.
• To the north, the property is designated RMD and zoned R-6 and currently used for
single family homes that are accessed from Park Avenue and Meadow Avenue.
• To the west, there is a vacant property with split zoning R-6 and CN (RMD and HD land
use designation). This parcel is owned by the City of Renton and will be home to a new
fire station and water reservoir in 2019.
• To the south is a gas station and mini-market on property zoned CN with HD land use.
The existing mini-market is slated for future removal when the Washington State
Department of Transportation widens I-405.
• To the east is the right-of-way for I-405.
Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 show the mapped locations of potential critical areas on the proposed
rezone site and vicinity. Based on these maps, future development on this parcel is unlikely to
be encumbered by critical areas.
Review Criteria
RMC 4-9-020F Review Criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process
list three review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1. All Comprehensive Plan amendments will be evaluated on their merits based upon the
following:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned
in the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities;
2 If the rezone is approved, future development will comply with the development standards in place for the CN
zone under the Renton Municipal Code. Although the conceptual site plan is based on CN standards, the
application of other city building, engineering, and land use standards may alter the proposal.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#16-0809 Kennydale Neighborhood Market Page 3 of 7 April 25, 2017
c. The effect upon the rate of population and employment growth;
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable;
e. The effect upon general land values and housing costs;
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being
made or completed as expected;
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is
internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-wide
Planning Policies for King County;
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands;
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application
requirements established in this section;
j. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
2. All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
3. Proposals that include a concurrent rezone proposal shall also comply with the decision
criteria for a change of zone classification in RMC 4-9-180.
Analysis
RMC 4-9-020F.1
Criteria 1 of the Comprehensive Plan Review Criteria has been met. Parts a-h are addressed in
the impact analysis below. The Department of Community and Economic Development has not
identified any additional considerations as noted in part j. The proposal has met application
requirements as noted in part i. Part i also requires consistency with the locational criteria in
the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan policy L-18 describes the locational criteria for
the HD land use designation and the CN zone within it:
Policy L-17: Residential High Density – Designate land for Residential High Density (HD) where
access, topography, and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of unit
types, or where there is existing multi-family development. HD unit types are designed to
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#16-0809 Kennydale Neighborhood Market Page 4 of 7 April 25, 2017
incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family developments, support cost-
efficient housing, facilitate infill development, have close access to transit service, and efficiently
use urban services and infrastructure. Lands designated HD is where projects will be compatible
with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density
uses.
• Commercial Neighborhood Zone – Zone lands Commercial Neighborhood (CN) that
provide goods and services on a small-scale to a surrounding residential neighborhood
and that front on a street classified as a Principal arterial, Minor arterial, or Collector.
Expanded CN zoning should only be where there is opportunity to provide small limited-
scale commercial opportunity to the immediately surrounding residential community
that would not result in an increase in scale or intensity, which would alter the character
of the nearby residential neighborhood. The CN zone implements the Residential High
Density Land Use Designation.
This proposal meets the locational criteria of the HD designation and CN zoning. Designation of
this site for HD land use eliminates the issue of multi-family development on this site being a
non-conforming use. It provides a small opportunity for infill development and is located near
the Kennydale Park and Ride. Although the site area for the proposal is located one parcel away
from N 30th Street, it is intended to be developed jointly with the gas station parcel
immediately adjacent that fronts on the street. That portion of N 30th Street is classified as a
Minor Arterial in Figure T-1: Conceptual Arterial Streets in the Renton Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use of the property provides a limited scale expansion of a commercial
opportunity, but it is not expected to increase the scale or intensity of development there. The
current market use on the south parcel will expand and the proposal will increase the number
of residential units on the property. However, the existing property already contains multi-
family development, and the adjacent property contains a busy gas station and mini-market.
New development is proposed to be two stories high, although under CN zoning development
could be up to 35 feet in height. Two to three story development is generally compatible with
the adjacent residential development. While the market is increasing in size, it is also expanding
over a greater site area.
RMC 4-9-020F.2
The proposal fulfills two of the measures in criteria 2: it supports the vision embodied in the
Comprehensive Plan and supports the adopted business plan goals established by City Council.
As a result, it meets criteria 2.
Simply stated, Renton’s vision is summarized in the tagline The center of opportunity in the
Puget Sound Region where businesses and families thrive. One of the characteristics of a
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#16-0809 Kennydale Neighborhood Market Page 5 of 7 April 25, 2017
thriving city is the development of neighborhood nodes that will “…reduce transportation
impacts within the City by allowing residents to work and shop close to where they live, and
provide alternatives to single-occupant vehicle trips.”3 Two land use goals support this vision:
• Goal L-K: Provide an energetic business environment for 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 streets and in Centers.
• Goal L-L: Transform concentrations of pre-existing linear form commercial areas in to
multi-use neighborhood centers characterized by enhanced site planning, efficient
parking design, coordinated access for all modes of transportation, pedestrian linkages
from adjacent uses and nearby neighborhoods, and boulevard treatment.
With the proposed expansion, a multi-use residential and commercial environment will help to
broaden the commercial use beyond its current strip formation. A larger market will improve
the range of service offered to the neighborhood, providing a greater opportunity for local
residents to obtain goods and potentially reduce trips. CN zoning requires landscaping and
pedestrian connections that will help to implement these goals.
The City of Renton Business Plan states that Renton should “(r)ecruit and retain businesses to
ensure a dynamic, diversified employment base,” under its economic vitality goal. Goal ED-B
states a similar goal in the Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element. The proposed
rezone presents an opportunity to retain and expand business in the Kennydale neighborhood
node. Without the possibility for expansion, the existing mini-market that serves the
neighborhood will be lost when I-405 expands. Retaining neighborhood retail businesses
contributes to Renton’s diversified economic base.
RMC 4-9-020F.3
As a rezone proposal, criteria 3 requires compliance with RMC 4-9-180F.1 Criteria for Rezones
Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The following findings shall be made:
The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and
a. Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b. At least one of the following circumstances applies:
i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last
area land use analysis and area zoning; or
ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
3 Renton Comprehensive Plan Vision, p. 2.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#16-0809 Kennydale Neighborhood Market Page 6 of 7 April 25, 2017
circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material
change.
The first test, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, is also fulfilled in criteria 2 at RMC 4-9-
020F.2. In regards to the second test, this property was not specifically considered at the time
of the last area land use analysis or zoning, completed for the Comprehensive Plan update in
2015. Thus, the proposal meets the findings in RMC 4-9-180 for rezones, thereby meeting the
criteria 3 in RMC 4-9-020.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
The proposal will produce a slight increase in intensity on land that is already developed for
commercial and multi-family uses. This conversion of strip commercial uses to multi-use areas
is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
This proposal has no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. Existing
development is already served by utilities and emergency services.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
Projected population and employment growth from this proposal is too small to have any
significant effect on Renton’s growth. It could result in an additional four housing units and a
few additional full or part time jobs. This scale of increase is anticipated in Renton’s growth and
employment estimates.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Renton’s Comprehensive Plan anticipates the conversion of strip commercial development into
multi-use environments and the enhancement of neighborhood commercial nodes. This
proposal furthers those plan objectives, as noted in the analysis above.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
In general, this project should not have a significant effect on land values or housing costs. The
ability to expand and operate a commercial business on the proposed rezone site will increase
the value of that property. Increasing the availability of goods in the Kennydale neighborhood
commercial node could produce a slight increase in land values over time for properties in the
vicinity.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
This impact is not applicable.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#16-0809 Kennydale Neighborhood Market Page 7 of 7 April 25, 2017
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposal is consistent with GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies. Both documents
support the expansion of urban levels of service within urban areas. GMA has several goals that
are supported with this proposal including reduction of sprawl, concentration of urban growth,
and economic development. Similarly, the Countywide Planning Policies support business
development and the concentration of development in policy EC-7, which supports the
retention and expansion of small businesses. It also supports the development of neighborhood
centers and nodes under policy DP-38.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed rezone is located within a wellhead protection zone and there are limited areas
of steep slopes mapped there. Future development will be required to comply with critical area
regulations in the Renton Municipal Code.
Staff Recommendation
Staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and with the criteria for amendment in the Renton Municipal Code.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment for the reclassification of land use designation
to Residential High Density and rezoning to Commercial Neighborhood.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Lake Washington Blvd NWellsAveN
NE 30th St
Jones Ave NELincolnAveNEAccessRdNE 27th St
NE 28th St
Meadow Ave NN 34th St
N 36th St
N 28th St
Aberdeen Ave NEN 32nd St
N 26th St
N 27th Pl
NE
32nd S t
NE 35th Pl
NE 36th St
NE 28th StKen
new
i
c
k
P
l
N
E
Private Rd
N 29th St
N E 33rd Pl
N 30th Aly
N 30th St
NE 29th St
N 31st St
N 32nd St
ParkPl N
N 33rd St
NE 2 6t h P lI-405 FWYPrivate Rd
N 36th St
NE 26th PlMeadowPlNMeadow Ave NN 37th St N 37th S t
L
a
k
e
Wa
shin
gto
n
Blv
d
N
NE 31st StI-405 FWYN 35th St
N 33rd Pl
N 28th Pl
N 28th Aly JonesAveNEPark Ave NMonterey Ct NEBurnett Ave NAcces
s
R
d PrivateRdL
a
k
e
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
T
r
a
il
Study Area
Parcels
City Limits
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 1
Vicinity
Source: Renton, 2017; NAIP (USDA), 2015.
Kennydale Market
& Gas Station
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
RHD
RMD
RHD
RLD
RMD RHD
RM D
RMD
RLD
RLD
RHD
RMDLake Washington Blvd NWellsAveN
NE 30th StPark Ave NJones Ave NELincolnAveNEParkAveNAccessRdNE 27th St
NE 28th St
Meadow Ave NN 34th St
N 36th St
N 28th St Monterey Ct NEBurnett Ave NAberdeen Ave NEN 32nd St
N 26th St
N 27th Pl
NE
32nd S t
NE 35th Pl
NE 36th St
NE 28th StKen
n
ewi
c
k
Pl
NE
PrivateRdPrivate Rd
N 29th St
N E 33rd Pl
N 30th Aly
N 30th St
N E 2 9 th S tN 31st St
N 32nd St
ParkPlNN 33rd St
NE 2 6t h P lI-405 FWYPrivate Rd
L
a
k
e
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
T
r
a
il
N 36th St
NE 26th PlMeadowPlNMeadow Ave NI-405 FWYN 37th St N 37th S t
L
a
k
e
Wa
shin
gto
n
Blv
d
N N/B I-405 RampNE 31st StS/B I-405 RampN 35th St
N 33rd Pl
N 28th Pl
N 28th Aly JonesAveNEStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Land Use Designations
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
°0 250 500
Fee t
Exhibit 2
Current L and Use
De signation
Source: City of Renton; King County, 2017
Kennydale Mar ket
& Gas Station
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
RHD
RMD
RHD
RLD
RMD RHD
RM D
RMD
RLD
RLD
RHD
RHDLake Washington Blvd NWellsAveN
NE 30th StPark Ave NJones Ave NELincolnAveNEParkAveNAccessRdNE 27th St
NE 28th St
Meadow Ave NN 34th St
N 36th St
N 28th St Monterey Ct NEBurnett Ave NAberdeen Ave NEN 32nd St
N 26th St
N 27th Pl
NE
32nd S t
NE 35th Pl
NE 36th St
NE 28th StKen
n
ewi
c
k
Pl
NE
PrivateRdPrivate Rd
N 29th St
N E 33rd Pl
N 30th Aly
N 30th St
N E 2 9 th S tN 31st St
N 32nd St
ParkPlNN 33rd St
NE 2 6t h P lI-405 FWYPrivate Rd
L
a
k
e
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
T
r
a
il
N 36th St
NE 26th PlMeadowPlNMeadow Ave NI-405 FWYN 37th St N 37th S t
L
a
k
e
Wa
shin
gto
n
Blv
d
N N/B I-405 RampNE 31st StS/B I-405 RampN 35th St
N 33rd Pl
N 28th Pl
N 28th Aly JonesAveNEStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Land Use Designations
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
°0 250 500
Fee t
Exhibit 3
Propo sed L and U se
Designation
Source: City of Renton; King County, 2017
Kennydale Mar ket
& Gas Station
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-8R-8
R-8
CN
R-10
CN RCCN
R-8 R-6
R-1
RC R-4
R-10 R-6
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-1
RC
RC
R-4
R-6
R-6
R-8
RM-F
R-6
R-6
R-6Lake Washington Blvd NNE 30th St
Jones Ave NELincolnAveNEAccessRdNE 28th St
Meadow Ave NN 34th St
N 36th St
N 28th St
Aberdeen Ave NEN 32nd St
N 26th St
N 27th Pl
NE 35th Pl
NE 36th St
NE 28th StKen
new
i
c
k
P
l
N
E
Private Rd
N 29th St
N E 33rd Pl
N 30th Aly
N 30th St
NE 29th St
N 31st St
N 32nd St
ParkPl N
N 33rd St
NE 2 6t h P lI-405 FWYPrivate Rd
N 36th St
NE 26th PlMeadowPlNMeadow Ave NI-405 FWYN 37th St N 37th S t
L
a
k
e
Wa
shin
gto
n
Blv
d
N
NE 31st StS/B I-405 RampN 35th St
N 33rd Pl
N 28th Pl
N 28th Aly JonesAveNEPark Ave NMonterey Ct NEBurnett Ave NPrivateRdL
a
k
e
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
T
r
a
il N/B I-405 RampStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Zoning Designations
Commercial Neighborhood
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential - 4 DU/AC
Residential - 6 DU/AC
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family
Resource Conservation
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 4
Current Zoning
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Kennydale Market
& Gas Station
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-8R-8
R-8
CN
R-10
CN RCCN
R-8 R-6
R-1
RC R-4
R-10 R-6
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-1
RC
RC
R-4
R-6
R-6
R-8
RM-F
R-6
R-6
R-6Lake Washington Blvd NNE 30th St
Jones Ave NELincolnAveNEAccessRdNE 28th St
Meadow Ave NN 34th St
N 36th St
N 28th St
Aberdeen Ave NEN 32nd St
N 26th St
N 27th Pl
NE 35th Pl
NE 36th St
NE 28th StKen
new
i
c
k
P
l
N
E
Private Rd
N 29th St
N E 33rd Pl
N 30th Aly
N 30th St
NE 29th St
N 31st St
N 32nd St
ParkPl N
N 33rd St
NE 2 6t h P lI-405 FWYPrivate Rd
N 36th St
NE 26th PlMeadowPlNMeadow Ave NI-405 FWYN 37th St N 37th S t
L
a
k
e
Wa
shin
gto
n
Blv
d
N
NE 31st StS/B I-405 RampN 35th St
N 33rd Pl
N 28th Pl
N 28th Aly JonesAveNEPark Ave NMonterey Ct NEBurnett Ave NPrivateRdL
a
k
e
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
T
r
a
il N/B I-405 RampStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Zoning Designations
Commercial Neighborhood
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential - 4 DU/AC
Residential - 6 DU/AC
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family
Resource Conservation
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 5
Proposed Zoning
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Kennydale Market
& Gas Station
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Exhibit 8. Conceptual Site Plan for Proposed New Development AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Page 1 of 12
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
CPA #16-0811: Pointe Heron CPA and Rezone
Staff: Erika Rhett, AICP, Senior Associate, BERK Consulting
Date: April 28, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: Point Heron LLC
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description
The applicants seeks rezone of approximately 27.09 acres located at 1101 SW Sunset Boulevard
from the land use designation Employment Area (EA) to Residential High Density (RHD) and a
zoning change from Light Industrial (IL) to Residential Multi-Family (RMF). The property is
currently vacant, although it has been graded and contains a stormwater facility associated
with a previous development application. Staff recommends denial of this request.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 - Aerial View of Property and Vicinity
Exhibit 2 - Current Land Use Designation
Exhibit 3 - Proposed Land Use Designation
Exhibit 4 - Current Zoning
Exhibit 5 - Proposed Zoning
Exhibit 6 – Hydrography
Exhibit 7 – Steep Slopes
Exhibit 8 – Site Topography, Wetlands, and Stream Map (also Exhibit E to the Applicant’s Environmental Checklist)
Background
The property is located south of SW Sunset Boulevard, as shown in Exhibit 1. The property
owners, Pointe Heron LLC. request a change in land use designation from EA to RHD as shown
in Exhibit 3. They also request a change in zoning from IL to RMF as shown in Exhibit 5, but are
open to the possibility of Residential-10 units per acre (R-10) zoning or Residential-14 units per
acre (R-14) zoning. RM-F, R-10, and R-14 zoning are all allowed under the RHD land use
designation.
Over the last decade and a half, the 27.09-acre property subject to this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPAs) and rezone request has been through multiple land use applications,
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 2 of 12 April 25, 2017
including several CPAs with rezones. Property owners received residential land use approvals
on the property in 2004 and 2007 for single-family development. In 2009 and 2010 they
requested EA land use so the property could be used for office or industrial uses. Property
owners are now asking for another rezone of this property, this time for residential use.
After a lengthy process, 26.04 acres were approved for a 65-unit single-family residential
preliminary plat named Sunset Bluffs in 2004. In 2007, property owners asked for the rezone of
property adjacent to the proposed Sunset Bluffs development.1 With the rezone, they planned
to develop a second phase of the Sunset Bluffs residential development, potentially adding up
to 59 housing units. The rezone was approved. As part of Sunset Bluffs, the property owner
conducted site development work that included grading of the site and the development of a
stormwater pond on this property.2 The project did not apply for final plat approval.
Property owners initiated an application for rezone in 2009 to change the property from
residential to non-residential land use.3 This application garnered significant community
involvement and the applicant asked for the decision to be held until 2010. In 2010, the
property owners revised their request, but still primarily asked for the properties to be assigned
non-residential land use with and EA land use designation and IL zoning. That request was
approved and the current land use designation and zoning classification on the property is the
result.
Exhibit 2 shows the current land use designation of the property as EA and Exhibit 4 shows the
current zoning as IL. Property in the vicinity of the proposed rezone includes:
• SW Sunset Boulevard is immediately adjacent to the north, with single-family homes on
the opposite side of the street designated for Residential Medium Density (RMD) land
use. To the northeast these homes are zoned Residential-8 units per acre (R-8) in the
City of Renton. Immediately to the north of SW Sunset Boulevard the homes are in
unincorporated King County, which are zoned R-8 under the County’s zoning
classification system.
• Adjacent property to the southeast is designated RHD and zoned RMF. This land
currently supports townhomes and stacked-flat (apartment) units.
1 Not all the land included in the 2007 rezone is included in the 2017 rezone request.
2 The applicant suggests in this rezone application that the stormwater facilities developed on-site for the Sunset
Bluff project could be used for future development on this site. Future development on this site will need to
comply with all policies and regulations in effect at the time that an application is vested. A determination of the
ability to use the existing stormwater facility will need to be made at the time of project-specific review and
approval.
3 Not all the land included in the 2009 rezone is included in the 2017 rezone request.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 3 of 12 April 25, 2017
• Immediately south of the site is land designated for EA land use. The land to the south is
topographically separated from the site by steep slopes and contains a BNSF rail line at
the bottom of the slope. This land is zoned Commercial Office and contains the Black
River Industrial Park on the eastern portion. On the western portion is the Black River
Riparian Forest, which is part of the City of Renton parks system and zoned Resource
Conservation (RC).
• Land immediately adjacent to the west of the site is designated EA and zoned IL. The 0.9
acre piece on the north side is part of the Sunset View Apartments property, but
topographically separated from the existing development. The Sunset View Apartments
are designated for RHD land use and zoned RM-F. The four IL zoned parcels were part of
the 2009 and 2010 rezone applications with the Pointe Heron property, but have
different property owners. The property owners have not joined this rezone application.
However, the Pointe Heron property owner has requested that the City consider adding
the 0.9 acre piece of the Sunset View Property to the Pointe Heron rezone request.
Steeps slopes are mapped throughout the site, as shown in Exhibit 7, but the mapping does not
reflect the grading done as part of site preparations for Sunset Bluffs as shown in Exhibit 8. In
the southwest portion of the site, there are grades of approximately 90%. Exhibit 6 shows the
mapped hydrography of the site. Additional study has indicated the presence of two small
wetlands and an unnamed, intermittent, non-fish bearing stream on the property, shown in
Exhibit 8, with proposed buffers based on the applicant’s understanding of City of Renton
critical area regulations.
Review Criteria
RMC 4-9-020F Review Criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process
list three review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1. All Comprehensive Plan amendments will be evaluated on their merits based upon the
following:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned
in the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities;
c. The effect upon the rate of population and employment growth;
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable;
e. The effect upon general land values and housing costs;
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being
made or completed as expected;
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 4 of 12 April 25, 2017
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is
internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-wide
Planning Policies for King County;
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands;
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application
requirements established in this section;
j. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
2. All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
3. Proposals that include a concurrent rezone proposal shall also comply with the decision
criteria for a change of zone classification in RMC 4-9-180.
Analysis
RMC 4-9-020F.1
The proposal does not meet the criteria of RMC 4-9-020F.1. Parts a-h of criteria 1 are addressed
in the impact analysis below. The proposal has met application requirements as noted in part i.
However, part i also requires consistency with the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-17 describes the locational criteria for the Residential High Density
land use designation and the three zones within it. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-19 describes
the locational criteria for the current land use and zoning.
Policy L-17: Residential High Density – Designate land for Residential High Density (HD) where
access, topography, and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of unit
types, or where there is existing multi-family development. HD unit types are designed to
incorporate feature from both single-family and multi-family developments, support cost-
efficient housing, facilitate infill development, have close access to transit service, and efficiently
use urban services and infrastructure. Land designated HD is where projects will be compatible
with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density
uses.
• Residential-10 Zone- Zone lands Residential-10 (R-10) where there is an existing mix of
single-family and small-scale multi-family use or there are vacant or underutilized
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 5 of 12 April 25, 2017
parcels that could be redeveloped as infill and are located within ¼ mile of public transit
service and a major arterial. R-10 implements the Residential High Density Land Use
designation.
• Residential-14 Zone – Zone lands Residential-14 (R-14) where it is possible to develop a
mix of compact housing types in area of approximately 20 acres or larger in size (may be
in different ownerships) and are within or adjacent to the Growth Centers Land Use
Designation, or adjacent to a Commercial Development Land Use Designation, so they
function as a transition zone between lower intensity residential and higher intensity
mixed use zoning. R-14 implements the Residential High Density Land Use designation.
• Residential Multi-Family Zone – Zone lands Residential Multi-Family (RMF) where there
is existing (or vested) multi-family development of one-acre or greater in size. Expanded
RMF zoning should only be where access is from a street classified as a Principal arterial,
Minor arterial, or collector, and where existing multi-family is abutting at least two
property sides. RMF zoning implements the Residential High Density Land Use
Designation.
Policy L-19: Employment Areas – Place areas primarily used for industrial development, or a mix
of commercial and industrial uses such as office, industrial, warehousing, and manufacturing,
with access to transportation networks and transit, within the Employment Area (EA) Land Use
Designation. Employment Areas provide a significant economic development and employment
base for the City. Maintain a variety and balance of uses through zoning which promotes the
gradual transition of uses on sites with good access and visibility to more intensive commercial
and office uses.
• Light Industrial Zone – Zone property Light Industrial (IL) where it is appropriate for very
low-intensity manufacturing and industrial services. Uses and potential impacts of uses
in the zone are fully contained within their buildings. This zone implements the
Commercial Development and Employment Area Land Use Designations.
This property does not meet the location criteria of the Residential High Density (HD) land use
designation. An essential part of the description for HD land use is the last sentence: “Land
designated HD is where projects will be compatible with existing uses...” Although the property
is only adjacent to industrially zoned property to the west, there have been on-going
complaints from the existing multi-family residences in the area (Sunset View apartments and
Creston Point apartments). Industrial activities that occur to the west of this site have no plans
to cease operations, which produces noise, vibrations, and other impacts that affect adjacent
residential properties.
The applicant argues in response to the criteria that the existing multi-family development has
more exposure to the heavy industrial activities than the site of the proposed rezone. This may
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 6 of 12 April 25, 2017
be the case, but it does not change the potential for land use compatibility problems that may
occur by adding residential land uses at Pointe Heron.4
The property is suitable for EA land use. EA land use shares some of the same features and
characteristics of HD land use, such as access to transit and road networks and the ability to
support a variety of intensities and types of land use. However, it encourages land use
compatibility by emphasizing the transition of land use in an area. The project narrative
submitted for the 2009 rezone of this property outlines the effectiveness of this site to provide
such a transition. In that application, the property owner argues that EA land use is appropriate
in this location because of its ability to provide land use transition between potentially
incompatible uses:
Provide for logical zoning and land use transitions from west to east – i.e. from (a) the existing
Heaving Industrial zoning of the balance of the Black River Quarry property to the west of the
QIP Property to (b the proposed Light Industrial zoning of the QIP and Virtu Properties to (c) the
proposed Commercial Office Zoning of the MLDC Property (property that includes about 4.7
acres of forest buffer at its east end).
Furthermore, the current LI zoning allows for industrial uses that are compatible with both
heavy industrial uses and adjacent residential development. Low intensity industrial uses are
generally compatible with a spectrum of industrial uses because they are less sensitive than
residential development to impacts such as noise and vibration. However, their own impacts
are moderated by locating their use within a building, mitigating potential impacts to
surrounding land uses.
RMC 4-9-020F.2
The proposal does not meet any of the criteria in RMC 4-9-020F.2. The intention of this criteria
is to ensure that the proposal supports the policy direction for the City as established in the
Comprehensive Plan or Business Plan. There are four tests and the last two are not applicable
to this proposal:
• The proposal supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan
• The proposal supports the adopted goals of the Business Plan
• The proposal eliminates conflicts between policies
• The proposal accommodates new policy directives of the City Council
4 In other portions of the application, the proximity of the Pointe Heron property to the Sunset View and Creston
Point apartment developments in emphasized. This argument is made to support the point that Pointe Heron is
located immediately adjacent to major multi-family development, a criterion for RMF zoning. Creston Point and
Sunset View are currently impacted by industrial activities. Although the close proximity to multi-family meets one
of the criteria for RMF zoning, it also demonstrates the failure to meet the land use compatibility test of the HD
designation.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 7 of 12 April 25, 2017
There are five goals of the Renton Business Plan:
• Provide a safe, healthy, vibrant community
• Promote economic vitality and strategically position Renton for the future
• Support planned growth and influence decisions that impact the city
• Building an inclusive informed city with opportunities for all
• Meet service demands and provide high quality customer service
The applicant states that the proposal supports the economic vitality goal by providing
opportunities for high quality multi-family development or senior living facilities on this site
through RMF zoning. However, the economic vitality goal focuses on the development of
economic development strategies, business retention and recruitment, and public private
partnership. This is not a fit with the proposal.
Residential development of the site could possibly support the vibrant community goal of the
Business Plan, which is implemented partly through the creation of housing choices. However,
the City conducted an area wide land use analysis of RMF zoning in the HD land use designation
as part of the Comprehensive Plan update (adopted in 2015). It found that Renton has an
oversupply of multi-family development outside of the Growth Centers Land Use designation.
As a result, the City reduced the amount of land zoned RMF citywide and amended the zoning
code to remove multi-family land uses in some commercial zoning designations in 2015.
Additional RMF development would not support additional housing choice because Renton
already has an oversupply of that type of housing.
Renton’s Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision of Renton as a thriving community of
opportunity and choice with a balance of employment and housing. New residential growth,
particularly multi-family development, should be located in the City Center and other mixed-
use centers and neighborhood nodes. The proposed project does not support this vision. It
places additional multi-family development outside of designated centers. It also shifts the
balance of employment and housing slightly in favor of housing by eliminating scarce, vacant, IL
land in favor of more RMF land, which is already abundant. Additional details on housing and
employment balance are in the impact analysis below.
RMC 4-9-020F.3
As a rezone proposal, criteria 3 requires compliance with RMC 4-9-180F.1 Criteria for Rezones
Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The following findings shall be made:
The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 8 of 12 April 25, 2017
a. Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b. At least one of the following circumstances applies:
i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last
area land use analysis and area zoning; or
ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,
authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material
change.
The first test, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, is analyzed above under RMC 4-9-
020F.1.i and RMC 4-9-020F.2. Those reviews found that EAV land use is the best designation for
the Pointe Heron property and that residential land use at this site does not support the vision
embodied in the Comprehensive Plan.
In regards to the second test this property has been through multiple land use analyses over
the last decade. The background section details the three applications Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezone in the last decade:
• 2007 – request for a portion of this property to be designated RMD with R-10 zone (the
rest of the property was already designated and zoned such)
• 2009– request for this property to be designated EAV and zoned CO
• 2010 – amended request for this property to be designated EAV and zoned IL
There was also an area wide land use analysis of RMF zoning, described in the previous section,
that concluded that there was too much multi-family zoning outside of designated Growth
Centers.
The applicant makes no case that there have been any changes in circumstances since the last
land use analysis (2010) or area wide zoning of the property (2015). The City concurs. With no
changes in circumstances, this proposal does not meet the criteria for rezone under RMC 4-9-
180 and RMC 4-3-020F.3.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Renton’s Comprehensive Plan Table L-1 lists the City’s growth targets for the period 2012 –
2035. The housing target is 14,050 new units and the City’s has capacity for approximately 110-
120% of its target. The employment target is 28,755 new jobs and the City has capacity for
approximately 91-108% of its target. Under Goal L-C the City must ensure that it has adequate
capacity to meet its growth targets.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 9 of 12 April 25, 2017
According to the 2014 Buildable Lands Analysis, Renton only has 55.59 gross acres of vacant
land zoned IL. This acreage is encumbered by approximately 20.46 acres of mapped critical
areas, leaving only 34.88 remaining acres. Since Pointe Heron has no mapped critical areas that
would come out its gross acreage in the buildable land analysis (see Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7), this
means that it represents nearly 78% of the vacant IL land in the city. Rezoning this property
would result in a significant loss of vacant IL lands from the City’s buildable lands supply.
A conservative estimate of the employment capacity of this property is approximately 498
employees. Although there were no mapped critical areas on the property that would come out
of the buildable lands analysis, Exhibit 8 shows potentially unbuildable areas related to two
small wetlands and stream. Land for rights-of-way or other infrastructure would also come out
of the gross acreage of the site when it was developed. If it is assumed that with these
deductions the net acreage is approximately 80% of gross acreage, the developable portion of
the Pointe Heron site would be approximately 21.67 acres. The Buildable Lands Analysis
assumes a floor area ratio of 0.37 for IL lands and an employment ratio of 700 sq.ft. per
employee. This results in an employment capacity of 498 that would be lost if the property was
rezoned. This reduces the City’s overall capacity for employment to approximately 89 – 106%.
While an overall loss of employment capacity of under 2% seems small, the loss of capacity on a
large portion of vacant IL land makes achievement of the City’s employment growth target less
likely.
An examination of potential residential zoning for this site shows that the designation of
additional residential land is completely unnecessary. Assuming the same net acreage figure of
80% of the gross acreage, Pointe Heron could develop up to 411 units under RMF zoning. This
assumes the 19 units per acre standard used in the Buildable Lands Analysis. This would add
another 3% capacity to the City’s residential stock, which already has more capacity than
needed to accommodate its growth target. Citywide, Renton already has more than 566 net
acres of land zoned RMF.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There is infrastructure available to serve the property whether developed under HD or EAV land
use. Sunset Boulevard runs adjacent to the property and the 12-inch water main below it can
be used to provide water service to the site. Emergency services are already provided to that
area by Renton Police and the Renton Fire Authority. However, residential uses typically have
greater service demands for emergency response than light industrial uses. In addition,
residential uses would result in a small increase in demand for parks and recreation and school
facilities.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 10 of 12 April 25, 2017
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
See the analysis of the effect on the rate of growth, development, and the conversion of land
envisioned in the plan, above.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The analysis above suggests that leaving the EAV land use designation in place is the best
application of the Comprehensive Plan. Renton is undersupplied with IL land and rezoning 78%
of the vacant IL-zoned land reduces capacity to meet its employment growth target. With a
capacity range of 91-108% of target, Renton will be even more challenged to meet its
employment growth targets with the loss of an additional 2% capacity.
Rezoning the property as RMF adds citywide residential capacity where it is not needed.
Residential capacity is already well about target at approximately 110-120%, and the
Comprehensive Plan says that new capacity, particularly for multi-family development, should
go to designated growth centers. Pointe Heron is not within a designated growth center.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
In general, this proposal should not have a significant effect on land values or housing costs.
The applicant suggests that residential development would have fewer visual and
transportation impacts which would have a somewhat positive effect on land values in the
area. It is not clear whether these factors have a relationship to land values, but the assumption
that residential development is less impactful is erroneous.
It is unlikely that multi-family development would have a “much smaller” traffic impact than
industrial development. According to the ITE trip generation manual, the average weekday
vehicle trip ends (AWVTE) for apartments is 6.1 trips per unit and 3.2 per employee for light
industrial development. Using the capacity numbers based on buildable lands analysis, this
would mean approximately 2,507 trips for multi-family development at Pointe Heron, or 1,593
trips for light industrial development at Pointe Heron.
Regardless of the type of development on this site, the visual impacts of development on this
site should be minimal on surrounding properties. The majority of the building area for this site
sits below the grade of Sunset Boulevard and would not be in the view of surrounding
properties. The greatest visual impacts of this site are from views across the valley, which
currently have a view of a denuded hillside. Development according to City of Renton
development standards, whether residential or industrial, is only likely to improve this view.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
This impact is not applicable.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 11 of 12 April 25, 2017
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
GMA adopts 13 planning goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and
development regulations. Cities may balance these goals as they wish, but they all must be
represented in the plan.
The applicant selected four goals that apply to this proposal:
• Urban growth – encourage development in urban areas
• Transportation – encouraging multi-modal transportation systems
• Housing – encouraging housing diversity and affordability for all segments of the
population
• Property rights- protection of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions
The urban growth and transportation goals are equally supported by the existing land use or
the proposed land use. The Pointe Heron property is located within an urban area and public
facilities and services, including transit service, are provided to both industrial and residential
land uses.
Even though the proposed rezone would create additional housing, it does not specifically
support the GMA housing goal. Analysis above demonstrates that Renton already has a large
supply of multi-family housing, so additional units would not add variety. There is also no
indication that housing developed on the Pointe Heron site would provide affordable housing
or housing intended to fill affordability gaps identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Pointe Heron property owners have not been subject to arbitrary and discriminatory land use
actions as described in the property rights goal. The current land use designation and zoning of
the site was requested by the property owner through a Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezone in 2010.
The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) envision vibrant, diverse, and compact
urban communities. The CPPs emphasize a pattern of development consistent with the regional
growth strategy, which places new growth primarily into designated centers (policies DP-3, DP-
4, DP-29, DP-38). Pointe Heron is located outside of a regionally or locally recognized center.
Policies also place importance on meeting growth targets for housing and employment (policies
DP-11, DP-13, DP-32). The discussion above on the effect of the proposal on the growth,
development, and conversion of land explains the importance of this property in meeting the
City’s employment target. Policy DP-39 which states Develop neighborhood planning and design
processes that encourage infill development, redevelopment, and reuse of existing buildings and
that, where appropriate based on local plans, enhance the existing community character and
mix of uses is used by the applicant as policy support for infill residential development.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#16-0811 Pointe Heron Page 12 of 12 April 25, 2017
However, the policy appropriately defers to the local comprehensive plan for the appropriate
locations for infill development. Renton’s Comprehensive Plan supports multi-family
development in designated centers.
Housing policies in the CPPs advocate for housing that is diverse in type, affordable at all
incomes, and located near employment and opportunity. These issues have been addressed
above in response to the GMA housing policies and in other areas of this staff report.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
Development of this property, whether for residential or industrial use, will require compliance
with Renton critical area regulations and any Department of Fish and Wildlife
recommendations that may be incorporated into SEPA conditions at the time of project
application. Portions of the Pointe Heron site may be subject to City of Renton critical area
regulations. Site work has revealed the presence of two small wetlands and an intermittent,
non-fish bearing stream on this property. Exhibit 8 shows the location of these areas and the
applicant’s estimate of buffer size based on critical area regulations.
The site is located on the hill above the Black River Riparian Forest, located to the south. The
Black River Riparian Forest is recognized as a class-I wetland in Renton’s critical area regulations
and a shoreline of the state in Renton’s Shoreline Master Program. Although home to many
species of plants and animals and classified as a “biodiversity area” and “corridor area” by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Black River Riparian Forest no longer
supports Bald Eagle or Great Blue Heron nesting. If threatened or endangered species were to
locate or relocate in the Black River Riparian Forest in the future, development may include
SEPA conditions that require compliance with WDFW habitat management recommendations.
Staff Recommendation
Staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and with the criteria for amendment in the Renton Municipal
Code. Staff recommends denial of this amendment.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Unincorporated King County
City of Renton
SW 7th StAccessRdS 132nd St
SWSunsetBlvd
SW 3r
d
P
l
S134th
S
t
Naches Ave SW76th Ave S84th Ave SSW
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
R
e
n
t
o
n
A
v
e
S
S
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
SW4thPl80thAveS
MonsterRdSW S134thPl
ThomasAveSWAccess Rd
S 134th
S
t
S 13 3 r d S t
Oakesdale Ave SWS 135th St
A c c e s s R d w y
Powell Ave SWPowell Ave SWAcces
s
RdAccess Rd
Access Rd Sunse t View
Apartme n t s AcRdStudy Area
Railroad
Parcels
City Limits
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 1
Vicinity
Source: Renton, 2017; NAIP (USDA), 2015.
Pointe Heron
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
RHD
CMUEA
RMD
RMDRHD
RHD
Unincorporated King County
City of Renton
SW 7th StAccessRdS 132nd St
SWSunsetBlvd
SW 3r
d
P
l
S134th
S
t
Naches Ave SW76th Ave S84th Ave SSW
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
R
e
n
t
o
n
A
v
e
S
S
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
SW4thPl80thAveS
MonsterRdSW S134thPl
ThomasAveSWAccess Rd
S 134th
S
t
S 13 3 r d S t
Oakesdale Ave SWS 135th St
A c c e s s R d w y
Powell Ave SWPowell Ave SWAcces
s
RdAccess Rd
Access Rd Sunse t View
Apartme n t s AcRdStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Land Use Designations
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Commercial Mixed Use
Employment Area
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 2
Current Land Use
Designation
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Pointe Heron
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
RHD
CMUEA
RMD
RMDRHD
RHD
RHD
Unincorporated King County
City of Renton
SW 7th StAccessRdS 132nd St
SWSunsetBlvd
SW 3r
d
P
l
S134th
S
t
Naches Ave SW76th Ave S84th Ave SSW
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
R
e
n
t
o
n
A
v
e
S
S
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
SW4thPl80thAveS
MonsterRdSW S134thPl
ThomasAveSWAccess Rd
S 134th
S
t
S 13 3 r d S t
Oakesdale Ave SWS 135th St
A c c e s s R d w y
Powell Ave SWPowell Ave SWAcces
s
RdAccess Rd
Access Rd Sunse t View
Apartme n t s AcRdStudy Area
Parcels
City Limits
Land Use Designations
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Commercial Mixed Use
Employment Area
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 3
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Pointe Heron
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Unincorporated King County
City of Renton
IMCO
CN
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-14
R-14
RM-F
RC
IL
IM
RC
CO
IM
RM-F
IH
R-10
SW 7th StAccessRdS 132nd St
SWSunsetBlvd
SW 3r
d
P
l
S134th
S
t
Naches Ave SW76th Ave S84th Ave SSW
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
R
e
n
t
o
n
A
v
e
S
S
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
SW4thPl80thAveS
MonsterRdSW S134thPl
ThomasAveSWAccess Rd
S 134th
S
t
S 13 3 r d S t
Oakesdale Ave SWS 135th St
A c c e s s R d w y
Powell Ave SWPowell Ave SWAcces
s
RdAccess Rd
Access Rd
Study Area
Parcels
City Limits
Zoning Designations
Commercial Neighborhood
Commercial Office
Light Industrial
Medium Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family
Resource Conservation
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 4
Current Zoning
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Pointe Heron
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Unincorporated King County
City of Renton
IMCO
CN
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-14
R-14
RM-F
RC
RM-F
IM
RC
CO
IM
RM-F
IH
R-10
SW 7th StAccessRdS 132nd St
SWSunsetBlvd
SW 3r
d
P
l
S134th
S
t
Naches Ave SW76th Ave S84th Ave SSW
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
R
e
n
t
o
n
A
v
e
S
S
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
d
SW4thPl80thAveS
MonsterRdSW S134thPl
ThomasAveSWAccess Rd
S 134th
S
t
S 13 3 r d S t
Oakesdale Ave SWS 135th St
A c c e s s R d w y
Powell Ave SWPowell Ave SWAcces
s
RdAccess Rd
Access Rd
Study Area
Parcels
City Limits
Zoning Designations
Commercial Neighborhood
Commercial Office
Light Industrial
Medium Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family
Resource Conservation
°0 250 500
Feet
Exhibit 5
Proposed Zoning
Source: City of Renton, 2017
Pointe Heron
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Exhibit 8
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
LANDMARKPRESERVATIONPlanning & Development Committee June 8, 2017AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
BACKGROUND•Request to consider enabling use of King County Special Valuation program for historic properties through the King County Historic Preservation ProgramAGENDA ITEM #3. a)
BACKGROUND•Special Valuation allows rehabilitated historic properties to reduce property tax•Holds improved value at amount charged prior to improvements for 10 years•County and City forgo the additional tax revenue (for 10 years) to incentivize rehabilitation of historic propertiesAGENDA ITEM #3. a)
PROGRAMFEATURES•For a fee utilize County for:•Survey and inventory historic properties•Preservation planning•Archaeological review•Preparation of nomination applications•Requires authorization from City•If applicable, City can recover fees from applicant•Access to capital grants –can be used for design and/or materials and labor •City representation on Landmarks CommissionAGENDA ITEM #3. a)
LANDMARKPRESERVATION•In order to receive services and for property owners to participate in Special Valuation, Renton must adopt Landmark Preservation code and an Interlocal AgreementAGENDA ITEM #3. a)
STAFFRECOMMENDATION•Staff recommends adopting a new Landmarks Preservation code section•Specifying that nominations for Landmark Properties submitted to the Landmarks Commission must include:•Council approval•Property owner support•Also, recommend adopting an interlocal agreement with King County AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Landmarks Preservation
Staff: John Collum and Angie Mathias
Date: May 3, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: Dave Brethauer, owner of the Cortona Building
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: The owner of the Cortona Building, located at 724 S. 3rd Street in
Downtown Renton, has asked the City to consider taking the necessary steps to permit them to
participate in the King County Special Valuation Program for rehabilitated historic properties.
This would require that the City participate in the County’s Regional Historic Preservation
Program by adopting a city-wide landmarks preservation ordinance and enter into an interlocal
agreement (service contract) with the County.
Background
King County offers the Regional Historic Preservation Program offers more than Special
Valuation of rehabilitated historic properties. The Program partners with cities throughout the
county to provide historic preservation services. This cooperative approach to preserving the
region’s history and character has many benefits, including:
• preservation and enhancement of significant aspects of local history;
• access to incentives for property owners;
• access to local, state and federal funding sources for preservation;
• cost efficient delivery of professional services;
• basis for tourism development programs; and
• enhancement of community character.
Services that would be provided by the County include landmark designation and protection,
preparation of landmark nomination applications, survey and inventory of historic properties,
developing design guidelines, archaeological review, and assisting with preservation planning or other
preservation-related work. The services would only be provided when and if a participating city chooses
to request the services. Services are provided through King County’s Historic Preservation Program
(KCHPP), via an interlocal agreement between King County and the participating city. The cost of
services provided is only charged when the participating city requests and authorizes them. Also, the
participating city has the option to recover fees from any owner/applicant of a related historic property
that may be subject to services provided as part of the program.
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
Landmark Preservation Page 2 of 4 May 3, 2017
One of the primary benefits of the program is that owners of designated landmark properties are
eligible to apply for a variety of incentive programs including property tax reductions, brick-and-mortar
grants, and technical assistance from qualified preservation professionals. These incentives are intended
to promote preservation activities within communities, as well as encourage owners of potentially
historic properties to improve them and thereby increase the economic viability of the rehabilitated
properties and the neighborhoods in which they are located. City planners also have access to
professional expertise for assistance with archaeological issues, which may occur from time to time
when a city is performing SEPA reviews for development projects.
To implement the program, a city adopts a city-wide preservation ordinance modeled after the King
County preservation ordinance and enters into an interlocal agreement (service contract) with the
County. When the agreement is in place, the city appoints a special member to the King County
Landmarks Commission, which acts on all landmark nominations that are forwarded from the city. The
city may elect to conduct design review (review of proposed changes to landmark properties) itself or
have King County provide the service. To date, 22 cities participate in King County’s Regional Historic
Preservation Program.
The owner of the Cortona Building in Downtown Renton is interested in participating in the Special
Valuation Program for rehabilitated historic properties. As part of its recent rehabilitation, the Cortona
Building has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Special Valuation Program was
established by the Washington State Legislature in 1985. The primary benefit of Special Valuation is that
during a ten year “special valuation” period, property taxes will not reflect the increased value of the
property due to the substantial improvements made to it during its rehabilitation period. Special
Valuation is simply a value, for property tax purposes, which is calculated by subtracting qualified
rehabilitation costs from the total assessed value of the property after rehabilitation.
Historic properties that are designated landmarks in cities with an interlocal agreement with King
County are eligible for the Special Valuation program. In order to qualify for the program, an eligible
King County property must have:
• undergone rehabilitation work approved by the King County Landmarks Commission;
• been completed within the twenty-four month period immediately prior to filing an application;
and
• documentation for qualified rehabilitation costs that are equal in cost to at least 25 percent of
the assessed value of the subject building prior to rehabilitation.
A property owner completes an application for Special Valuation and files it with the County’s
Department of Assessments, which will refer the application to the Landmarks Commission. The
Commission then holds a public meeting to approve or deny the application. Property owners approved
for Special Valuation must enter into a written agreement with King County which guarantees they will
preserve and maintain significant features of the landmark during the period of special valuation. If the
property is sold and the agreement is followed the special valuation continues under the new
ownership. Once an application is approved and an agreement is signed, the Special Valuation goes into
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
Landmark Preservation Page 3 of 4 May 3, 2017
effect for the following year and the property taxes reflect that adjustment the subsequent tax year and
for a total of ten years.
In the case of Cortona, KCHPP ran some preliminary numbers based upon King County Tax Assessor’s
data and the owners rehabilitation costs to come up with an estimation of the property tax savings that
could result from Special Valuation. The rough estimate shows a possible tax savings of $15,000 per
year, or $150,000 over the 10-year Special Valuation period. The City of Renton’s distribution of
property taxes is 20.5 percent of the total, meaning the City would forego an estimated $3,075 per year
if the Cortona Special Valuation is approved or $30,750 over the 10-year period. The Special Valuation
would provide the Cortona owners tax savings to reinvest in the building as it continues to identify
tenants to lease space in the building and assist them in building out interior improvements.
Beyond benefitting the Cortona Building, adopting a city-wide ordinance and entering into an interlocal
agreement with King County for preservation services would establish the necessary framework to
preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate Renton properties which reflect significant elements of the
City’s, county’s, state’s and nation’s cultural, social, economic, architectural, historic, ethnic, and other
heritage. These actions can also help to stabilize and improve the economic values and vitality of
landmarks, while encouraging and enhancing the City’s tourist industry by promoting heritage-related
tourism. These tools will promote and provide incentives to public and private owners for preservation,
rehabilitation, and use of landmark properties, including for the Cortona Building owners to apply for
Special Valuation status to promote further rehabilitation of its important historic building.
Some important elements to be included in the preservation ordinance to ensure that the City maintains
certain oversight and financial controls would include:
• Require property owner written consent prior to King County acceptance of a nomination
request to designate individual properties as landmarks;
• Require that landmark nomination applications be approved by the City prior to submittal to
King County; and
• Require applicants to cover the costs of services related to their buildings for any services
provided by KCHPP per the interlocal agreement.
The interlocal agreement would provide the City with a ready resource through KCHPP staff to conduct
professional services related to environmental reviews or other related projects involving historic or
potentially-historic or archaeological properties, with the assurance that the City would authorize any
tasks and fees prior to the KCHPP performing the services.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a new code section to establish a Landmark Preservation
program in the City of Renton, with the afore-mentioned requirements.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
Landmark Preservation Page 4 of 4 May 3, 2017
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of growth, development, or conversion of
land as envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
Although the City would receive less revenue from property taxes for properties that utilizes
the Special Valuation, it is not anticipated to constitute a burden that would diminish the City’s
ability to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The proposed establishment of a landmark preservation program would work to further the
following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal L-AA “Maintain the City’s cultural history
by documenting, recognizing, and protecting its historic, archaeological, and traditional cultural
sites”; Policy L-46 “Identify and catalog historic, cultural, and archaeological resources on an
on-going basis and as part of project specific review”; and Policy L-47 “Preserve and
incorporate historic and archaeological sites into development projects.”
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The proposed amendment has no effect on general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
There are no capital improvements or expenditures being made or completed in association
with the proposed amendment.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed establishment of a landmark preservation program works to further the goals of
the Growth Management Act and the CPP’s. Specifically, one of GMA’s goals is to “identify and
encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and
archeological significance”. Additionally, CPP DP-41 is to “Preserve significant historic,
archeological, cultural, architectural, artistic, and environmental features, especially where
growth could place these resources at risk. Where appropriate, designate individual features or
areas for protection or restoration. Encourage land use patterns and adopt regulations that
protect historic resources and sustain historic community character.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed amendment has no effect on critical areas or natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
AB - 1920
City Council Regular Meeting - 05 Jun 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement and Land Use Decisions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Committee of the Whole
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
EXT.: 7314
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City approve Master Site
Plan, Binding Site Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed -use
development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190
square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks /open
space.
A Public Hearing was held by the Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 for both the land use permits and the
development agreement. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation to
Council on May 9, 2017. The Hearing Examiner recommends that Council approve the applications, subject to
the conditions identified in his decision. It is also recommended by the Hearing Examiner that Council approve
the proposed development agreement, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No.
2(B).
EXHIBITS:
A. Hearing Examiner Recommendation
B. Hearing Examiner Exhibits
C. Draft Resolution
D. Development Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the land use applications (Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit), subject to the
conditions in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Additionally, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a
development agreement between the City of Renton and Quendall Terminals.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10 Quendall Terminals
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
I 1 Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline and
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RECOMMENDATION
IZ Substantial Development Permit
13 LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
14
I S Summary
16 The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline
17 Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft.
lg of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the
19 development agreement.
20
The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed
21 development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints
of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009,
22 the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 syuare
feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office
23 space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access,open spaces,landscaping,
24 view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures
composed of 46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review.
25 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
26 appealed. By the date of the April 18,2017 hearing,the appeal had been withdrawn and only five
members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
1
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
project.
2
One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the
3 project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is
the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the4
past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake
5 sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better
understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process
is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the
City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup
action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used
g to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is
anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the
9 upland portions of the site, including placement of a soil cap across the project site and shoreline
restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation
10 activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land
use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished.
11
12 EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need for the proposed development agreement since
the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the
13 Project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit
expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards
14 during the extended eXpiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is
two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration
15 periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park
16 space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street
activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
1 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and
a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development
18 agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the
function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area.
19
20 The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation)are traffic
and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
21 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to I-405 and
NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to
22 improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the
WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the23projectusetheinterchangeinsteadofCitystreets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
24 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However,the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary
to assess a scenario where ti e WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project,
25 off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections.
As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will
26 have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic
calming treatments will be placed south of 41st to discourage long distance travel along that
MASTER PLAN, BiNDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at
2 the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation
will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even
3 with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use I-405 than the
4 City streets to the south of the project.
5 View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little question that the multiple
six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale
neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the
applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a
g building that is 115 feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts,the proposal includes a widened
central road(Road B)to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining
9 properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback reyuirements.
10
Testimony
11
Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner's Recommendation. It is solely1 provided for the convenience of the reader,for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary
13
should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or sign ing any priority or
importance to the comments of any ind vidual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an
14 accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing.
15 Staff Opening Presentation:
6 Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to
1 examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23,the City Council expressly authorized
the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4.
1 g Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement.
Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time
19 frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the
site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and20thatprecisedetailsofdesignwillbereviewedandapprovedduringsubsequentsiteplanreview. The
21 heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and
north of the project.
22
The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to
23 fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now
referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re-24
evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10,
25 2010 for the term of the agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either
when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency
26 ("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to
fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
3
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains.
2 The site is a former creosote facility and was subseyuently designated a superfund site. The EPA will
be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain3howtheprojectsitewouldbeconfigured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort.
In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline4
assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline
5 buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the
clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA.
6
There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to
site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks.
g There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill
and a 38-foot setback from tt e Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor
9 width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi-private plaza spaces. Pursuant to
Condition 27, Lots 1 and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the
10 EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas,they proposal will
have to be amended. Condition 41 requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped11Waterline. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement.
12
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re-opening of the
13 hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the
Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the
14 discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site
plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the CityISCouncil.
16
Applicant Presentation:
17
Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations.
18 She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project.
She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The19applicanthastheburdenofproofinestablishingconsistencywithdecisioncriteria. The examiner is
20 also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision
on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed
21 minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development
agreement.
22
Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal23
property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage
24 yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the
prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned
25 the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development
agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit
26 review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and
remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
4
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2 Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation
mitigation, including both on and off-site roadway improvements, a transportation demand
3 management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and
compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE444thstreetinterchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of
5 Transportation ("WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were
assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the
analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The
WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual
time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be
g
completed. Without the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of
north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
9 widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project.
To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be
10 placed south of 415 to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded
that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as11opposedtoi-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City
IZ
streets. On-site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The
transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and
13 programs to reduce reliance upon single-occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should
effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it
14 easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency
certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has15adequatecapacitytoservethedevelopment. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering
6
for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of
mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation
17 information available to the City, such as the work associated with the I-405 WSDOT interchange
improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off-setting traffic impacts.
18
Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last19twoyears, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been
20 geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the
beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and
21 restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A
pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian
22 oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the
street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards23
the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with
24 Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the
project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects
25 have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly
environment. The project is consistent with the City's design standards.
26
Campbell Mathewson,project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
5
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation,
2 landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The
binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline
3 permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for
4 a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject
to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was
5 800 dwelling units,245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the
project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met
6 with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of
the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was
significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square
g feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic
impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the
9 applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation
of approval. However,the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff
10 report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront
retail and the public park along the southwest corner of the site and the potential for a new dock. The
1 buildings were also set back another 20 feet Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning
12
regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included
buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be
13 compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review.
Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining
14 uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of 90 feet
from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
15
16
As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space
for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards
1 between residential blocks,pedestrian orientation in design,added retail use and restaurants and trails.
The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park.
18 The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by
the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the19firsttimeindecades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants
20 and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended
in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April 11, 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee
21 Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the
development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the
22 1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development
agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five.
23
24 Pubiic Comments:
25 Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern.
He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently
26 has to twelve-foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive
characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
6
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going
2 between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened
as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted
3 that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little
4 bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view
of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box
5 entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third
issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would
be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public
access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock.
7
g Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated
the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the
9 parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She
also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed-use site and she doesn't
10 want it to be an elitist area.
11 Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and
2 grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can
be cleaned up as quickly as possible.
13
Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development
14 agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the
applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of15residentsandalsothatthedeveloperhasbeenveryaccommodating.
16
Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near
1 the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle
safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during
18 pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts.
19 Staff Rebuttal:
20
In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor
21 was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so
to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts,
22 a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were
implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the23
recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil
24 contaminants being moved with pile driving,the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic
impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the
25 parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also
require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. ln response to examiner questions, Mr.
26 Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking
structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
7
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
Applicant Rebuttal:
2
Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety
3 plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a
result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site.4
5 In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about
a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation
measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced
alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions
of approvaL Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one
g of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found
the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets
9 and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides
for public access and use of shoreline areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks
10 and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the
project.
11
12
Exhibits
13
Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at
14 page 2 of the April 11, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18,
15 2017 public hearing. In addition,the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017
public hearing as well:
16
Exhibit 24 Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017
17 Exhibit 25 Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Exhibit 26 Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
g Exhibit 27 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
19
Exhibit 28 Google Maps
Exhibit 29 City of Renton power point
20 Exhibit 30 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Exhibit 31 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
21 Exhibit 32 Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Exhibit 33 Larry Toedtli CV
22 Exhibit 34 Bob Wells Resume
23
Exhibit 35 Lance Mueller Resume
Exhibit 36 Street B rendering
24 Exhibit 37 June 6, 2016 Site Plan P1.0
Exhibit 38 June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0
25 Exhibit 39 April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
8
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
4
Procedural:
5
6
1. Ap licant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle,
WA, 98101
7
g
2. Hearin. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary
9 if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council.
10
Substantive:
11
3. Project and Site Descri tpion. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
12 Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a
mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
13
14
A. ProposaL The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-
use buildings.The proposal would include 692 residential units(resulting in a net residential
15 density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be
16 constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building
height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposedl to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-
1 way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via
1 g
the development of new internal Roads A— E. The primary site access from public streets
is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane
19 Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear
feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 —
20 133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development
agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen
21
years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park
22 space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork,
etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public
23 access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed
complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10, 2010.
24
25
26 '
The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
9
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
B. Site Conditions/Superfund Desi nation. The subject site has received a Superfund
2 designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners
are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin
3 construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision(ROD) identifying a remedy for
clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.4
5 The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated
from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater,
6 surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology
transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA,
which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial
g investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of
contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the
9 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City's land use review.
10 Currently the site is vacant. However,the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15)to define
the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in
I 1 the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the
IZ Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2,
for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to
13 include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland
portions of the site(Main Property), including placement of a soil cap across the entire Main
14 Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts
associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA
15 process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been
16
accomplished.
i C. Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental
impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement
18 FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from
the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation19Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is
20 recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed
for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in
21 an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred
alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the
22 development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the
applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals23EnvironmentalConsistencyAnalysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the
24 range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through
2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures
25 are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Consequently,the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the
26 April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced
Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
10
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
with the "proposal".
2
4. Surroundin Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north
3 is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the
east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane(Seahawks Way) right of way, I-405 and4undevelopedCORzonedproperty.
5
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement,Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most
significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
g A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area
9 regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse
impacts to critical areas.
10
The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards,and wetlands on the City Critical11AreasMapandislocatedwithintheshorelinejurisdictionofLakeWashington.Due to the baseline
12 assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas
would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located
13 in the 100-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the
extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the
14 project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the
recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands
15 and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically
16 reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS
assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on
1 adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site-specific site plan review should
include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the
18 criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the
19 buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6),Recommended
20 Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure
compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers
21 are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the
overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per
22 RMC 4-9-200(J)a new application would be required.
23 As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C 10, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different
24 than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine
whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any
25 difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include
impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging.To ensure a true baseline condition
26 is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recor-ding
of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
11
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be
2 submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD.
3 It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources.
Pages 3.6-14—3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline4
resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the
5 DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake
Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and
6 sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City stormwater regulations. Following
construction, a permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with City
g
stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped
stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution-generating
9 surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stormwater outfall pipes would be
situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed
10 during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation.
11 B. Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The
12 subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows
for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake
13 Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi-story
structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These
14 impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of
the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred
15 Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center
16
of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the
property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking
1 garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights-of-
way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures Fl —
18 F 15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west
view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of
9 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of
20
80 feet.
21 At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would
completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between
22 the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and
appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However,
23 in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating
24 view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The
maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes
25 almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant
has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view
26 corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks,which are significantly wider
than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
12
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
2 SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from
the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all
3 reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development
potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed4bytheapplicant.
5
C. Noise, Privacy and Dust. The City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative
standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It
is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the
g
project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a
Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise,
9 control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8
RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance
10 regarding construction hours. With these measures in place,noise and dust impacts are adequately
mitigated.
11
12 The proposed building layout provides semi-private court yards between each residential tower
which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy.
13 The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an
opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the
l4 retaiUrestaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics
of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window
15 coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
16
D. Draina e. Adeyuate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant
1 adverse drainage impacts. The City's stormwater regulations assure that stormwater impacts are
fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 stormwater manual is applicable to the project.
18 As noted in Conclusion of Law("COL")No. 2 of this recommendation, more current stormwater
regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater
19 regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts.
20
Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth,
21 Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this
analysis mitigation measures A1, A10, A11, B2, and B7 were established and will become a
22 condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private,
the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant
23 for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance
24 responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding
site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained
25 a condition of approval reyuires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents
for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for
26 the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
13
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2 A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be
submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site
3 is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is
proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is4
proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City stormwater standards. Storm
5 water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall
be followed in the design and construction of the project.
6
The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project
specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16,
g the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include
an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality
9 impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation
for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre- and post-
10 developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and
developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology.I1
12
E. Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts
via the City's design,view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund
13 toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is
by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and
14 enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing
view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building5andsitedesignissubjecttogeneraldesignreviewatthemasterplanstageanddetaileddesign
6
review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies
with the District"C" design standards for master plan review.
17
The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping
18 standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the
Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure E1, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and
19 constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The
20 applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re-submittal dated
12-16-2015, Exhibit 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide
21 landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east
of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10-foot wide landscape
22 buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C
along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative
23
would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires
24 that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as
shown in Exhibit 11.
25
Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and
26 Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All
street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
14
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper
2 inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a
final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas
3 prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of
the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan.4
5 Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface
parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted
in Mitigation Measures F4, G12 and G13.
7
g
F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation
since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's
9 tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project
site subseyuent to remediation.
10
G. CompatibilityBuildin Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding1 uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the
12
west and R-10 property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic
issues addressed elsewhere,the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining
13 the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings
along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at
14 a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the
project site.
15
16 As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on
adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, Fl, F8, F9, F11, and
17 F15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and
Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures,
18 the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site.
19 H. Li htin . As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting
20 proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review
for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition
21 F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B 11 and F7 to ensure
that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
22 downlighting and shielding among other techniques.
23 Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
24 roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other
common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F 13 and H9 and the design
25 standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re-submittal of the Preferred
Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or
26 compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
15
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9
2 and the design standards for the common areas.
3 I. Loading and Stora e Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and
storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan4
review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include
5 loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and
restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at
off peak hours.
7
g
6. Adeyuacv of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
9
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
10 provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the
King County parcel fronting the site and a 10-inch water main extending into the project site.11 There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The
12 development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and
water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic,
13 landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction
permits.
14
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department15andpoliceprotectionbytheCityofRentonPoliceDepartment. Police and Fire staff
16 indicated that sufficient resources eacist to furnish services to the proposed development; if
the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
17
Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided
18 to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet
wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire19apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum
20 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD,the road shall also serve as
a pedestrian traiL If EPA's ROD prohibits the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot
21 shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail.
22
Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot23
shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However,the looped water line
24 required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface.
Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that
25 the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail
which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
16
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adeyuate parks and open space. As
2 previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space.
3 Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and
4
Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park
demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service
5 standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this
application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation
mitigation measures (Gl —G13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas.
The amount of on-site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant
would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards.
g However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off-site
park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on-site park and open
9 space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to
mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project.
10
11 As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2
12 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of"Natural Public Open Space Areas"and"Other
Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall
13 include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the traiL The "Other Related
Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks,
14 paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of
Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other
I S Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with
16 Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the
trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
1 public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is
for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved
18 by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources
Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with
19 the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition G10 requires that the trail be
20 enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive
signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the
21 trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials.
Mitigation Document condition G11 requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill
22 residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the
surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in
23
compliance with condition G11. Based on the above analysis the provided materials
24 were not compliant with conditions G2, G'7, G 10, and G 11. As such a recommended
condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any
25 other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G10, and Gl 1
for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community
26 Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan
recording.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
17
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2 The Development Agreement adds a 1.3- acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours
of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
3 determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park
hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public4
use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the
5 Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director
prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding
6 site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy
of the first building on the site.
7
g The"street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide
distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not
9 been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that
Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the
10 roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
11
12
D. Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe
13 pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings,open space,and parking areas with the
sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian
14 connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline.
However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the15sidewalkalongthewestedgeofRoadCdoesnotcontinuealongtheprivateStreetEeither
16 north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley
Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge
1 along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show
stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the
18 buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian
circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space,19
parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended
20 condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete
connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning
21 Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The
approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording.
22
Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian
23 circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when
24 planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a
recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public
25 right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this
condition.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
18
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street
2 infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum.
For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal,additional transportation analysis was
3 included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the
Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of4theEnhancedAlternativewouldbewithintherangeofimpactsidentifiedintheDEIS, EIS
5 Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation
measures, with or without the I-405 improvements, staff determined that significant
transportation impacts are not anticipated.
The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently
g
operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts
were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT
9 improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project
using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
10 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's
necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without
I the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and
12
southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange
13 project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming
treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor.
14 The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent
people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even with the current
15 congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City streets.
16
The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour
1 vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips,
no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred
18 Alternative. As to the preferred alternative,page 1-14 ofthe DEIS addendum concluded that
tJhe existing transportation network with and without I-405 Improvements would
19 adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build-out in 2015, with the
20
additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative
21 constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is
within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010
22 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation
measures are reyuired beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
23 Document.
24
The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the
25 DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative 1 traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak
hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative 1 clearly generated far
26 more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited
information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
19
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative 1,the
2 traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection
level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation
3 on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows
intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where4WSDOThasnotcompletedI-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6
5 shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three
intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table
6 3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections.
Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any
intersection except for the Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any
g
of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection.
9 The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative
analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center
10 turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group,
in a memorandum dated January 12,2017,Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit
11 2 L The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal
12
because single-lane approaches at each of the Street `A' intersections would provide
acceptable traffic operations.
13
Conditions H1-H15 ofthe Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary
14 to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires
frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane15SeahawksWay) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel
16 lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing
roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document,
provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the
site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along
18 two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The
private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including19landscapedplanterandsidewalktobeprovidedonthenorthsidematchingtheexisting
20 landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at
the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and
21 6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access.
22 The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property
owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of23
existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the
24 applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who
owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N,
25 and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval
requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should
26 be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
20
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2 The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause
some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off-site improvements, such as
3 southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly
north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures4
Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the
5 mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation
Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In
addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some
inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements
evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the
g inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully
depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the
9 Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as
shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
10
In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the11internalroadcrosssections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation
12 Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian
walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation
13 coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has
resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become
14 private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard
street cross sections is not required. However,the design of the streets shall meet minimum
15 standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be
16 required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of
public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of
1 approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways
and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on
18 street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for
pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street19crosssectiondesignwillvarydependingupontheproposedgroundfloordesignofeach
20 building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those
areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street,or a 12— 15-foot sidewalk is
21 required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground
floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6
22 feet in width,travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to
account for the curb width,and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross-
23
section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant
24 amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit
review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the
25 amended cross sections.
26 A couple members of the public at the April 18,2017 public hearing expressed concern over
increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
21
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
Condition HS of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming
2 treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips
generated by the project to utilize the I-405 corridor.The applicant's traffic engineer testified
3 that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern
street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers4
would elect to use I-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site.
5 Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition HS adequately addresses concerns over
increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also
expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the
project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the"scenic"character
of the road and turn it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be
g some legitimacy to this concern,the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and
functionality considerations integrated into the City's street standards that require the
9 additional street width.
10 F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall
development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N
l 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross
12 the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road
right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are
13 two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive
approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail-road right-of-way.
14 This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A
recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City15identifyingrightstoconstructacrossingforvehiclesandpedestrianspriortositeplanreview
16 application and construction permit application submittal.
1 Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed
through an internal street system, identified as Roads A—E. The applicant has indicated that
18 Roads A — C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private
streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City19isnotwillingtoaccepttheproposedpublicrights-of-way dedications and Roads A—C shall
20 become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A — C will be private
streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement
21 for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The
public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property
22 Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
23 G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any
24 additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School)
25 and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated
26 that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
22
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot
2 specific site plan review.
3 A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City4
as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
5
H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities.
Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit
service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is
provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St.
g interchange and I-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include
Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the
9 I-405/NE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted,Mitigation Document conditions H3
and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage
10 future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available.
11 Currently there are no non-motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site,
I Z however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition,the existing rail
road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is
13 identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails"
planned multi-purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating
14 alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi-purpose trail
at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the15primaryformandmostreadilyavailableformofalternativenon-motorized transportation is
16
bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and
restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation
1 Document (page 26) to mitigate system-wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity
transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the
18 applicant shall prepare a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include
on-site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above
19
analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in
20 the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure
weather-protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking
21 should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and
restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents
22 shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation
Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation23
would not use the multi-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor,therefore
24 a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north
and south side of Ripley Lane(Seahawks Way)with or without the construction of the multi-
25 purpose trail.
26 L Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously
noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
23
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
2 width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the
lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B10 requires
3 that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be
incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake4
side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake
5 side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details
of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval
requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site
g plan review and construction permit application. In addition,should the EPA ROD eliminate
the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires
9 that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction
permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline
10 master programs requirements for significant public access.
11
Conclusions of Law
12
13 1. Authoritv. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit
14 applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement.
However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made
15 recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It
is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding
16 site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should
be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City1 Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline
g
applications.
19 The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City
Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications
20 are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement
with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7-
21 230(I)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement"
22 significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two
provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan
23 applications that are merged with development agreements.
24 In contrast to the binding site plan application,shoreline substantial developmentpermits are classified
by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type II permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and25
master site plan approval as Type IlI permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short,the three
26 permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
24
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number
2 procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not
classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the
3 eacaminer(see Ex.23)coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision
mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation4
coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be
5 considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the
Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure.
6
2. Vestin. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The
examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows:
g A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vestin. FOF No. 2 of the April
9 19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a
complete binding site plan application on February 10, 2010. The proposed development
10 agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period of ten to fifteen years. The law is not
actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards.
11 Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement,
12 rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the
examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation
13 from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when
the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited
14 to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when
evaluating the vesting issue.
15
16 Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local
ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of
17 land" vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a
binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional
18 language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs "...at the time a fully
completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat19approvaloftheshortsubdivision, has been submitted..." A binding site plan is neither a
20 subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land
division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature
21 intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a
complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do
22 so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains.
The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant23
submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7-
24 230(N)(1) provided in 2010 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding
site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time
25 of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting
legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham
26 Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98 (2011), a court ruled that permit
expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
25
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance
2 has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting,or whether it is a procedural
ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting.
3
B. Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development4
agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting.
5
The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County
stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King
County stormwater manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently
ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology
g
DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish Counry v. Pollution
ContYol Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater
9 system is governed by a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition SS.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit
10 requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase ll NPDES permit
shall apply to all [land useJ applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall11applytoapplicationssubmittedpriortoJanuary1, 2017, which have not started
12
construction by January 1, 2022..." In short, new Phase II permit requirements not
integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't
13 started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its
superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start
14 by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit
will apply.
15
16 The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in
proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to
17
any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations
1 g or court decisions that add regulatory requirerrtents on the City that it must enforce
19 that are not subject to a "grandfather"or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the
City's enforcement responsibiliry beyond the life of this Agreement."
20
emphasis added).
21
However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not22
new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development
23 agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something
from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in
24
the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to
25 remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following
should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
26
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge
2 Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton.
3 2.5 Zonin / Comprehensive Plan Desi nations. The subject property is zoned and has a
4 comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR).
5 3. Review Criteria.RMC 4-9-200(B)requires master plan approval for all development in the COR
zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities.
6 Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property
pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(1). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any
nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria
g for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by
9 RMC 4-7-230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9-
190(B)(7),which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program("SMP") use
10 regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through
11 corresponding conclusions of law.
12 Master Plan
13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
14
a. Master Plans: For masler plan applications, the Ac ministrator rll evaluate complicz ce
15 with the Yevietiv criteria al a level of detail appropriate for ma.ster plans. Mua ter plans will
16 be evaliratedf'or general eompliance with the criteric anc to enstire th«t nothing irr the
1 master plun will p•eclude developrnent of a site plan in full compliance with Ihe criteria.
1 g b. Site Plans: For site plan applieations, the Aclministr atof•will crnalvze the pl zn in c etail
19
valuate compliance n ith the s ecific i egitirement,s disciassed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
20
4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan
21
review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude
22 development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of
approval,building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more
23 specific design features to be addressed during site plan review.
24
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
25 compliance with the following.•
26 a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
27
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elenzents, goals, objectives, and policies,
2 especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
3 applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
4 ii. Applicable land use regulations;
5 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
6 iu Design Regulations:Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
g Finding No. 222
of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District"C"and consistent with
9 Design District "C" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
10
11 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
12
i. Structures:Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular13
portion of the site;
14
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
15 adjacent properties;
16 iii. Loading artd Storage Areas:Locating, designing and screening storage aNeas, utilities, rooftop
j equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
18 iu Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of rnaintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
19
20 v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
21 project; and
22
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
23 brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
24
25 2 References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No.References to findings from this
26 recommendation are"FOF No. ." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any
updates to the findings addressed in the April 11,2017 memo to the examiner,Ex. 19.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
28
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
2 significantly adverse. Specifically,massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by
FOF 6(D), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(I), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E)
3 and lighting by FOF 5(H).
4
RMC 4-9-200 E 3 c : Ort-Site Im acts:Miti ation o am acts to the site includinPSf P S
5
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
6 and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
g characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
9
10 i i. Natura[Features:Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
11
iv. Lartdscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
1 and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
13 appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection ofplanting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
14
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
15 adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that
16 the mixed-use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well-integrated environment for
residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities.
1 Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA,
however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking
18 trail, dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E)
and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally
19 improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
21 users, including:
22 i.Location and Consolidation:Providing access points on side streets orfrontage streets rather than
23 directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingr•ess and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
24
ii. Internal Circulation:Promoting safery and e ciency of the internal circulation system, including
25 the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
26 turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
29
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
iii.Loading and Delivery:Separating loading and delivery areas from parking andpedestrian areas;
2
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
3
4
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings,public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
5
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one
6 on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining
properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for
safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(D).
g Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No.
9 5(I). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No.
6(H).
10
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project11focalpointsandtoprovideadequateareasforpassiveandactiverecreationbytheoccupants/users
i 2 of the site.
13 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
14
5
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(: Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
16
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline
1
as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF
1 g No. 6(I).
19 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
20
21 11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A),the natural systems at the site
i.e. critical areas)will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations.
22
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and23facilitiestoaccommodatetheproposeduse.
24
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adeyuate services and facilities as determined in
25 Finding of Fact No. 6.
26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with developrrtent phases
and estirnated time,fr ames,for phased projects.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
30
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the
2 scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the
3
infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton
4 for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is
5 governed by the proposed development agreement.
6 Binding Site Plan
RMC 4-7-230(C):
g APPROVAL CRITERIA:
9 Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the
following criteria are met:
10
1. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or moreI1contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan
12 procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions
shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district.New nonconforming
13 lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
14 14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff
15 report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots
16 1,6,and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified
through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval reyuires that
l lots 1, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be
buildable if created.
18
The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or
19 tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a
20 part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and
placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
21
2. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met,
22 the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of
this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-1 S0.
23
15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium
24 site creation is required.
25 3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or
26 mixed-use zone.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
31
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
16. The site is located within the mixed-use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval.
2
4. Zoning Code Requirements:Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply
3 with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning
district. Where minirrtum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall4beprocessedasacommercialcondominiumsiteperRMC4-7-230D.
5
a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements
6 and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application
is submitted.
7
b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan
8 application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards
of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations9wherethesitecannotbebroughtintoconformanceduetophysicallimitationsorother
10 circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at
the time a completed application is submitted.
11
c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site
12 plan may propose shared signage,parking, and access if they are specifically authorized
per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-080I7, and 4-4-IOOES, and other shared improvements as
13 authorized in other sections of the Ciry's development standards.
4 17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable
15 comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant
has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed
16 as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition
H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared
17 parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on
the binding site plan prior to recording.18
19
20 5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5-
010.
21
18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building
22 permit approval.
23 6. Infrastructure Provisions:Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or
24 in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways,
water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes,for the entire property covered by
25 the binding site plan.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
32
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
19. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 6, the applicant has made adequate
2 provisions for all drainageways, streets, water supplies, open space, solid waste and sanitary waste.
This criterion is satisfied.
3
7. Access to Public Rights-of-Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan4shallhaveaccesstoapublicstreet, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct
5 access or access easement approved by the City.
6 20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a
private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted
7 in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that
each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan
g for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a
9 recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to
roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted,
10 constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior
to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless
11 a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review.
12 8. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space,parking, access,
signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan13
and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-080I7, and 4-4-IOOES. Conditions of use,
14 maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space,parking, access, signage
and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants,
15 easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism.
16 21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No
shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval reyuires the applicant to provide a covenant
1 or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA
18 responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded
19 'th the Binding Site Plan.
20 9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any
subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded
21 binding site plan.
22 22. As conditioned,the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision
23 for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded
binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this
24 standard.
25 10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant
shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan.
26
23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
33
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
I1. Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of
2 flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of protective improvements may be
required as condition of approval.
3
24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the4
City's critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A),the proposal complies with the
5 City's critical area regulations.
6 Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
g Economic Development or designee mustfind that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
9 a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
10 that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
11 b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
12 and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted,
13 Provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Departrrient of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
14 intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
15 c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines
16 of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
17
25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed
18 in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the
proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No.
19 6(I). The commercial use regulations further reyuire that parking is to be provided at frequent locations
20 and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured
parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use
21 regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the
shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(I). The development agreement adds a 1.3-
22 acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations
further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as
23 determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS
24 mitigation requires a 100-foot setback. The proposal complies with this 100-foot setback except for a
proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval reyuires the water line to be moved outside
25 the 100-foot setback.
26 The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for
shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
34
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the impacts of
2 the proposal on shoreline ecological resources have been mitigated and controlled as required by RMC
4-3-090(K).
3
4
5 DECISION
6 For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications
7 are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the
applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Councilgapprovetheproposeddevelopmentagreementforthereasonsidentifiedinthesummaryofthis
9
recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The
permit applications should be subject to the following conditions:
10
1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation
1 Document dated, August of 2015.
2. All lots shall meet maXimum building lot coverage either individually or combined
12 through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside
13 through the binding site plan.
3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter,
14 sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common
15 landscaping(including irrigation),trails (including signage and amenities), public
art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD
16 shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of
1 Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding
Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot,
18 unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any
19 delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety
or welfare.
20 4. The minimum partial sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier(buffers) shall be
21 maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11 and shall be
identified on the recorded binding site plan, as reyuired by Mitigation Measures E1, E2,
22 and F5.
23
5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk
when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for
24 each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
25
6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the
Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts
26 as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection
Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
35
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review,
2 this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
3
8. Roads A—C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an
easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C,
4 and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.5
9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent
6 development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding
site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording.
g 10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the
hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current9
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
10 construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to
Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.11
11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
12 access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
12. Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to13MitigationMeasures:
14 B 10 -public trail
15
G2—public trail and open space
G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
16 Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
1
G7—trail signage
G9—crosswalk
1 g G10—trail amenities
19 H3 —frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
20
H4—trail
HS —traffic calming measures
21 H8—fire access road
22 H 10—bicycle lane
H11 — H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
23
signalization
24 shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary
25 Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and26
C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
36
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements
2 matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be
3 provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane
Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide
4 sidewalk on south side of the access. These off-site improvements shall be designed,
permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning5
Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
6 first building on the project site
15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a
minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking
g garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan
review.
9
16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve
10 uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be
permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the11
ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot
IZ specific site plan review.
17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit
13
per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is
14 required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be
demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
15
18. To ensure the semi-private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed
16 design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan
review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and
1 amenities as approved by the Director.
1 g 19. To ensure that all uses receive eyual signage opportunities an overall sign design package
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
19 to the approval of any sign permit for the site.
20 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows:
a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington
21 b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
22 c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility)
21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum
23 width of 74 feet and the semi-private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall
24 maintain a minimum width of 80 feet.
22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-designed to reduce to
25 the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake
26 maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
37
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of
2 these buildings shall be completed at site plan review.
3 23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units
on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for
4 the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking
plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review.
5
24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals
6 site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building
proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5.
25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of
g the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the
design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for
9
lots 2 and 5.
10 26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the
infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
ro ect mana er Current Plannin ro ect mana er and Pro ert Services for a rovalPJg gP J g P Y pP
12 prior to recording.
27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the13
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e.
4 the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots 1
and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that
I S
all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the
16 change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site
development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required.
1
28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane
1 g Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-purpose trail.
29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of
19
construction permit review.
20 30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities
built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property
21 owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan.
31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping,
23 open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be
maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and24
approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the
25 maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and
Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
38
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 11, 2017 memo to
2 examiner.
3 33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
4 sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to
5 binding site plan recording.
6 34. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City
of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department
prior to binding site plan recording.
g
35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on
9 the subject site.
36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that
10
Will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which
11 should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works
Department.
12
37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the
13 proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the
easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approvaL Final documentation
14 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording.
15 38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the
center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the
16 facility.
1 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be
completed for the reyuired off-site improvements between the developer and all other
1 g affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
19 Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application
for the site.
20 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the
21 timing identified above per condition of approval 12.
41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the
22 front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end
23 shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and
utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
24 art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road
compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
25
42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified
26 on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another
mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
39
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public
2 vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way.
This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be
3 recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of
Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation.4
5 44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review
application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and6constructionpermitissuance.
I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density
g for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units
9 per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum
permitted density to be shared among the entire property.
10 jI. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted
11 for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common
landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved,
12 a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance
13 with the approved phasing plan.
II1. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the
14 proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review
15 and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and
Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on
16 the recording Binding Site Plan.
1 IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the
Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a
1 g Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD
19 issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed
baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project
20 changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C 10.
21 V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials
to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G11 for
22 review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the
23 Community Services Administrator.
VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the
24 Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered
25 common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed
pursuant to condition of approval 3.
26 VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian
pathway system, including an evaluation of on-site crosswalks to ensure
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
40
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review
2 and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate
3 compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved
pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon
4 recording.
VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active5
recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review
6 and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion
of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot.
IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation
g measure F 13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including
but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special9
landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the
10 Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community
Services.
11
X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a
12 crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-
of-way.
13 XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and
14 public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the
required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be
15 provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design.
16 XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B10, G3,
G2, G10, G11 and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current
17 Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department.
1 g XIII. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the
19 amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16.
20 XIV. Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the
design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above
21 under XIII.
22 XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated
conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan
23 Reviewer:
24 a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property
frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The
25 existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to
26 the location of the proposed new Road A.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
41
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be
2 within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot
3 buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the
building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area.
4 c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main.
d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100-shoreline buffer.5
e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton
6 regulations.
XVL If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access
from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive
8 signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane
and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots9
2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new
10 public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant
public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access
11
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
12 XVIL A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking
agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying13
compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared
14 parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division.
15 XVIIL A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and
16 Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the
specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of
1
project approvaL The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
1 g approval of any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the
19 roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
20 installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
21 Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
22 Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of
any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
23
24 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
25
26 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the
hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
42
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
2 construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior
to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
3
4 Decision issued May 9, 2017.
5
c.--'_--..6
Phi A.(Ibce ht
Hearing Examiner
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, BiNDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
43
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Quendall Terminals
Project Number:
LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Date of Hearing
April 18, 2017
Staff Contact
Vanessa Dolbee, Current
Planning Manager
Project Contact/Applicant
Campbell Mathewson,
Century Pacific, L. P., 1201
Third Ave, suite 1680,
Seattle, WA 98101
Project Location
Parcel 2924059002. South
of the Seahawks VMAC
Training Facility
The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing:
Exhibits 1-18: Hearing Examiner Staff Report (April 2016) and Exhibits
Exhibit 19 - 23: Memo to the Hearing Examiner (April 2017) and Exhibits
Exhibit 24: Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017
Exhibit 25: Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Exhibit 26: Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
Exhibit 27: City of Renton COR maps and GIS data:
http://rp.rentonwa.gov/SilverlightPublic/Viewer.html?Viewer=COR-Maps
Exhibit 28: Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Exhibit 29: City of Renton power point
Exhibit 30: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Exhibit 31: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
Exhibit 32: Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Exhibit 33: Larry Toedtli CV
Exhibit 34: Bob Wells Resume
Exhibit 35: Lance Mueller Resume
Exhibit 36: Street B rendering
Exhibit 37: June 6, 2016 Site Plan P1. 0
Exhibit 38: June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0. 0
Exhibit 39: April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 11, 2017
TO: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09-151
Following the canceled public hearing from April of 2016, the Applicants have requested
the City consider a Development Agreement. As such, this memorandum addresses the
Development Agreement and changes to the project which result from the proposed
Development Agreement. This memo is intended to supplement the staff report to the
Hearing Examiner which was issued in April of 2016, for the original scheduled hearing
date of April 19, 2016. Only those items identified below have been changed and/or are
proposed to be changed from the original staff report.
Updated Project Description:
The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-
use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is
zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46 -acre site
would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed -use buildings. The
Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential
density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant],
1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 – 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has
proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right -of-way, which would provide access to
the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583
linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a
Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the
following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and
street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier
and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake
Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the
remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term
to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation
vesting would be maintained.
EXHIBIT 19
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 2 of 7
April 11, 2017
The following Exhibits should be added to the Recorded:
Exhibit 19 – Memorandum to Hearing Examiner, April 11, 2017
Exhibit 20 – Draft Development Agreement
Exhibit 21 – Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 22 – Notice of Issuance of Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 23 – Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing
Findings of Fact (FOF): (the following FOF’s are identified with letters to eliminate and
confusion with the original staff report)
a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
(Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative
would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential d ensity of 40.95
units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 – 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include
the following:
The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains,
artwork, etc.)
The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake
Washington;
Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the
remaining buildings would be 6-stories;
Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible
extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be
maintained.
A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments.
b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the
sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative
relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the
Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be
contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement . If
the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should
be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner should be completed.
c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS
Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced
Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis
determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are
within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 3 of 7
April 11, 2017
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated.
d. A detailed master site plan has not been provided incorporating the changes
identified in the Enhanced Alternative. As such, staff recommends as a condition
of approval that a final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City
for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that
incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative
and all the conditions of project approval. The final details master plan shall be
approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording
of the binding site plan.
e. Staff does not expect that the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative
would impact the analysis and associated recommended conditions of the April
2016 staff report for all Findings of Fact except as follows:
i. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Parking: The total
parking stalls proposed in the Enhanced Alternative is 1,352 stalls an
increase from the 1,337 stalls proposed in the Preferred Alternative, a 15
stall increases. There is no change in the residential and restaurant
space; however there is an increase in retail space from 20,025 SF to
33,190 SF which would result in a maximum of 133 stalls required for the
retail space, up from 80 stalls. Together all three uses could require up to
1,469 parking stalls.
ii. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Refuse and Recycling:
Based on a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 33,190 SF of retail a
combined total of 210.95 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 421.90 Sf
of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project.
iii. FOF 25, Critical Areas, b.: The reference to “NRD settlements” should be
eliminated because the EPA does not approve and is not party to an NRD
settlement. Therefore, Condition 44. IV, should be amended to remove
the reference to “NRD settlements”.
iv. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, f. On Site Impacts, Structure and Scale:
With the addition of retail/commercial space along the Lake Washington
side of the development it is anticipated that the parking garage would
no longer be the dominate structure viewed from the Lake or shoreline
trail.
v. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, j. Distinctive Focal Points: The “street
activation” identified in the development agreement are anticipated to
provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However,
the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such staff
recommends as a condition of approval that Public Art, fountains, or
other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways
shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 4 of 7
April 11, 2017
vi. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, Phasing: Staff recommends that the
project duration be consistent with the time frames established in the
Development Agreement, Exhibit 20.
vii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Stormwater: The
Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1,
2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated
stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff
recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be
removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable
stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction.
viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The
Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak
hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would
represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak
our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative.
Additionally, the center left-turn lane that was included as a part of
Street ‘A’ is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this
turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated
January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The
analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the
Enhanced Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the
Street ‘A’ intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a
result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly.
Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency
Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The
Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the
Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in
the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With
implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the
I-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not
anticipated
ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development
Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public
use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City’s Community Services Administrator. Currently
public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying
that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An
easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site
plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the site.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 7
April 11, 2017
x. FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Time Requirements for
Shoreline Permits: The Draft Development Agreement extends the time
for all land use permit applications including the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit. Time frames identified in the Development
Agreement should be applied accordingly.
f. Condition of Approval 14 should remove the word “east” as this has been
included in error.
g. Condition of Approval 22 contains a minor error, the word “East” should be
“West”. Condition of Approval 22 should be amended accordingly.
h. Condition 43 requires an easement be recorded to all for public access for
vehicles and pedestrians to cross the King County rail-road right-of-way. This
requirement for an easement limits the type of legal documents that could be
drafted to accomplish the intended purpose of the condition. As such, this
condition should be amended as shown below.
i. The word “Public Promenade” should be removed throughout the staff report
and replaced with “fire lane and utility maintenance access road” to be
consistent with the Consistency Analysis and Development Agreement.
Therefore Condition of approval 41. and 44. XVI should be amended accordingly.
Conclusions: All conclusions in the April 2016 staff report are to remain except as
identified below:
10. The project An expiration date shall be as identified in the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20set by the Hearing Examiner for the Master Site Plan, see FOF 26 .
12. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36 -70B-
170.
New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan,
Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative
described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff
report and any new conditions or modified conditions below.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition
that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Co uncil, the Hearing
Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering
the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff
report to the Hearing Examiner.
Amended Conditions of Approval:
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage
improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped
planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side. The new private
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 7
April 11, 2017
access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8
feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the
access. These off-site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed,
and substantial complete as determined by the Current P lanning Project
Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
22. East West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-
designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to
ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic
and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming
and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shal l be completed
at site plan review.
32. Any extension to the project approved beyond January 1, 2022 or building and
construction permits submitted that would extend the project beyond January
1, 2022 shall be subject to the updated stormwater manual, in e ffect at the
time.
41. A public promenade fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake
Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B
terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the
design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This promenade fire lane and utility
maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture,
public art, water features, etc. Design of the promenades fire lane and utility
maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at
the time of lot specific site plan review.
43. An easement shall be secured from King County or other future property owners
of the rail-road right-of-way to provided vehicular and pedestrian access to the
proposed development across the right-of-way. The easement shall be noted on
the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site
plan. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for
public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the
right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan
and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already
recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access
documentation.
44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of
the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior
to a Record of Decision (ROD) and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA. A
copy of the final ROD and NRD Settlement issued by the EPA shall be submitted
to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct
and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as
required in Mitigation Measure C10.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
April 11, 2017
44. XIV. A transportation study shall be completed to analyze the need for a center
turn lane in Road A. Depending upon the outcome of this study, Road A street
designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane accordingly and the
design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above
under XIII.
44. XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public
access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints,
interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2)
A public promenade fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake
side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road
B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying
compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master
Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager
New Conditions of Approval: (The following numbering picks up at the end of the April
2016 staff report.)
45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and
public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use
and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services
Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated
signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on
the project site.
44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review
and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both
the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions
of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located
in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and
constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastr ucture
construction.
44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval
of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan .
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
EXHIBIT 24AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
EXHIBIT 25AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
EXHIBIT 26AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Quendall Terminals
(LUA09-151)
HEX Public Hearing
Date
Names/TitlesVanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
April 18, 2017
EXHIBIT 29 AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Presentation Overview
Approximate Location
•Project Description –Enhanced
Alternative & Development Agreement
•Background
•Renton Municipal Code Analysis
–Compliance
–Conditions
•Staff Recommendation AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Approximate Location
Approximate Location
Applications:
1) Master Site Plan
2) Binding Site Plan
3) Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
4) Development Agreement
Environmental Impact Statement
Completed
−FEIS issued August 2015
−Mitigation Document issued
August 2015
−Consistency Analysis For
Enhanced Alternative issued
March 2017
The application is vested to
regulations from February 10,
2010, ORD 5520 (including the
SMP –amended in 1983) AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Site Characteristics
SITE
Isolate
Property
Lake Washington
PanAbode
SiteBarbee Mill
VMAC
King Co.
rail-road
ROW
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
•COR Zone and Urban
Shoreline Environment
•21.24 acre site
•7 lots –4 with mixed
use buildings
•692 multi-family
residential units
•33,190 SF of
retail/Commercial
•9,000 SF of restaurant
•Density 40.95 du/ac
•Parking for 1,352
vehicles
•*Superfund site subject
to EPA regulations AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
Pedestrian Trail
Road C Road BRoad A Road E100 ft. shoreline setback
N 42nd Place
Ripley Lane (Seahawks
Way)
Rail road ROW –King. Co.
Access Point
Access Point AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
Building Design –
* Ground floor Parking or Retail/Restaurant along Road B and Lake Washington
* 3, 4, or 5 stories above for residential units and semi-private plaza space
*Final elevation design will be reviewed at Site Plan review.
**Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Quendall Terminals
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Quendall Terminals
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Overview
•Applicant: Extended time frame beyond the 5 years permitted by code
and associated vesting of development regulations
•City/Public: Project Enhancements –designed to provide a public
benefit
Development Agreement
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Provisions –Project Timing
•Following 5 years of the initial term a SEPA Transportation Update would be
required.
–New transportation mitigation for the project may be required based on changed
conditions and associated project impacts.
•Vest the development regulations effective on the vesting date, which is
February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement.
•Extends code authorized land use approval time lines from 5 years to 10 years
from the earlier of:
–(i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of Decision, or
–(ii) The Hearing Examiners Decision and/or subsequent appeal decision dates
•Extension to the 10 years up to 5 additional years, could be authorized by the
City if 51% of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and
received Certificate of Occupancy, following a second SEPA Transportation
Update.
•s
Development Agreement
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Enhanced Alternative
Project Elements
Collaborate with the
developer on a public
dock/pier
•Permitting –City
•Funding, construction,
mitigation -developer
1.3 acres of a public park
in the southwest corner
of the site AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Project Elements
Additional
retail/restaurant/office space
•Minimum 50 percent of the
building street frontage
•Minimum of 20 feet in depth
Required along:
•Lakeside frontage
•Street B
•Other street frontages as
necessary to meet 50%
Street activation; such as
fountains and artwork will be
provided along street B and
lakeside frontage
Enhanced Alternative
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Background
•Former creosote manufacturing
facility that operated from
1917-1969
•Past coal tars and creosote
have contaminated soil,
groundwater, surface water
and lake sediments
•In 2005 DOE transferred the
oversight to the EPA
•The site received a Superfund
designation from EPA
•The EPA is conducting a
remedial investigation and
feasibility study. Which will
lead to a ROD. AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Background
•Clean up work is being
conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. (CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund)
•EPA Contact –Clair Hong,
hong.claire@epa.gov. AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Background (baseline assumptions)
Figure 2-6 DEIS
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design
Soil Cap
Wetland Recreation
•This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS.
•Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum beyond
100 ft. setback. AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Background (baseline assumptions)
Figure 2-7 DEIS
Buffer Width Averaging Wetland D
Wetland Recreation
•This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS.
•Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum for the
Preferred Alternative
Buffer Averaging
Trail with
view points
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Background (EIS Process)
Determination of Significance (DS) issued on February 19, 2010 –EIS Process began:
Date EIS Action, see Exhibits 2, 3, 15, and 21.
2/19/10 –
4/30/10 EIS Public Scoping Period, 70 days (extended)
4/27/10 Public Scoping Meeting
12/10/2010 DEIS Issuance
12/10/10 –
2/09/11 DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended)
1/04/11 DEIS Public Hearing
10/19/12 EIS Addendum Issuance
10/19/12 –
11/19/12 EIS Addendum Public Comment Period
8/31/15 FEIS Issuance
8/31/15 –
9/24/15 EIS Public Appeal Period
9/24/15 Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back
2/18/16 Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Appellant and Applicant
2/22/16 Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner. Appeal
Dismissed.
3/20/17 Consistency Analysis Issuance for Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Renton Municipal Code Analysis
•Comprehensive Plan Compliance
•Zoning Compliance
•Design District Review
•Critical Areas
•Master Site Plan Review
•Binding Site Plan
•Availability of Public Services
•Shoreline Regulations AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
64 Conditions of Approval Recommend by Staff
Primary:
•Compliance with the Mitigation Document
•Phasing/Site Plan Review
•Design Standards Compliance
•Access/Roadways (vehicular and pedestrian)
•Binding Site Plan (recording)
Secondary:
•Utilities
•Code/Landscaping AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 20 and 21:
Setbacks from parent parcel edges shall be as follows:
a.100 ft. from the OHWM of Lake Washington
b.40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
c.38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawks Training Facility)
View Corridors –
a.74 ft. width for Road B
b.80 ft. width for semi-private plaza space.
Site Plan AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 6
and 27:
Critical Areas
Regulations
Baseline Assumptions,
assumed all recreated
wetland and their
associated buffers
would fit within
Binding Site Plan lots 1
and 6.
Baseline
Assumptions AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 27:
Critical Areas Regulations
1)The outcome of the ROD and NRD Settlement details
are not known at this time.
2)This conditions is need so impacts of the proposed
development will comply with the City’s critical areas
regulations following the ROD and NRD Settlement. AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 41:
Requires a fire lane and utility maintenance access road along
Lake Washington AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 41:
Satisfies the following code requirements:
1.Fire Access is required along the Lake
a.Required to be 20 ft. in width.
b.Shall be constructed to support the weight of a fire apparatus.
c.Critical Areas regulations may not permit the trail to be built to meet
fire access standards. Maximum width permitted per code is 12 feet.
(RMC4-3-050C7.a.)
2.Looped waterline required
1.Located along the west side of the 2 lake front buildings.
2.15 feet minimum width needed for maintenance access.
3.Maintenance access shall be a paved surface.
4.Not permitted within wetlands, wetland buffers, or shoreline buffer. AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline
Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the
conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified
conditions.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that
if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner
will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner.
Recommendation
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
QUENDALL TERMINALS
ENTITLEMENTS HEARING
MASTER PLAN REVIEW
BiNDING SITE PLAN
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
CITY OF RENTON
APRIL 18, 2017
EXHIBIT BINDER #2: VESTED
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
EXHIBIT 30
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
EXHIBIT 31Entire DocumentAvailable UponRequestAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Birdseye View
Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative
Renton, Washington
Century Pacific, LLLP
I-405
Barbee Mill
Lake Washington
Public
Park
Seahawks
VMAC
Denny’s
EconoLodge
NE 44th StreetLake Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
B
l
v
d
.Promen
a
d
e
EXHIBIT 32
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Larry Toedtli, PE Principal (Retired)
Expertise:
• Development traffic impact
analyses under SEPA
• Transportation analyses of
large master planned
developments
• Experience managing multiple
team members
• Experience managing on-call
contracts
• Multimodal transportation
planning under GMA
• Experience in facilitating
stakeholder engagement and
public outreach programs
Years Employed by Transpo: 30
Education:
MS, Civil Engineering
(Transportation), University of
Washington,1983
BS, Civil Engineering, University of
Colorado, 1977
Professional registrations
and licenses:
PE, Washington, #25888, 1989
PE, Colorado, #23125, 1985
Professional Associations
Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE)
Contact
larry.toedtli@comcast.net
Larry recently retired as a principal at Transpo with over 30 years of experience
developing area-wide and corridor level transportation plans. He directed
Transpo’s efforts in GMA-based transportation plans, transportation financing
strategies, and concurrency programs. He also had project management
responsibilities for transportation analyses supporting EISs for subarea plans,
planned action ordinances, and transportation corridor projects. He has a
thorough knowledge of travel forecasting and traffic operation analyses
techniques.
Larry also served local agencies in reviewing traffic impact studies for
developments within and outside of their jurisdiction. He recently assisted the
Cities of Duvall and Ferndale in this role.
Larry was appointed as a member of King County’s Transportation Concurrency
Expert Review Panel. The panel includes County staff, citizens, and representatives
from the development community. The panel developed recommendations to
refine the Concurrency program to reflect the changes in King County to a more
rural County and also to improve the interface between the County’s concurrency
program and SEPA processes.
Tehaleh Employment Based Planned Community, Pierce County
Larry directed Transpo’s transportation planning and traffic engineering
assistance for this large master Planned Community located in Pierce County
between Bonney Lake and Orting. When fully developed, the community will have
over 6,500 residences, a retail center, business park, schools, and golf course.
Transpo’s assistance has included sizing of on-site roadways, design of
roundabouts and street lighting, and roadway channelization for internal
roadways. Transpo has also assisted in monitoring the transportation mitigation
triggers based on the approved development agreement. Transpo has assisted
the project team and agency staff in defining the off-site roadway and mitigation
strategies to support future development phases. Larry also led the initial tasks
for the detailed transportation analyses to support the Phase 2 application for the
development.
Redmond Ridge/Trilogy/Redmond Ridge East Master Planned
Communities EISs, King County, WA
Larry managed the analysis of traffic impacts and development of a subarea
transportation improvement program for the EIS for a large mixed-use
community planned for rural King County. At buildout, the development will
include 5,400 dwelling units, neighborhood retail, 1.2 million SF of business park,
golf course and soccer fields. The analysis included assessing roadway
improvement needs and non-motorized system facilities, transit opportunities,
and financing. Key issues included accommodating urban traffic levels in an
otherwise rural area and potential traffic impacts on other jurisdictions. Larry
supported the projects through coordination with WSDOT and Redmond.
EXHIBIT 33
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Orton Junction Urban Growth Area EIS, Sumner, WA
Larry managed the transportation analysis for the EIS for this subarea located
south of SR 410 in Sumner. The City proposed to increase densities and expand
the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to accommodate a mix of residential, commercial,
and industrial land uses. The analysis addressed impacts and transportation
improvement needs in the immediate vicinity of the subarea.
Overlake Urban Center Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, Redmond
Larry managed an analysis of the potential traffic impacts of the additional multi-
family residential development within the proposed Overlake Urban Center. The
analysis focused on evaluating the impacts within the Overlake Transportation
Management District (TMD) and surrounding area of Bellevue. The City of
Redmond’s proposal to change the designation for the Overlake area from a
Manufacturing/Industrial Center to an Urban Center would not affect zoning or
the potential for residential growth in the area. Actual development of additional
residential units in the area would, however, result in some traffic impacts. The
impacts would primarily be in the immediate vicinity of the Overlake Urban
Center, with impacts decreasing further from the site.
Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel; King County, Washington.
Larry serves on the King County Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel.
The panel provides policy and technical guidance to King County staff as part of
their ongoing refinement of County policies and programs related to level of
service standards and concurrency. The panel has assisted in defining changes to
the programs as the County focuses on rural areas as annexations and
incorporations have greatly reduced the suburban areas under the jurisdiction of
King County.
Ferndale Main Street Master Plan and Planned Action EIS, Ferndale, WA
Larry managed the transportation analysis for the planned action EIS for
Ferndale’s Main Street near the I-5 interchange. The planned action would allow
over 1 million square feet of commercial developments. The EIS evaluated the use
of roundabouts vs. traffic signal improvements to address potential traffic
operations and safety impacts due to the increased level of development. The
analysis included comparison of levels of service, corridor travel speeds and cost
differences. The EIS also identified development mitigation strategies including
potential updates to the City’s transportation impact fee and concurrency
programs. He also coordinated with WSDOT on improvements related to impacts
on I-5 and interchanges at Main Street and Slater Road.
Pacific Ridge Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS, Des Moines
Larry assisted the City of Des Moines in evaluating the transportation-related
impacts associated with 4,200 additional dwelling units and 6,900 additional
employees located within the Pacific Ridge subarea. To mitigate impacts, a variety
of strategies were identified, including a reduction in the amount of new
development, creation of a transit and transportation demand management
program, and/or funding and building necessary improvement projects through
one or more Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) or Transportation Benefit Districts
(TBDs). The Planned Action Ordinance took into account the City’s impact fee
requirements and street standard requirements.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
L A N C E M U E L L E R & A S S O C I A T E S
B O B W E L L S
A S S O C I A T E
Education: Bachelor of Architecture - 1969
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
Professional
Registrations: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, USA - 1975
Experience: Bob has worked full-time in architecture since college graduation.
Consequently, he has many years of varied experience in the Seattle
area with project types including low and mid-rise commercial
structures and industrial structures.
Responsibility: Bob has been with Lance Mueller & Associates since 1973 and an
associate since 1980. His responsibilities have been for the design,
documentation and contract administration of numerous office, retail,
flex-tech, industrial, residential, and corporate facilities.
Representative
Projects: ROCKWELL COLLINS, Wilsonville, OR
This 221,000 sf manufacturing and office consolidated Rockwell’s
Portland area operations in one building in a wonderful natural
setting. Our roll was shell architect and coordinating shell revisions
with the TI Architect. Later we assisted Rockwell on a number of
smaller tenant improvements.
DWFRITZ PRECISION AUTOMATION, Wilsonville, OR
From 2009 to 2017 we were the Architects on three separate projects
totaling 273,000sf for this hi-tech manufacturer. The first two are new
2-story buildings and the last is a conversion of an existing industrial
building into an office and manufacturing facility filled with natural
light.
EXHIBIT 34
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
L A N C E M U E L L E R & A S S O C I A T E S
B O B W E L L S
P A G E 2
COMPACT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Redmond, WA
This 50,000 sf two story for a very sophisticated mailing label
business. In addition to the usual office, warehousing, and
expansion requirements, the facility included a nursery for the
employee's children, a very high-end lunch area, and adjacent
private park. If needs change, the park can convert to parking.
ONVIA BUILDING, Seattle, WA
The Onvia.com Building is a full block corporate development with
95,000 sf of office plus structured parking with many employee
amenities in Seattle. The four-story office ells around a large
naturally landscaped plaza and integrates with a separate
conference center building at the street corner. The restful plaza
includes a pond and seating for relaxing or strolling opportunities.
The service area and parking are underground on two levels.
ZETRON BUILDING, Redmond, WA
Zetron centralized their office and manufacturing headquarters into
this four-story 210,000 sf facility. The facility includes basement
parking and storage area and substantial areas dedicated to
greenbelt and wetlands.
THE GILBERT, Seattle, WA
A 3-story traditional brick apartment complex on top of bustling
Queen Anne hill with 54 units and 9,500 sf of street front retail with
the basement parking accessed from the alley.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
L A N C E M U E L L E R & A S S O C I A T E S
L A N C E M U E L L E R , A I A
P R E S I D E N T
Education: University of Washington
College of Architecture - 1962-1967
Professional
Registration: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, 1973.
Other States; California, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon.
Certificate - National Council of Architectural Registration Boards,
1974.
Professional
Affiliations: Member - American Institute of Architects
Lambda Alpha International Land Economics Honorary
International Conference of Building Officials
Experience: 1965 to 1970: Worked in three small Seattle architectural
firms.
1970 to present: Joined Richard Bouillon & Assoc./Architects in 1970.
Became owner of firm in 1973 upon death of R. Bouillon. Renamed
firm in 1975. Experience covers a wide variety of project types
including shopping centers, large retail stores, apartments, banks,
business parks, distribution centers, manufacturing buildings, offices,
parking garages and restaurants and planning of major office and
business parks.
Responsibility: Project conceptual and preliminary design and design development.
Project administration, contractual agreements and general office
administration.
Honors: National Association of Industrial and Office Parks
2005 Hall of Fame Inductee
EXHIBIT 35
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
EXHIBIT 36 AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Wetland AOLWMOHWMWetland DContinuous WaveAttenuation BermWave Attenuation BermsWetland IMinimum25-ftWetlandBufferLAKE WASHINGTONLEGENDRENTON, WASHINGTONCENTURY PACIFIC, LLLPGRADE LEVEL PLAN100' SHORELINE SETBACKLOT 7 (ISOLATED)EXHIBIT 37AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Wetland AOLWMOHWMWetland DContinuous WaveAttenuation BermWave Attenuation BermsWetland IMinimum25-ftWetlandBufferLAKE WASHINGTONRENTON, WASHINGTONCENTURY PACIFIC, LLLPLEGEND2ND LEVEL PLANEXHIBIT 38AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AB - 1881
City Council Regular Meeting - 03 Apr 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Quendall Terminals Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
EXT.: 7314
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City consider a
Development Agreement. The Land Use application consists of a request for Master Site Plan, Binding Site
Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and now a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed-use
development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190
square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space.
A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the subject land use application on April 18, 2017. The requested
Development Agreement establishes the new Enhanced Development Alternative and allows for an extended
time frame for the land use entitlements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10
years, with a possible 5 year extension, for a total of 15 years. A public hearing is required to be held by City
Council when considering a Development Agreement. However, there is an opportunity to consolidate the
required public hearing for the Development Agreement with the public hearing for the land use entitlements
with the City’s Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use
entitlements and the development agreement, the public will be able to comment on both the development
project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing. Se cond, the Hearing Examiner
would have the benefit of considering all aspects of the project and associated public comments when making
a decision on the land use entitlements and a recommendation to City Council. A consolidated public hearing
process would streamline and simplify the public process for the overall project. The final decision authority
on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the
City’s Hearing Examiner.
EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Development Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration recommends consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the
development agreement and deferring this process to the City's Hearing Examiner.
EXHIBIT 39
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR □ NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington (“City”), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns (“Developer”), is made and entered into this ____ day of
________ , 2016 (the “Effective Date”) pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal bo undaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the “Quendall Property” or “Property”)).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the “Project”), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner’s Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
“Initial Project Applications”).
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW (“SEPA”),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the “DEIS”) on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the “Addendum”). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the “FEIS”) and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City’s request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
(“the Development Agreement Statute”), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City’s Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the “Project-level SEPA Review.”
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____________, 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer’s applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners’
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties’ mutual satisfaction
(“Future Dock Proposal”). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the “SEPA Transportation Update”), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the “Update Notice”) will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer’s development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA’s oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasin g:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates (“Initial Term”). This Agreement shall remain in effect during i ts term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer’s request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather” or “safe harbor” clause that would
delay the City’s enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City’s Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Partie s intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City’s authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is proh ibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parti es, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully
set forth.
6.8 Dispute Resolution.
6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement,
the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This
mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the
other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute.
6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through
mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration.
The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By:__________________________
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By:__________________________
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ________________________
CITY OF RENTON
By:
Denis Law
Mayor
Date: ________________________
ATTEST:
By:___________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of _______, County of ________, personally appeared ________________,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-1-Map
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
11/11/2016
Exhibit A
Page 15
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
98102-3513BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.2009 MINOR AVE. EASTSEATTLE, WashingtonLAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS(206) 323-4144SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBITCENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTONDATE: 11/11/16JOB NO.:2009050.0311/11/2016Exhibit A-1Page 16AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RENTON AND QUENDALL TERMINALS, A WASHINGTON JOINT
VENTURE.
WHEREAS, Quendall Terminals, a Washington joint venture, made application to the City
of Renton for a Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit; and
WHEREAS, SEPA Environmental Review was completed for the Quendall Terminals
project, with the City issuing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on December 10,
2010, an Addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) and Mitigation Document on August 31, 2015, and a Consistency Analysis on February 9,
2017; and
WHEREAS, development agreements are authorized under RCW 36.70B.170‐210; and
WHEREAS, a development agreement and associated land use applications, LUA09‐151,
were presented for the Quendall Terminals project at a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner held on April 18, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner heard public comment presented at the public hearing
for the Quendall Terminals project and on May 9, 2017 issued a decision recommending that the
City Council approve a modified development agreement and associated land use applications
(LUA09‐151) subject to 46 conditions of approval; and
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
2
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at the
public hearing and the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation and has considered the
development agreement attached hereto as Attachment A which incorporates the Hearing
Examiner’s recommended modification;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the development
agreement between the City of Renton and Quendall Terminals, a Washington Joint Venture, the
form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2017.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of ___________________, 2017.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
RES:1725:5/12/17:scr
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
3
EXHIBIT A
FORM OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON AND QUENDALL TERMINALS, A
WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR □ NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington (“City”), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns (“Developer”), is made and entered into this ____ day of
________ , 2016 (the “Effective Date”) pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal bo undaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the “Quendall Property” or “Property”)).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the “Project”), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner’s Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
“Initial Project Applications”).
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW (“SEPA”),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the “DEIS”) on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the “Addendum”). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the “FEIS”) and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City’s request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
(“the Development Agreement Statute”), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City’s Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the “Project-level SEPA Review.”
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____________, 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the assoc iated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency o f
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer’s applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4 -9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners’
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties’ mutual satisfaction
(“Future Dock Proposal”). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the “SEPA Transportation Update”), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the “Update Notice”) will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reaso nable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update f ollowing year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer’s development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA’s oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates (“Initial Term”). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer’s request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirement s on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather” or “safe harbor” clause that would
delay the City’s enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting to the extent mandated by
the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the
City of Renton.
5.3 City’s Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City’s authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any por tion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully
set forth.
6.8 Dispute Resolution.
6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement,
the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This
mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the
other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through
mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration.
The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By:__________________________
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By:__________________________
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ________________________
CITY OF RENTON
By:
Denis Law
Mayor
Date: ________________________
ATTEST:
By:___________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of _______, County of ________, personally appeared ________________,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-1-Map
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
11/11/2016
Exhibit A
Page 15
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
98102-3513BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.2009 MINOR AVE. EASTSEATTLE, WashingtonLAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS(206) 323-4144SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBITCENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTONDATE: 11/11/16JOB NO.:2009050.0311/11/2016Exhibit A-1Page 16AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Quendall TerminalsPlanning and Development CommitteeJune 8, 2017Update AGENDA ITEM #4. b)
Project History•Application Submitted (11‐18‐09):•Application determined to be complete – “Accepted”, February 10, 2010: Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Permit, and a Development Agreement. •The Enhanced Alternative Proposal and associated Development Agreement was submitted to the City on March 16, 2017. –692 Residential Units–42,190 SF of commercial uses (retail and restaurant) –1,352 parking spaces–1.3 acres of public park space•Consistency analysis was issued on March 20, 2017 for the Enhanced Alternative. ProcessAGENDA ITEM #4. b)
Project History•At the April 3, 2017 Council Meeting the Council deferred the public hearing for the Development Agreement to the Hearing Examiner. •A consolidated Public Hearing was held on April 18, 2017, for all land use applications and the development agreement. •May 9, 2017 the Hearing Examiner provided a recommendation to the City Council on all land use applications and the development agreement. “…it is recommended that the City Council approve the applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Council approve the proposed development agreement…subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B).”ProcessAGENDA ITEM #4. b)
Public Hearing Overview April 18, 2017 •Applicant Testimony: –Provided statements from their project team professionals, the property owner, and project contact.–Included in their testimony was updated renderings and plans identified to reflect the changes in the Enhanced Alternative. Quendall TerminalsAGENDA ITEM #4. b)
Quendall TerminalsPublic Hearing Overview Update Master Site PlanAGENDA ITEM #4. b)
Public Hearing Overview April 18, 2017 •Public Testimony: –Based on the sign in sheet –18 people attended the public hearing–5 members people testified–Of those who testified, two spoke in support of the project–Speaker #1 ‐•Traffic impacts to Lake Washington Blvd., recommending keep this road narrow. •View impacts to lower Kennedale•Access should be controlled by a stop light•Access should be provided to the shoreline for a dock and seaplaneQuendall TerminalsAGENDA ITEM #4. b)
Public Hearing Overview •Public Testimony: –Speaker #2•Likes the larger shoreline setback/buffers •Appreciates the beautification and enhancement efforts•Requests additional screening of parking structures •Requested apartments in addition to Condo’s to allow for mixed income–Speaker #3•Encouraged completion of the project so that the contaminated site can be cleaned up quickly–Speaker #4•Support of the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative –Speaker #5•Concerned about traffic conflicts caused by the public trail being constructed in the area. With a focus on concerns for bicycle safety. Quendall TerminalsAGENDA ITEM #4. b)
Entitlement Process Next Steps •Committee of the Whole to make a recommendation to the City Council, Monday, June 12, 2017. •City Council will make a decision on the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Permit and Development Agreement. •Decision will be followed by a 14 day appeal period for all projects except the Shoreline Permit which has a 21 day appeal period. Quendall TerminalsAGENDA ITEM #4. b)
HCMP HiIlis
Clork
Martin &
Peterson PS.
June7,2017
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
City of Renton
Office of the City Attorney
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
Re:HearingExaminer’:RecommendedFindingsofFact,C0?tlttJi0?I ofLaw and
Recommendation:QuendallTerminals?\/latterPlan,BindingSite Plan,5/yore/ine
SubstantialDevelopmentPermit,LU/109-75 7,ECF,ELY,S/l—.M,SM)
Dear Ms.Clark:
On May 9,2017,Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts issued the above-
referenced recommendation of approval for the QuendallTerminals project applications and
proposed Development Agreement (hereafter,the “Recommendation”).In the
Recommendation,the Examiner suggestedthat the City Attorney’s Office con?rm for the City
Council that the QuendallTerminals project enjoys vested rights.Accordingly,we wanted to
provide you the Applicant’slegal analysisregarding vesting.On behalf of the Applicant,
QuendallTerminals,we provide the following vesting analysis,which concludes that the
QuendallTerminals project is vested to the land use regulations in place on the date of
complete application.We also address the two language changes regarding vesting that the
Hearing Examiner offered for Council’s consideration.
BACKGROUND
As we have discussed,the Applicant has shared a common understanding with City
Planning Staff and the City Attorney’s Office for many years that the QuendallTerminals
project is vested to land use regulations in effect on the date the City issued its determination
of complete applicationon February 5,2010.At that time,the City’sland use regulations
provided for vesting upon submittal of a complete application for binding site plan approval.
RMC 4—7—230(N)(1),adopted by Ord.4950,02/11 /02.Subsequently,the Applicant spent
years,and more than a million dollars,developing its project proposal and taking it through
the City’senvironmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act.In the
Examiner’s own words,“[t]/7eapplicantand mg?’/aaoeundergonea monumental(fort in assuringt/oatt/9e
propoteddevelopmentiscompatibleu/it/9surroundinguse;and Jenyitine to tbe environmentalE0}t§l7‘dl7Zl.f ofit;
e/iallengingloeation.”Recommendation at 1.
Numerous City documents have recognized that the Project vested as of the date of
complete application,including the QuendallTerminals Mitigation Document,issued in
999 Third Avenue,Suite 4600 I Seattle,WA 98104 |206.623.1745 |f:206.623.7789 |hCmp.com l'1'fM FB!M S
AGENDA ITEM #4. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 2 of 6
August 2015 with publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)for the
Project,see Mit.Doc.at 10 (Exh.2)](Project vested to development standards in place at date
of complete applications,February 5,2010);the Staff Report issued in April 2016,see Staff
Report,April 19,2016,at 4 (Exh.1);and the proposed Development Agreement for Quendall
Terminals,see Draft Dev.Agrmt.Section 1,at 4 (Exh.20)(de?ning “Vesting Date”as
February 10,2010)2.These documents demonstrate the common view between the City and
QuendallTerminals that vesting occurred upon complete application,and that all of the
project review has been conducted under the land use regulations in effect on the vesting date.
The Applicant has relied upon its vested rights in proceeding through applicationreview and
approvals.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
As described above,the proceduralbackground for QuendallTerminals establishes the
factual basis for its vested rights.In addition,the legal doctrine of vesting compels recognition
of vested rights under the circumstances here.The Examiner has suggestedconfirmation from
the City Attorney’s office regarding vesting.For your consideration,we address the following
points in response to the EXaminer’s vesting discussion in the Recommendation:
(1)QuendallTerminals vested under the City of Renton’s binding site plan ordinance
in 2010,and its vested rights survive the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision in 2012;
and
(2)Neither the court’s holding nor its rationale in Gm/mm l\Iez;g/Jborbood/155’720.EC.
Arson,162 Wash.App.98 (2011)provide a basis for overiiding QuendallTerminals vested
rights.
Because QuendallTerminals vested under the City’sordinance,we need not address
whether the state subdivision code,ch.58.17 RCW,provides statutory vesting for binding site
plan applications.
1 “Exh.”references in this letter are to the Exhibits to the Staff Reports and as entered at the Hearing,as
enumerated at p.8 of the Recommendation.
2 We note that there is a minor discrepancy in the stated vesting date between the originalletter of determination
of completeness dated February 5,2010,and later references stating the date as February 10,2010,which we
assume is a typographicalerror that has been carried forward.For accuracy,the February 5 date should be used,
although the applicant is unaware of any land use regulatory changes adopted by ordinance between February 5
and February 10,2010.
Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson RS.
AGENDA ITEM #4. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 3 of 6
A.The Quendall Terminals Applications are Vested under the City of
Renton Binding Site Plan Ordinance in Effect at Date of Complete Application.
1.QuendallTemzina/5Varied under CzylCode.
Applicantscan vest their project applications by virtue of state vesting statutes or local
vesting ordinances.See Enbéson e’7‘A.ts0c.Inc.v.McLemm,123 Wn.2d 864,873 (1994)(“Within
the parameters of the [vested rights]doctrine established by statutory and case law,
municipalitiesare free to develop vesting schemes best suited to the needs of a particular
locality”).The doctrine places limits on municipal discretion and permits land owners or
developers “to plan their conduct with reasonable certainty of the legal consequences.”Id,
quoting We5lMain Amory.D.Be//ewe,106 Wn.2d.47,51 (1986).At the time that Quendall
Terminals submitted its complete applications,including its application for Binding Site Plan,
the subdivision chapter of the Renton MunicipalCode included a vesting provision that
“[u]pon filing of a complete application for a binding site plan,the application shall be
considered under the binding site plan ordinance,the zoning,and other development
regulations in effect on the date of applicationfor the land uses and development identified in
the binding site plan application...”).RMC 4—7—230(N)That ordinance was in place when
QuendallTerminals received its notice of complete application from the City,and it is
unequivocal that the project vested under the-City Ordinance.The Examiner queries,under
the Graham decision,whether the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision may have affected
Project vesting.As addressed below,QuendallTerminal’s vesting was not disturbed by repeal
of RMC 4—7—230(N)
2.The Gm/mm Dm'Jz'0n2}I IzappoxzfetoQuendallTermimz/JVetting.
The Examiner raises a hypothetical question in his Recommendation,arising from his
reading of the Gm/Jam decision,regarding whether an applicationvests to a vesting ordinance.
Recommendation at 25.For reasons addressed below,the Examiner’s hypothetical is not
pertinent here because a plain reading of Renton’s vesting ordinance clearlyestablishes that the
QuendallTerminals applicationsvested to it.Nonetheless,we address Gm/Jam to explainwhy
the court’s rationale,distinguishing between “procedural”permit processing provisions and
“land use control ordinances,”is not material here.
The Pierce County ordinance at issue in Gm/mm imposed new permit expiration terms,
adopted after an applicant had submitted a complete subdivision application.The ordinance
set new permit processing requirements that vested applicationswere required to meet in
order to maintain valid permit status?’The applicant for the subdivision claimed that because
3 The Graham court did not conclude whether vesting itself was procedural or substantive in nature.
Rather it addressed the question of once vested,what regulations are you vested to.The court determined that
Hillis Clork Martin 8.Peterson P.S.
AGENDA ITEM #4. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 4 of 6
its application was vested,the new permit procedures did not apply to it.The court found that
the permit expiration procedures at issue were procedural,not “land use control”ordinances
subject to vesting,because they did not have a “restraining in?uence on the development of
land.”The court reasoned that even a vested application can become subject to new
procedural code provisions that do not amount to land use control ordinances.Accordingly,
the court found that the new permit expiration provisions did apply to the applicant,and
because it had not complied with measures to maintain valid permit status after receiving
notice,the subdivision application had expired.
It was material to the court’s reasoning in Gra/yam that the permit expiration provisions
at issue were not found in the County Code chapter relating to land use regulations
themselves.Rather,they were in a separate chapter of County Code entitled “vesting,”which
chapter directly /z'mz’z‘ea'a developer’s vested rights.162 Wn.App.at 116.To the contrary here,
the vesting provision that governs QuendallTerminals was found within the City’ssubdivision
regulations,chapter 4-7 RMC,and in the section (.230)addressing requirements for Binding
Site Plans.Moreover,the Renton vesting provision by its own terms stated what provisions
binding site plan applicationsvest to:“the application shall be considered underz‘/yebz'aa’z'agsite
plan ordinance,the zoning,and other development regulations in i?eoz‘on 2‘/yodate ofapp/z'catz'oa...”
RMC 4—7—230(N)(1)(emphasis added).So by the very terms of the vesting ordinance,the
scope of the regulations to which the applicationvested included the binding site plan
ordinance in effect on the date of complete application,and that is preciselywhere the vesting
provision is found.Thus,the vesting analysisthat controls here is distinguishable from that
reviewed in Gra/Jam,because the language of Renton’s vesting provision itself determines the
scope of vesting.By its own terms,subsequent repeal of the vesting ordinance could not
undo QuendallTerminals’prior vesting.
Another irn ortant distinction from Gra/yam a lies here.In Gra/Jam the ermit
-...P .p ..,p
-
expiration provision at issue included important due process protections for the applicant.If a
permit applicationwas not timely acted upon,the county mailed notice to the applicant that
the a lication would be terminated in one ear,which eriod could be extended onl b thepp
:-
y P .-...y y
Coun Hearin Examiner.162 Wn.A .at 117.The notice eriod is critical to rotect due
I
5 PP P___P
process rights of developers,who can then act to complete their permitting process or seek
extension.At the same time,the ability to terminate inactive applicationsenables the County
to assure that vesting benefits those who are sufficientlyinvested in their projects to merit it.
In contrast to the bare bones applicationreviewed in Gra/yam,the Examiner for Quendall
Terminals found that “I /Joa /ioam‘aaa’Ifa baoeunder one a raommzmiale on‘in asiaria I/oaz‘I/Jo
...g g
proposeddeoe/opmom‘zs oompatzo/ewzl/9sarroaadzag2/365 and iemz'z‘z'oeloZ/oeeaoiromrzerzlaloomfraialr ofiii
oba//eain /oration.”Recommendation at 1.Moreover there was never an notice rovided that3g3YP
the set of “land use control ordinances”to which the applicant vested did not include the permit expiration
criteria set forth in the permit processing section of the Pierce County Code.That is a different set of facts and
law than is presented here.
HillisClork Martin &Peterson P.S.
AGENDA ITEM #4. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 5 of 6
QuendallTerminals was at risk of losing its vested rights.To the contrary,numerous City
documents affirmed Project vesting subsequent to the repeal of the vesting provision.4 A
reversal of the vesting determination now would violate QuendallTerminals’due process
rights and result in signi?cant damages.We have no reason to believe the City would seek do
that,but given the EXaminer’s question,we feel compelled to identify that concern.
Finally,to the EXaminer’s hypothetical question,principles of fairness support a
conclusion that applicantsdo vest to vesting provisions of an ordinance.A vesting provision
itself is a land use control regulation,because it fixes in place all of the other land use control
regulations that apply to the application.If the rule were otherwise,then cities could do away
with a project’s vested rights by passing a “procedural rule”to undo vesting.The conclusion
that an applicant vests to a vesting provision can reside in harmony with the court’s ruling in
Graham,because the ordinance provision in question there did not repeal vesting,rather it
added procedural requirements that the court found did not constitute land use control
regulations.The applicant remained Vested to land use control regulations,although it was
required to comply with the new proceduralrequirements to keep valid applicationstatus.
B.Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Revisions to Development
Agreement Vesting Language.
The City Attorney incorporated language in Section 5.2 of the proposed Development
Agreement to ensure that its vesting provisions reserved to the City the authority to enforce
possible new stormwater compliance measures imposed upon the City under its NPDES
permitsThe provision creates an exception for new federal or state statutes,rules,court
decisions,etc.that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not
subject to a grandfather clause that would provide safe harbor for the Project.At the time that
Section 5.2 was proposed,state vesting doctrine as applied to NPDES requirementswas under
review by the State Supreme Court,but QuendallTerminals nonetheless agreed to the
provision.The recent decision in S720/Jomis/9Cozmgla Po//atioa Control HeanagtBoard,187 Wn.2d
346 (2016),held that the vested rights doctrine does not apply to stormwater regulations that
the State Department of Ecology requirespermittees (such as the City)to adopt and apply to
completed development applicationsunder the NPDES permitting program.This is consistent
4 Vesting is particularlyimportant here,because Renton’s COR zone mandates a master plan approval to guide
phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site.See RMC 4—9—200(A)(1),
Site Plans applications and building permit applications must be consistent with the Master Plan
approval,and a building permit cannot be issued until site planning is complete.Ri\'IC 4—9—200(B)
5 Section 5.2 as drafted by the City Attorney reads:“Vesting Exceptions.During the term of this Agreement,
the City shall not impose on the Project any modi?ed or new or additional Development Regulations,except any
new federal or state statutes,rules,regulations,administrative interpretations or court decisions that add
regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather”or “safe harbor”
clause that would delay the City’s enforcement responsibilitybeyond the life of this Agreement.”
HillisClork Martin &Peterson P.S.
AGENDA ITEM #4. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 6 of 6
with the intent of the provision drafted by the City Attorney.Since the decision has issued and
is no longer “new”under the exception,we would not object to adding the new sentence
proposed by the Examiner,which clari?es that the City’s legal obligations under its NPDES
permit are exempt from vesting.
We are concerned,however,with the Hearing Examiner’s second proposed revision to
Section 5.2.He suggests striking the word “new”from the provision as drafted by the City
Attorney.With the express exemption from vesting for NPDES permit requirements,that
change is not necessary to address the concern raised by the City Attorney.Moreover,it
would create uncertainty regarding the single value the Applicantgains under the
Development Agreement:an extended permit duration vested to the land use control
ordinances in place at the time of complete application.The Project applicationshave
undergone an intensive review process with no other regulatory mandates having been raised
as warranting an exception from vesting,and the City’sauthority is well protected by the
exception as drafted.Use of the term “new”to qualify the exception helps assure a level
playing field for evaluating any future vesting limitation claims that might arise in a context
similar to the NPDES permit analysis.We ask that apart from adding the sentence regarding
NPDES requirements,Section 5.2 remain as drafted by the City Attorney.
On behalf of QuendallTerminals,we appreciate the opportunity to provide our
analysis of the Examiner’s vesting discussion.
Very truly yours,
Ann M.Gygi
AMG:kah
E-Mai/:ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Diretl Dial"(206)470-7638
Fax:(206)6237789
cc:Campbell Mathewson
ND:199581102 4827—4459~7577v1
HillisClark Mortin &Peterson RS.
AGENDA ITEM #4. c)