Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShoreline Mgmt Substantial Development Permit for Quendall Terminals_LUA09-151Denis Law Mayo"R r i June 21, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for Quendall Terminals File No. LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA -M, SM, DA Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on Monday, June 12, 2017. A Determination of Significance issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee on February 19, 2010. Following which a Draft EIS, EIS Addendum and HIS were issued December 10, 2010, October 19, 2012, and August 31, 2015 respectively. All EIS documents can be found on the City's Website (enter Quendall Terminals into the search field) The appeal period ended on September 24, 2015. One appeal was filed, which was ultimately dismissed by both the appellant and the applicant. No other appeals were filed. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173- 14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions or need additional information or have difficulty finding the project web page. Sincere) , al, Ko Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosures: Motion by City Council Hearing Examiner Recommendation Development Agreement— includes legal description Copy of Master Application Notice of Application cc: Office of Attorney General Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Campbell Mathewson, Altino Properties/ Applicant/Owner Shoreline Cover Letter 09-151(003) 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 - rentonwa.gov V v m Q o- aVi fl�i 'v m >� n aq 3 m ° m rL O m rr G)0 G)0 G)0 GD10 G)0 C)0 C Z (Z Z cn Z cn v pm om om Zm mZ o0 D Z D Z D z D Z D Z D Z IV2 Z G1 > rn m o ( D n o rt m D o o m D m •-* m D '* Ln -° r* D Dnp D c dcm n4 12 Do M 'W 3 N 'W a. Cr 1 W Q m 1 W M n H W < 3 13 • O m W =* OCL . 0 C f3OQ ha D cn O •mp �, � 7 �D aq M 3= �. W n ' rt G MLA. 3 N d m DOq C p j 4 o 0 '� ° -I ,mr �; ° m W m 7 A m rr En v+ M _, a° O• 0 3 n, = s d m n O O m m n d n 3 j '* O 3 �p 7 0, O C 'NO m + j r) -0 m rt '° '6, 3 7 ti, tOn a. cr � n O 7 + cu (MD 3 = W r+ fun r+ ° Er o O O° m= 0 O �° N< 0 O° M � 0 �� n0 3 -h- a M o H � -h .o � 3 ry CD ao �D �n d d 3 ° c°n aO v = �� °* o °1 '^ vv w m o, m =* 3 m 3 3 �+ m a° O o �, o 3 '^ m CA d r* r' o° n o ao m N '* m � O Ln .-r O O O O• n A O m O OQ._ O C 7 m CL N m (n < 7 N H O -fi O C '+ m< ,� ' 3 m n N d 3>ct > 3 '�^ N° D N o �+ '� + '" O -, -o °" o m n n rt. as ' rr to m .�r �n .-r �n w S m 01 Di ncu �i 3 V m ti 2 m m r=D n m M °' m n c W aq --p O m O m 3 m N 3 2 .° r+ 3 =. N m m o m � 3 m°° p 7 3 0 C NJ CD v v 0 i H �-+ ami y, rt O n C a O= cD m� n C:< N 00 C �, S v p. y O O. G 'Oy d fpD 3 ,* 3 �- H S n, w to O m W vi D �- 3 m -, O G S r+ D o �• c cu m m OOq p M 0 � m m o mo 3' d rt m m A 7 C aq vi S w 3 7 S O aq O OD !� S S p -+ F+ m r+ al (�D m aq '+ 'a m m n M j 0 m m0 p V 7 O3q O S O d M O `D' O rt C m� W n 7 m@ y. S m m m O. O Dq F„� 3 m 3 n S� 3 w +Do °-ct n Dom,°., r+rt�-' m �- 01 O m Ln m O =" m r+ p O CL w > f7 7 7 _S C m C ,rt d r+ O M w(CD + m OOp C d O- O n �- < O oSi mlu CL m— m A 0^ 70 O^ -1 n 0 m 0 m 0 �< 'n < -n <�OC�.m�. 7� S-D-�vZi�-DjcZr^ �DZm �m 3m C mDOOa 0�0 0.O�0O , Z Zn mvm`:aO 0 0 a m Z m Z Z Z Z 0 O n n n C Z m m < < cu v ao n D n — � o � 3 � G) G) vmi X, Q r- � d 0 0 D 0 m a X, Di < < m as n o LA Ln '+ o c m m r- am, 3 m 3 m 0 3 fD 0 3 0 01 rt N °+ N °1+' s 2 3 0. o r« M m S 2 M S M _ l N NN �^ 7 N L 3• G7 rh m rrD rD m m� 3; VI Ln 3 rDm cm n O C z n m G) c m ^z Y 1 O O z m _q 90 n 00 v 90 v C) O N Gl mi C W C Ci C Z C Z cnzii'. C/f TI N 'T7 Z' Zi z mZ N Nvi N NtNn 2 "' v�. m mm p: C) O N Gl rD TI Q i!} O W U'7 6) VI A L TI v v N m r1. O C�. -n rr l0 O V n0 y rD U'1 O C W rD I-+ C y O 0 0, =r O (D vyi < O. rD f<D + m 0� c 0 3 z 0 c� m� in <_ n D- < °J M '6 N 3 f 1 < rD m H O `< 00 ,p S. rD O rc+ O cu C Of O rD 1 1. DJ O O 00 0 0CM v 0 -0 rQ v C rD aQ 3 r+ C 3 3 rSD 1 3 O a. Ln p 3 O c� m s rD s Q ai c o aEL M 0 3 3 0 N " 3 m (A c s 0_ . c. , n, o CM n 0No �, o -0 0 rn N a -< - o m d 3 Q O m 0 C c � c w m °+ 0 w Q , `n w 3 r i ro n+ rD `< c n o 00 v ID < rnD mu, p 0. _ rD s m 0- rD �, rD Ln c 0 rD m< o c w �, o `^ rD �< 0 3� V o 3 '9 o =M,wo` c< rt un o 3 = .c v ni o o. c 3. o c c fD S. m n 0 m v N c O 0 m 3 < -� m o ro m fl r+ N o n N c' s o,�' �c o o m -� s= = -0 0 N O rr O fSD 0 r+ rD S O d p N O c m r+ 3 O n Q 3 3 O+ '� 0 to -0 O N a rD r3D r+ m N N �' f0_1 7 3 p W O rD rD 3 0 3 aQ rt O D ncl rOr Dpi CQ O. -0 Q�1 rt .A v+ 7 m O o m n m m n m Q- O 0 O rD = rD -� rD W O 3 CL QQ vrnm 1 m tQ d 0. fD 3 rD �. N �(D 6�+� tum -, �,o_�m O v, 0 3 3 rD fDD -°�° 1D N a rn o o 0 a�" r+ C m p v �, C n 0 nOi rt 0 C2- 6 m =� CL rD rt J rD rr rD O m Q O. O LA 00 7 0 m 7 N rt y rD Ul lD rr r+ cm r�-T O CL 0 m rD 0 0 s o O n(D S 3 Q" 3 o rr 3 rt m p f= 3 ro 0 3 0 rD O O (p (D rD O O r+ rD s 0, rfo +- 3 S 0 m m rD --rtr, 3At. O o O w* Q ai cn n rm 3. o = 0- = � rt ro � < cQ CL . t a) m rD -c m a 3° 0s 3 3 0 3 .� z rD 3 acQ 3 3 a 3 tcn o v o n n� rD , = w n O rr O s o -c c r~ n. rD O O O N Z < = S m n ro M O 0' c n = c n m rD 0 o- rf ro s � r. r+ s ED 0 < _, o v rD M. -o UQ rND M O X 3 v � 3 rD Q rD rD �, (D O o 4 3 n m 3 CU rD r+ O a- m oQ O Z Ln p m D Z 0 W rDr -4 CL W 33 0 a0o r1°v v �-+ fD V aQ rD 0, G) 7 C C -0 m O o � Ln � d Ln 1+ °_�' rf °D QQ r+ `� rt rr rD =ro O rD p ,y _ m o' 7 0gym i O M u' O 0 rD °, 3 LM N 3 0 0 0fD O N ri O O. 17 O rt rD A AO 1011 O A "� 70 O < O C C n -mm z m 3 Z n n r- r- a 0 0 0 A cu O m ? z z n O Ln C c M z c rD (D 9 n� 3 (' s O w Ln < k<. CL m � 3 cu CL ,.+ r+ O Ln _ s �; =r c rD (D (D rt �' N N rD 1 1. DJ O rD O Ul = cr rD 1 _ O QQ N a rD 00 r" 00 00 00 ? °q iz m a W C T W C N W C N W C W C Z N -Zn 'Zn LAT N T Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z _ Z Z_ ((A 2 (ALA 2 N 2 CNn 2 N N N T 0 Q 0 v v n- O- n m 0 - a) CD cm = m N W ao W 0_ rD n O "+ -h m W W m toSM N m m �, W T fin Z Z W ?� n -I O W TI 3° 3 0 W 3 3 (A 0. n CU 3° o Dai m 3 '� o- v,' m 3 m 3' m " o 3' ni 3 W W o 3 _ •o < 3 n 3. cr °- 3 int n n m rD o o_ 3 m a „_,` m 5 nDJ W ? n m 00 ao M M m �' n n 3 s M CL a? omi a � c j n G m r3D X =o; ami v m '� o ° c c3D n 3• ° o a o c m ro 5 a p -h W °° o o. O. M rn m rte+ n CL 3 o -mo Q 3 v a m m 3 m mm s a ao c° r+ o o 3 m < n a. c m a3i m o 3, 0°^ °- == Hao 3 W m Z=°= m v �, ao 3 CA O W s" ,-, 3SD _,i co m 0 o o c "' m S p r=r N CA 0 j o m m 0 r"D 3 D=i fD o m c _" c O M = O 0 WW ao _� = 3 o n° 3 o CL ton n n ,rt m r* `D n m O o o n m N• _ �• = m CL o v W "'h rWr r7 ` n= O W f�D m '+ 0 S= = 0q m fA N j N �' a co o A o W =- _ c n S c n m m fll W S �, a4 3 m m =- m 0=_ m = ,+ X ° m n n ,=t Cr m m (A ao W o o m m x O 3 W n m W+ Ca M M m O 3 o -t m n 3 Qt n m n n m n r o 0 5 A v o? m r+ o n o d n u 3 °c m^ o fDD = n '' W n n m = o. o m 3 �. c °3 m s m o m ' m m `; m x 3 Ln CL3 o 3 A a =m s= Ln m a. d :' n �- m 3 m a4 3 N �' a t o p s° (A c3' °�' �• o W S= W o p + m rr 'n n " O y r r C N O m= m=� �- = m= = m W 0 D N °�' ° r+ ul o O. m �* _ m 2 S n O-0 3' n 0 0? m ,WSp O= o rp oN�i tNID _ rD vmi r= O m O 7 Drl d _ m C l�D = N S O 0 N = O S o aQ S m Cm1 O O_ r* H rn m 0 W o -� -0 H+ D W m �t. rNr N = n m S m 0_ O m N W c O. = n m = c = n r+ rr = N n m CL _ ' v W w S M rn 3 �. < W M. m m 0 3 t/? 3 W W 4A" n rD Oo 3 W W S O '� 5 3 W m rt d< = m? rd n' `^ S m m 3= m vi o �; = cl W rr °- v i�� r+ m m n C r� d M IA n W -� O cnn = v m 3 W N 7 -I y S r r = 'O W N C D O 3' m (D O. Q N rPo r 41 Q O (ND S c r� i �' rCnt r •� O W O N r� f3D ,' m m m o o n o o W o m r, o Q O O O N O C ti C n C n O A C C Z n A A r n 0 Z z o c � Z n c � S W = W N _ n D m0. o = _ N W C 3 a = rm_+ = CL W n m I S O. C 7 � K CUQ W 0 s m' s rD N Q,ro' 0. m' F CL N N m -I W W W W W cr rWr tm n O cu X- OS n rm_r A- S W d m s m 3 m 3 �- n rrD 3 W LA W (A °' cu CL T T T T Q T T Q T T O T T Q T T 7J -M O � O0 ZO�o ZOO ZOO ZOz Z OO m07D Ln cmn Z p D D p 7° p p T v m Z r m Z r m Z r Z r m Z r N Z Z 70 Z C O �onD =onD 70nD �nD �nD �nD v,Z c --� O Z m D Z m D_ Z m 0 Z m n Z m o Z m m Z Z Z p in Z p t�i� Z p in Z p c^i� Z p LA Z p nn N v zV zv z�-- z-- Gl z.. zV v v v v p a O p o 00 co 00 O O � �. ° n. ° a Cl CL. a 2; °- � c o s' > >' 9 ° °z z o z z z z z o c d o 0 0 a o 0 0 0 Ln -pb vi -pb opo m opo m ov'o o w w w a F -A N LU LU m 0 p n oz rD m vrD d D m v m o <' ° N p ^ ° o' 0 fl. r�o r+ v—, c fD r 3 3 O p ° ro rD o m a 0 c -a Dcu °a r+ m vp p n O rf ° ° (Dcu 3 a C m p 7' 0 rt N v N N 7 co r) m a70 -IA aa -1n a70 --In az�rn m0n Din a -4n ramC r,Dma r-DmC f-nmC r-amr rr->Mr mm>m a .omfA a - area acOz aaOz aaOz ap0Z avOz acOz �,'�v_0 z mmz ==z -< �n < ion Ton aA m an ZAzZZA mrrrn rrrmn y00r N0 smnOC� smnpvr �Os� NO2� OC6mDzr- mpr mpr �za �za �za �za r-za r-za zazmm -zicv zica av av av av av av n'1a „ rn rn AZO AZO Azo Azo AZO Azo -1 T+m O O ani an- nA-o an -0 ani anv r2'^0m p0'fl pZ �m-i �m� �m� �m� �rn-I �m-1 mz70 Z-1 Z� sai� vai va+ va+ vD+ r m v � S S y (D C < C C C t ° ° ° m (D O s r+LA lD :3 a r+ 3 o d v CU m v v n �- S L M 3 v CA o — v Z T T Q ZOO m —n 0 ZOm 2:!—nm ZOO D; p D 7° p D p W C r m Z n D m0Z r to Z �° r^ r to X m Z N mAZ Z mc�D n Z p Z m p m _ p Z m Ln - N Z Z Z p p p 2 n Ln O N Q O O r CU n n `< O (nD 0) j CU d Cr � —O+, A 0 fD rr M N rD (A rt O Z -n C ;a G G h (D j D) aI W d W vi d r O- p Ln A S Un A A A W O j D rDD < (n CL .zr D an OS �o 3 m °=' 3;r 3 aq -K Ln OQ i �_ O D lu p >- < f� ? C cu — rD N O O 7' -{ O 7 = O In EnOq 3 N' o m d — a � m O A y m 2Q yA r m = p y�o--iA r m 2 0 Z D D O Z r n o O z D D O z n r m 70 m l7 cn Q p r m m X A v+ O G r. mm m A (n Q p m A r-ZyrZD r -ZD n D n m D n o y n m C r- m� m m N y D m` D 3 v lu n O v O : — < 3' aai Ln (D _ 3' o D '" S N O M M C- G) C< n 3 n D 3 a n CL M 3 3 a Dl N N � N n 0 3 < 3 °< oc:v ,<< s D O Q- a) v z D m < m v �, (- n n 3 S d 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Quendall Terminals Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA -M, SM RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION Summary 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 project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft. 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 development agreement. The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed 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, the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access, open spaces, landscaping, 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. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was 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 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 project. One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the 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 the past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park 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 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 agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area. 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 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 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 use 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 assess a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be 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 widened and these improvements will 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at 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 with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use I-405 than the City streets to the south of the project. 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 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 properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback requirements. Testimony Note: This summary should not be considered apart of the Examiner's Recommendation.. It is solely provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signing any priority or importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing. Staff Opening Presentation: Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to 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. 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 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 and that precise details of design will be reviewed and approved during subsequent site plan review. The heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and north of the project. The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to 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- evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10, 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 ("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 2 4 1.1 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains. The site is a former creosote facility and was subsequently 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 ascertain how the project site would be configured ("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 baseline assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100 -foot shoreline 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. 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. 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 the Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70 -foot view corridor 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 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 looped water line. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re -opening of the 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 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 City Council. Applicant Presentation: Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations. 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. The applicant has the burden of proof in establishing consistency with decision criteria. The examiner is 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 minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development agreement. Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage 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 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 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 4 C. 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 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 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of 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 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 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 placed south of 41St 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 as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City 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 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 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 has adequate capacity to serve the development. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering 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 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. Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last two years, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been 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 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 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 towards the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with 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 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. Campbell Mathewson, project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation, 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 permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for 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 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 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 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 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 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 buildings were also set back another 20 feet. Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 the first time in decades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants 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 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 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. Public Comments: 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 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 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to a 30 -mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going 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 that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little 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 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. 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 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 want it to be an elitist area. Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development 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 of residents and also that the developer has been very accommodating. Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near 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 pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts. Staff Rebuttal: In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor 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, 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 the recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil 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 parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. In response to examiner questions, Mr. 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 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Applicant Rebuttal: Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety 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. 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 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 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 and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the project. Exhibits Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18, 2017 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017 public hearing as well: 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 Exhibit 28 Google Maps 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 PLO Exhibit 38 June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0 Exhibit 39 April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Agreement with Land Use Applications MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA Development 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle, WA, 98101 2. Hearing. 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 if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council. Substantive: 3. Project and Site 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. 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 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 with a maximum building height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposed' to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of- way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via 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 (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 — 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 years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park 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 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. The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. Site Conditions/Superfund Designation. The subject site has received a Superfund 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 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. 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, 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 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 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. 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 the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the 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 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 Property and shoreline restoration in a 100 -foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. C. Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is 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 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 development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the 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 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 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 RM 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 with the "proposal". 4. Surrounding Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north 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 and undeveloped COR zoned property. 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: A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical Areas Map and is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. Due to the baseline 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 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 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 and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically 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 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 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 buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6), Recommended 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 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 RMC 4-9-200(J) a new application would be required. As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C 10, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different 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 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 is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD. 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 shoreline resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the 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 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 stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution -generating 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 during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation. B. Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The 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 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 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 Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center 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 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 F1 — F15 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 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80 feet. 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 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, in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating 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 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 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 2 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills. 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 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 proposed by the applicant. 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 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, 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 regarding construction hours. With these measures in place, noise and dust impacts are adequately mitigated. 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. 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 retail/restaurant 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 coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces. D. Drainage. Adequate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant 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. 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 regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts. Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this analysis mitigation measures A1, A10, AI1, B2, and B7 were established and will become a 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 for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance 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 a condition of approval requires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/ property owners/ HOA responsibilities for 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 2 4 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 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 is proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City stormwater standards. Storm 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. 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, 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 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 - 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. 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 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 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", building and site design is subject to general design review at the master plan stage and detailed design review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies with the District "C" design standards for master plan review. The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping 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 constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The 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 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 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 would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11. Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ti 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper 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 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. 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. 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 tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project site subsequent to remediation. G. Compatibility/Building Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the 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 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 a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3 -acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the project site. 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 F15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures, the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site. H. Lighting. As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting 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 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 downlighting and shielding among other techniques. Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F13 and H9 and the design 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 F 13 and H9 or compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas. I. Loading and Storage 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 plan review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include 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. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be 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. There is a 12 -inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The 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, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction permits. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department and police protection by the City of Renton Police Department. Police and Fire staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided 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 fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum 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 shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail. Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100 -foot shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line 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 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. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA IIR 2 II] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. As previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space. Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and 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 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 (GI —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. 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 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. As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2 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 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, 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 Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with 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 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 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 the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition G10 requires that the trail be enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials. Mitigation Document condition GI I requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill 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 compliance with condition G11. Based on the above analysis the provided materials were not compliant with conditions G2, G7, G 10, and G 11. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G10, and G 1 for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan recording. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 17 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 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. The "street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not 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 roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. D. Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides.for an appropriate and safe 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 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, the sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private Street E either 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 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 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, parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended 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 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. Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this condition. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum. For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal, additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded 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, 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 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 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 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 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 placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. 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 congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets. The proposal 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. As to the preferred alternative, page 1-14 of the DEIS addendum concluded that "[tjhe existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build -out in 2015, with the additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative 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 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the 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 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 2 4 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative 1, the 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 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 where WSDOT has not completed I-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6 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 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 of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection. 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 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 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal because single -lane approaches at each of the Street `A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. Conditions H 1-H 15 of the Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel 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 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 including landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing 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 6 -foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. 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 of existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the 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, 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 be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA K11 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the 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 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 Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed. In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation 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 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 standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be 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 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 street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each 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 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 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- section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant 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 amended cross sections. 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 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Condition H5 of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming 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 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 drivers would elect to use 1-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site. Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition H5 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 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 additional street width. 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 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross 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 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. 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 City identifying rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review application and construction permit application submittal. 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 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 City is not willing to accept the proposed public rights-of-way dedications and Roads A — C shall 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 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 Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School) 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 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 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot specific site plan review. 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 City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. 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. 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 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 future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. Currently there are no non -motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site, 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 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 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, the primary form and most readily available form of alternative non -motorized transportation is 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 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 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 analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in 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 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 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 transportation would not use the multi-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore 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- purpose trail. I. 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 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in 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 B 10 requires 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 lake side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake 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 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 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 master programs requirements for significant public access. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit 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 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 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 City Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline applications. 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 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- 230(I)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement" 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 applications that are merged with development agreements. In contrast to the binding site plan application, shoreline substantial development permits are classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type II permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and master site plan approval as Type III permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short, the three permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 24 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest -number 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 examiner (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 recommendation coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be 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. 2. Vesting. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows: A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project t Subject to Vesting. FOF No. 2 of the April 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 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. Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement, 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 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 to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when evaluating the vesting issue. 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 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 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 plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted..." A binding site plan is neither a 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 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 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 applicant submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7- 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 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 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 (.1 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance 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. B. Stonmwater Re ulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting. 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 ("DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish Cozmry v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater system is governed by a Phase Il National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition S5.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase II NPDES permit "...shall aPPY to all ll [land use] applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall apply to applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not startedort, new Phase 11 permit requirements not construction by January 1, 2022..." In short, integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't 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 by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit will apply. The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to "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." (emphasis added). However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not "new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development 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 the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to 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 exempt MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA KO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton. 2.5 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). 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. 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 for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by 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 regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Master Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail: a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance with the review criteria at a level oj'cletail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will he evaluated.for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria. b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analv_e the plan in detail and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below, (Ord. 5676. 12-3- 2012) 4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude 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 specific design features to be addressed during site plan review. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 27 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 z 26 II u i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. 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 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 Design District "C" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a articular Portion of the site; p ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. News: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; 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 project; and vi. Lighting: Designing andlor placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No. ." References to findings from this commendation are "FOF No. ." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any idates to the findings addressed in the April 11, 2017 memo to the examiner, Ex. 19. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 28 0 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are 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) and lighting by FOF 5(H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural 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 iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that 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. 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 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 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 users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv, Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one 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). Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No. 5(I). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in FOF 6(C). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF No. 6(I). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 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. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated timeframes, for phased projects. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 30 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the 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 for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is governed by the proposed development agreement. Binding Site Plan RMC 4-7-230(C): APPROVAL CRITERIA: Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the following criteria are met: 1. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan 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 lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process. 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 report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots 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 requires that lots 1, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be buildable if created. The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a 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. 2. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met, 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 4-9-150. 15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium site creation is required. 3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or mixed-use zone. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16. The site is located within the mixed-use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval 4. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the bindingsite plan shall comply with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D. a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan 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 situations where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at the time a completed application is submitted. c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site plan may propose shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically authorized per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5, and other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's development standards. 17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable 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 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 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. 5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5- 010. 18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building permit approval. 6. Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or 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 the binding site plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 6, the applicant has made adequate provisions for all drainageways, streets, water supplies, open space, solid waste and sanitary waste. This criterion is satisfied. 7. Access to Public Rights -of -Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct access or access easement approved by the City. 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 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 for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a 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, 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 a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review. 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 plan and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions of use, 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, easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism. 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 requires the applicant to provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA 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 with the Binding Site Plan. 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 binding site plan. 22. As conditioned, the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision 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 standard. 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. 23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 33 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 "1711 21 I 22 11 a 23 d d 24 n P 25 1 tf W-1 11. Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of protective improvements may be required as condition of approval. 24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the City's critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal complies with the City's critical area regulations. Shoreline Permit RITC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria: 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 that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance. b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation 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, Provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall also be adhered to. 25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the 3roposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No. i(I). The commercial use regulations further require that parking is to be provided at frequent locations Ind is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured corking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use egulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the horeline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(I). The development agreement adds a 1.3- cre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations irther require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as etermined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50 -foot setback for the proposal. EIS Litigation requires a 100 -foot setback. The proposal complies with this 100 -foot setback except for a roposed water line. A recommended condition of approval requires the water line to be moved outside ie 100 -foot setback. 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 2 4 0 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 h� Shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the impacts of the proposal on shoreline ecological resources have been mitigated and controlled as required by RMC 4-3-090(K). DECISION 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 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 Council approve the proposed development agreement for the reasons identified in the summary of this recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The permit applications should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document dated, August of 2015. 2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside through the binding site plan. 3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of 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, unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The minimum partial sight -obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11 and shall be identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. 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 each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 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 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 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, 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. 9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent 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. 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 Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public 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 to Mitigation Measures: • B10 - public trail • G2 — public trail and open space • G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N. • G7 — trail signage • G9 — crosswalk • G10—trail amenities • H3 — frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N • H4 — trail • H5 — traffic calming measures • H8 — fire access road • H 10 — bicycle lane • Hl l — H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and signalization shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary 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, and C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 36 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 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 sidewalk on south side of the access. These off-site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the 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 garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve 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 the ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 18. To ensure the semi -private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed 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 amenities as approved by the Director. 19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the site. 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows: a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill) 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 width of 74 feet and the semi -private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall 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 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 MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 37 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 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 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. 24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals 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 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 lots 2 and 5. 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 Project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval prior to recording. 27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement 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 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 all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the 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. 28. 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-purpose trail. 29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review. 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 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, 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 and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the 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. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 38 2 4 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 11, 2017 memo to examiner. 33. A minimum 15 -foot -wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public 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 binding site plan recording. 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. 35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on the subject site. 36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works Department. 37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the 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 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording. 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 facility. 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application for the site. n on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as show timing identified above per condition of approval 12. 41. A 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 fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public 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. 42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington 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. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 39 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 43. 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. 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, and construction permit issuance. 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 for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire property. II. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted 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, a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance with the approved phasing plan. Ill. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on the recording Binding Site Plan. 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) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD 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 C 10. V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G1 1 for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator. VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to condition of approval 3. 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 2 4 0 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review 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 measure F 13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community Services. X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right- of-way. XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and 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 provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design. XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B10, G3, G2, G10, GI I and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department. 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 amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16. 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 under XIII. 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 Reviewer. 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 existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the proposed new Road A. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 41 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Relocate the new 12 -inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20 -foot fire access road if located outside the 100 -foot buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main. d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100 -shoreline buffer. e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton regulations. 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 fire lane and utility maintenance access road long 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. XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division. 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. 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/infrastructure construction. 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. 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 MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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. Decision issued May 9, 2017. �#A�Olbrechts Hearing Examiner MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA Ell Exhibit 24: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA -M, SM, DA Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project Location April 18, 2017 Vanessa Dolbee, Current Campbell Mathewson, Parcel 2924059002. South Planning Manager Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 of the Seahawks VMAC Third Ave, suite 1680, Training Facility Seattle, WA 98101 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://rpl.rentonwa gov/SilverlightPublic/Viewer html?Viewer COR Maps Exhibit 28: Google Maps: https://wWW.gpogle.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 CLW f<. 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 Proiect 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 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 FOPS 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 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 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. 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. FOF25, 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. FDF 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. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 7 April 11, 2017 vi. FOF26, 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 1-405 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. 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. L 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 proiect Ari expiration date shall be as identified in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20 e+ b the V r' g C ineF feF the Mast Site Pla a Ci1C_'L 12 The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-706- 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 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. 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 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 Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 22. €arA 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 shall be completed at site plan review. 32. e.- ' 41. A!i� 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 ?Ra -fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the n-e.enad fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 43. Documentation shall be Provided to the City of Renton identi in 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 concurrmtly with the binding site Plan, if not alread 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) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD and-NoD# 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. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 7 of 7 April 11, 2017 44. XIV. Road A street Iii, PGR -,.,,•a;^^'�� and the designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane �msrr 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 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/infrastructure 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. Vanessa Dolbee From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:52 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Homes Vanessa, This communication will be disclosed at tomorrow's hearing. I want to give you a chance to prepare a response to a jurisdictional question I will be asking you tomorrow: RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), pasted below, provides that if a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, the City Council applies the binding site plan standards. Consistent with this, RMC 4-7-230(1)(4), pasted below, authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on significant binding site plans e2;eUt when merged with development agreements. From these provisions, it appears that once a binding site plan is merged with a DA, the City Council makes the final decision on the site plan and also holds the hearing on it. How did staff come to a different conclusion? Also, how does staff reconcile the one hearing rule of RCW 36.70B.060, pasted below, with the request to re -open the hearing if the DA is not adopted? What happens if the DA is revised instead of rejected? RMC 4-7-230(H)2. Review Authority: Pursuant to chapter 4_8 RMC, the Community and Economic Development Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section, unless the applicant elects to have the binding site plan application merged with a Type III permit site plan application or a development agreement under chapter 36.7013 RCW. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a Type III site plan, then the Hearing Examiner is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the City Council is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. The final decision on a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No administrative appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. If a binding site plan is merged with a planned urban development application, the review authority shall be determined pursuant to RMC 4-9-150. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5519,12-14- 2009; Ord. 5676,12-3-2012) RMC 4-7-230(1)4. Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by residents in the area of the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing will be given as for a Type III permit hearing. Binding site plans merged with development agreements shall be approved by City Council pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. (Ord. 5519, 12-14-2009) RCW 36.70B.060 Local governments planning under the growth management act to establish integrated and consolidated project permit process—Required elements. Not later than March 31, 1996, each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project permit process that may EXHIBIT 24 be included in its development regulations. In addition to the elements required by RCW 36.70B.050, the process shall include the following elements: (1) A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW 36.70B.070; (2) A notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required by RCW 36.7013.110; (3) Except as provided in RCW 36.708.140, an optional consolidated project permit review process as provided in RCW 36.70B.120. The review process shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record appeal hearing; (4) Provision allowing for any public meeting or required open record hearing to be combined with any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the project by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, in accordance with provisions of RCW * 36.7013.090 and 36.708.110; (5) A single report stating all the decisions made as of the date of the report on all project permits included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing and any recommendations on project permits that do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the agency's authority under RCW 43.21 C.060. The report may be the local permit. If a threshold determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the local government, the report shall include or append this determination; (6) Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21 C.075, if a local government elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determinations or project permit decisions, the local government shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing on such appeal. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an appeal for some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is provided after the open record hearing, it shall be a closed record appeal before a single decision-making body or officer; (7) A notice of decision as required by RCW 36.708.130 and issued within the time period provided in RCW 36.7013.080 and * 36.7013.090; (8) Completion of project review by the local government, including environmental review and public review and any appeals to the local government, within any applicable time periods under *RCW 36.70B.090; and (9) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter or chapter 43.21 C RCW. From: FredWarnock <frednock@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 4:30 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Denis Law; Chip Vincent; Jay B Covington Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Thanks for your quick response to my email. Unfortunately for us we were gone February through March and did not get your March notice of the meeting. We have our mail forwarded while we are gone, but it's hit and miss. Your document didn't get to us. We don't receive the Renton Reporter. so we didn't get that notice as well. All that being said, I would like you to put my comments into the record as follows ................. 1. How is the city or state going to deal with the addition of 600 plus cars pouring into Lake Washington Blvd, when we currently have back ups on the boulevard a mile long during rush hour? 2. It would appear that the majority of the traffic will use 43rd St as access to and from Quendall. Why not divert more of the traffic to the other two exits rather than 43rd St, which is the main entrance to Barbee Mill? Best regards Fred Warnock From: "Vanessa Dolbee" <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: "FredWarnock" <frednock@comcast.net> Cc: "Denis Law" <DLaw@ Rentonwa.gov>, "Chip Vincent" <CVincent@ Rentonwa.gov>, "Jay B Covington" <Jcovington @ Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1:42:04 PM Subject: RE: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Fred, Thank you for your e-mail. I am assuming you are referring to the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development Project, City File number LUA09-151. There are two projects going to public hearing tomorrow, so please let me know if my assumption is incorrect. In terms of public notice for the Quendall Terminal public hearing, the original notice was sent to all parties of record on March 16, 2017 as a part of the attached "off hold notice". Notice of the Public Hearing was also provided in the Renton Reporter, published on April 7, 2017. The letter sent out last week was simply providing a reminder to all parties of record of the hearing date and providing notice of the availability of an updated Staff Report transmitted to the Hearing Examiner. The project staff report to the Hearing Examiner describing the proposal has been available on the City's website for over a year, since the cancellation of the original proposed hearing date of April 19, 2016. Understanding, attending a Tuesday morning public hearing can be difficult due to work schedules, I am happy to enter your written public comments into the record if you cannot attend. Please e-mail me your comment prior to the start of the public hearing tomorrow at 10:00 am and I will ensure that they are submitted into the record for the Hearing Examiner to consider when making a decision on this project. Please let me know if you have any other questions. `I%awsa DO(dee, Current Planning Manager Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 From: FreclWarnock [mailto:frednock@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:11 AM To: CenturyLink Customer Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; hong clair; Mitchell, Mary; Denis Law; Len Reid; Connell, Carol; harrylharden Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Dear Ms Dolbee I guess what bothers me about this public hearing is the short notice. The letter notice is dated the 11th of April and we received it on Friday thel4th. That gives us one working day before the public hearing to try and prepare numerous questions about the Quendall project. In the past the meetings were set up with at least with one months notice, only to be cancelled at the last moment. I cannot attend the meeting because I can't adjust my schedule on such short notice. Along with the questions on the attached email from the the Taylors, I still can't find out how Renton intends to deal with the traffic problems that will be created by dumping close to 600 cars into a traffic pattern that is backed up at least one mile on Lake Washington Blvd during the morning commute. The other issues that concern our Barbee Mill residents are the impact on property values and traffic being diverted into the Barbee Mill development. So many questions so little time to get answers. Best regards Fred Warnock 1246 N 42nd PL Renton, WA 98056 From: "CenturyLink Customer" <cw7mm@q.ccm> To: "Vanessa Dolbee" <vdolbee @ rentonwa.gov> Cc: "hong clair" <hona.clair@epa.gov>, "Fred & Cheryl Warnock" <frednock@comcast.net>, "Donohue Patrick" <presidentbarbeemillhoa@outlook.com> Vanessa Dolbee EXH I BIT 25 From: CenturyLink Customer <cw7mm@q.com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: hong.clair@epa.gov; Fred & Cheryl Warnock; Donohue Patrick Subject: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Dolbee: My wife and I are unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday morning regarding this topic so we are sending some thoughts/questions for consideration and response in lieu of our attendance. Please see items of concern/questions regarding Cugini Proposal to Stockpile Soil at Quendal) Terminal Site - Who will monitor the noise? - What will be the vibration and noise decibel sound limits? - Noise and vibration limits may need to be adjusted to meet community needs. - How will vibration affect the homes along the property lines during construction? Which homes will be monitored for structural cracks and settlement from vibration? - How much setback from the property lines of existing homes for start of sediment stockpile? Should be made known to owners but shouldn't come up against fence line separating properties. (Note: The property line is not the same as where the fence is located. It extends beyond the fenceline.) Wood rot will occur on the north side of the fence if soil is piled up against fence. Also, for aesthetic reasons, Barbee Mill residents are requesting that stockpile not exceed middle of fence in height. - Will stockpile be covered with plastic sheeting per regulation? - Please provide City of Renton contacts during construction and on site construction inspector for EPA. - Work hours should be the same as in Seattle 7:00 AM — 6:00 PM; Saturday work should be eliminated. - Construction access should have a wheel wash at exit point. How will contaminated soil track out be controlled during temporary sediment stockpile placement? - Entry and exit should not be at N42nd PL where Barbee Mill residents exit to Lake Washington Blvd. - What has EPA proposed as a preferred cleanup, and what will be done to mitigate the effect on Barbee Mill Community? - I was informed earlier that no one could enter the site without proper HAZMAT Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Does this still apply for temporary stockpile? - Has the Feasibility Study been approved by EPA? Please provide their comments/ recommendations. I will await your responses to my questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles E. Taylor 1252 N 42nd PL Renton, WA 98056 3 �-A 00 'We NJ C m m 0 Cr m m m qQ m m x cr m O*Q I] Q040) n CD r# 3 O 7Q tD -0 O O o c C• fD � tZ 3 90 �D n. CL rf n �D O' O O CL 13 m 3 r+ qQ m 3 r$ ■ a m n O I m 3 3r CD rML AZT _���i.�. _ "i- � �y i T_ . ����yy'y��F:. �` - .�� _ �� � •��yp' +.. gg,��. r'y;��:7� •LA'S -�ylq: ..r .a .�l •'�Y y�'k`v."R �� •��:. 'V��'d .. i.[..r '• y ,-J L �-��j�: 'l �.:k !_�'�i+��•.�T CY -yi �..�•� i � ��! e'er"�`• .L},� .F�Y� F" r�!: S,`��-��}.,�.�.' � •�_ •.:" •. '.a �,� _"�I'+ �tr.•.y ��,�.!�. �,-'�F�R,•':s, 74 �^L- •'"�`w.�.1� • !_ y.y ' � � `�._ 4'�py �'�SXr�: lt•'_� �' . � =u tri I� 'fir. n'- i�f.F.'�.�T i�i�+4'.sr �`4?-�i�I;;,,�•e; •.� • ,Se:�. i-� Y' � �1a 6�'f� ArFc 51:�- N, rN- ... .:�. �7tIC ;l w:+. _ x €.•�c �li��Y�:{ yk�: f�a��We y 14. --, Wwl iL ,1-'� , 6,4� a `$.�' �i � x.�.,.c. � ar•r+��r: .f'�".,...i [ f+`�-' N `�~ y�. �-•w�v.: •,�. ?k3�'=' - 'ter... �.ic� �'r.� �w �? _ _ � � � °z;; �.i:r a+'r��y ;•, - �-�L.:i.�r�...� . z f 'sJ- r -'� '� -•� •i '. $: `i - � T -� i': i �� •� j. � S' . _ • 'y� • T r � i2 �-=t� �' ris� ... j2_•i y�c' a _ _ ;:�� �� f+:•����!V •^ 'e .�E�Y wt:�.aica�- . =M:_ N ry r.4 �: ,,.,�'y-�7� yam... - �` i°'(�Y��`•_' • •M� �:y. �j ir t �.�� -Oki UMMPI 0 ZI lu CL CL :3 % I < Wyk tip A w- yo W,4w tv. �, 41 's; HN I F43ORMAL 5 C'm 0 JIL. 0 4WAl 0 V pal 6% OW611, v -W . 1 0. 0 0. 0. fo,.�, % - ,, o - Ono oo f& a, do ou" S 4 P �HS W -q VMW-NQ Ti FE 46 cocn 0 Cn CD CD WCD — rQ C/) --u =r CD cn m CD 0 N) 0 CD 0 CD c(n CD cn -n 3 r :3 0 cn (J) -n0w ;=; 0 -1 m = CD 0 3 -n -1• CO -1 v CD m CD C: cn = o cn co :3 (n w CD cn =;. C_ cn 0. ch 3 o C: CD 3 cr 0 0- CD Co N M -4 o g g: m z iii m w z CL > -u 0 CD 0 0 CD CD cn 4j Cj) 0 mv; a) -0 l< r - CD (n CD 03 =r Cl) SL m z 0 A -7:M Y v CD v 0 CL CD cn' CD CD CD CD v CD CDC (D' r m 0 z 0 ZZ m r� r� V) Z 0 z r_ . r + * CO (� ) S Q. Ul � 0 C� 0 .� �. CD o cn CD o o ;u m (D v L CD CD cno CD Q T C• C r N T� CD 0 CD �. CQ J ILi NOW; r� l- $IMS= r -:. 0-1 ON it yr.r rr J m • ` A m Cr O 3 CL rD to+ CLA 3 O -ti M A C. ..h Mlm 3 < m 3 m r+ m Cr 3 m O m r, = CL Mi Cq(D r+ a m M CL a) Ul O O m <• m �. N m 3 P-r cI Cr 1� PL m (D X CD3 W N' O^ V I cr N V rt (DD cn' O� O_ r+ Ln —h In O 3 r+ � (D � O �. h O wi f'1 O -h r* m D n O CL O O X C (D (D T O X CL ' (D (D �_ r C. —h�' (J'f CD (D Ljj CC C 0' n n Q N (D- O O rt -h r+ �- (D (D ((DD ( N O 'C h N �' Q. O (p cu O f7 Ul r+ N O �' O �• O C- to n � --hO o 3 o 3 (D c p O. r+ V ' rD (/ f NUl Q (Dr+ r+ O (p 3 (D 3. CL O A,�' (D Ln ma. Ln �- D C -v cD cD Ln °. D C• O v' O ^' (D r M. + n r+ CL n' ' CL • O' O (D X CD3 W N' O^ V I cr N V rt (DD cn' O� O_ r+ Ln —h In O 3 r+ � (D � O �. h O wi f'1 O -h r* m D n O CL O O X (D (D "i O T O (D r+ �_ O CC Q (n (D (D (D N 'C N �' O O cu O N O �' O �• CD r+ c p O. r+ LA (D O (/ f ('� Q (Dr+ r+ 3 (D 3. (D m Q ��n-r n -a -v cD <' Ln °. D e-+ ^' (D 3 T3 Vr+a n' V , • O' O < (D V + LAV o �. 3 Ul Q. C L r+ 0 O n O (D rD CL K -C J IL roll O i CL CL • � O / CD O CD CD cn U) `�, CD ' A (� fi�i7 J /� --1V • O -0 cr �;: 0 0 r O `V CD �• r U) -a L o :3 0) < C 0 c � n r+ 0. N CD O T O . m 3 C Cn VA VA --h 0 cn 0 CD <CD (n a CD CL (D CD (n 0 0 0 :3 CL O (c m 0 :3 CD (n p, aZ * cn COD 0 C: 0 ch cr CD CD > CD CL =3 0 cn r --c F, cr K CL CD A., M C CL CD 0 =CD x — 0 CD CD CD -- 0 0.3 5-3 w C C: R3 an 0 3 CD 0 CD = o cn O an CD 0 :0 CD -0 0 r -*l r -t., 0 CCD = (c -n 0 wO CD 0 CD 0 0 Ln CD 5' w cn CD 0 -0 I- cn 0�0 CD cn CD -.1- CCD =r CD .0. CD 0 f --- m CD 3 CD cn �IL CD N CD CCL DD O ap -n Q � CD — (D CD N Cl. ° < ch -x n• O CD w CD QL M ch n�:3>Cn CDCQ CL � m a0 CD� CD cn ° —h - a CD a ° c cQ r 400) 4% niN cV /) 0 G6 CD CD CL CD to 0 0 CD c (D cn Em CD 0 0 0_0 (n cr =3 CD =r C 0 = =r 0 Mn + w 3 m 0 0 CCD0 =I cn -0 (o CD c23 CD C/) mw CD CD 0 3 c cr -0 3 > 0 w CD 2) 0- -- cn I 0_ cn rn,-0CTC_D= CDCD :357 < F.M - * 0- 0 CD 0- CD CD N Dm C cn �S CD CL OR . o � I ca r.L ra rL 413 CL CL ry FT CCD o CL cn rn . 0 , CD rn cr =3 n CD CL CD C 0 CD m CD > 3 mc- 0 m -n C CD o �• cn 3 v CD a- =r � CD Cr CD C 0 CD p cD p N :7 y y c CU s n m 0 m CU n rD CL D rpt CD n� CD ffl CL 0 m o -V D r+ D as rD M 3 rD C rt ♦c" 0 CD CD 3 O� �0 V J n CD 0 cn cnc CD 0- 0 O CD O" i Q0 O O m m O CD cn cr CD c� v m 3° m N m M v my C ui LD. m Cn D D Ln N Cn yi N a C' CL -o--0 y A C v rNt vyi a a C' C Q C 0 C n OCi > > cr G Q, G s D :3 a. a n �' n r* 3 0 c 3 3lu z M n `° CD 'O 3 a Ln a C N c t" y= -I 3 m C+ o c v 0° m oma oa nr c r+ ro 0' N CL n o m o=v 0 D 3 = Y M. p" Q- S20 � � a Vo cn CLCL 0 m 0 o o lua CD 3 a s CL Ln � � CL m c ro = a a CL Dv Ma N < 3 ;� CL m y m y 3 C! orq crQ pr D rD CL 13 Cr m -� m =Crq y 2 � Q. ami cr 00 m x M 3 D � M D .a rr as m a a D R CU r r~ 0 CD CD 3 O� �0 V J n CD 0 cn cnc CD 0- 0 O CD O" i Q0 O O m m O CD cn cr CD c� v a O rD CD CD r+ O ,3 a 0 J rD V) r+ CD ma R7 " S CD O . Q mn — • O rD �. cn n—' Z3 — � CD n C _ • m R7 1� cr 00 0 r+ CL O V 3 7 • (D N a) CD a v CL 0 0 a) CL LSM C rD n 0 CL 0 N I n LU 00 0 3 0 1 ca 0 77 Ln -'S T C7 .Moo* c N 0 0 0 3 m� V 0 2 0 rD Cn 0 (.n r) r+ 0 M V , 0 O � 3 0 N T� � V CL V T • • �^V i..i� rD cr CD w Ln 0 0 CL _ (D_� �. CL Cr CL r, to vi —t, =r rD CD CD CD -s �- CD O CD :3 cn wow 1 L ¢*q VR. M4 � � � `'•.. Y 1 t Ai W It �� # �14,�'r PKl+ A -R '3 1i ry r � Y N fD rDD fD n r+- =0 3 2� (lf (D r't; O r" F O � cr1 �• O m 3 rD O O C . 3. Q CD Cn Z r) O r-+ r-+ O (D F-0 _ O Ln fD (D rpt CD �- Ln Y rD � fD O O r O m O r+ f' r. m CL Z CD r" F r+ F 3 m (D r -F N O Ln O CL �• r+ O IZ r - (D tNso, IW s�� C,R u1ss r 0 see, P_& ^� P_& �Cr! � ItX.�Iis# 8.00 as i� 04 F iF mss:.;.. —' t-■.. Nis ■ f. .�•� � F � r� s -der - ■ *r � I i � r'� � A o.. . 04 0-19 55M ! RESCENTIAL �SF ; * 0$ " AW nrRCDDcwrk. s?r!?i :'*ks7�G CL y ., ir1F} lir f.y r) 0 0 N O O CL r- 50 CL n � � Z N u, r o 0 U.) � fD I Ln (D 0 �+ crn cn a) O C:) e-+ N � CD rD C o W r+ ? " r nM r � r+ 0 o '• 3 -0 CL o W r+ 3 o � � M • -0 o Q. m N 3 `L aq cr e.+ 3 m o rD W � O � O Q � � O cr N m O cr � C/�• rah � Ul O 3 N O O CL r- 50 CL n � � N Ln CD� Ln 0 0 0 CL -I cD 3 rD P'f (!1 U.) � fD I Ln (D 0 �+ crn cn a) O C:) e-+ N rD rD C o C: " r r � r+ 0 o '• 3 -0 o o r+ 3 o � � • -0 rD Q. m 3 `L aq e.+ 3 m o rD W O w cr m O cr � C/�• rah � Ul O 3 N Ln CD� Ln 0 0 0 CL -I cD 3 rD P'f (!1 r+ o CL � _+;Doo = °� rr r+ f r+ _ ' r+ r+ M I ym c m< rt(A O r+ 3 M r+ .I {/1 �• CrQ• N 3. � x M - h 3 m �, GIQ M u m A = " Q. . o D N( O c o ajO G O. m (D fuGM CD� D f+ Q a -h < Iai m f+ =' 3 M =hh -q -Mv :3 M rn - CL m = M a) D = 0 D O <' 13 n =- � m— O O r+ < ' mo Q v D f M cn rt r m�• O O m O `n O C d r+ -t Cq < O a, O - h C' r+ N o m rt r* n m Q (D -o Q m .< O M al . a a' n 2 f'1 �• r+ m O = m M � n -'. A �- CL C O O UQ �• Q M X 'a. �•3 O 3 'a O X �- � O, A •'• ::-1 • i M w W M 0 Cr CL • I .. /rte V. //y�= VQ / V 1 j �CACD r+ �• X O r+ O -�, =-3 o o //�� m O w ' 21 = 3 O ar+ fu - 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 CITY OF .0 Renton Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 30 QUENDALL TERMINALS ENTITLEMENTS HEARING MASTER PLAN REVIEW BINDING SITE PLAN SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CITY OF RENTON APRIL 18, 2017 EXHIBIT BINDER #1: SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICANT EXHIBITS --'`Renton(D Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 31 all - or ,.��r ,•-•''4A=.ti';r .�c'Sr ;c° �..�: s4 orr La CD rr..`Y`r •nom.. :m.' ,t 'n uj _•_ 171- `�: i• :r CL 5V K7 R r� .: �O �� ' � .� . � .fir � '•:- :3 � �i �..`.. �� �!^+l Y'� [0 ,•��•'�• � A `ori ;� •7 'n .1 - �•� �•. a Ov 77.77 �f i L., r - ';� '; 'fir-� -. I��:.. � ; �;• ',.Ifir--,r,;� - �] --- �^: ::i 3S'•%'yids-' :_j I .� .Y`-.1���.Yn• - u.T z ec... �+ `V �; . _4= � �V: C�33-''l'': .- ..� 5✓ a�-.a 1r.. r� r.� ;•�s •.' r r � a� - pri jzi FIL fr 4Jwfs ��w ^}�!y'7�s�_• - �• � •w .• r� �. flits � ®�N ' - _ s{I �� R. .. im in A�... • �a ���• � 'a''� caw �=_i"' � •:;�,r ::r •s. •"3!,:� r �` _ ' � •'?��y •"mac*- }�t raS•• < ,;'•• 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 rtrqn.,;r)orPni P Expertise: Larry recently retired.as a principal at Transpo with over 30 years of experience • Development traffic impact developing area -wide and corridor level transportation plans. He directed analyses under SEPA • Transportation analyses of Transpo's efforts in GMA-based transportation plans, transportation financing large master planned strategies, and concurrency programs. He also had project management developments responsibilities for transportation analyses supporting EISs for subarea plans, • Experience managing multiple Planned action ordinances, and transportation corridor projects. He has a team members thorough knowledge of travel forecasting and traffic operation analyses • Experience managing on-call techniques. contracts • Multimodal transportation Larry also served local agencies in reviewing traffic impact studies for planning under GMA • Experience in facilitating developments within and outside of their jurisdiction. He recently assisted the stakeholder engagement and Cities of Duvall and Ferndale in this role. public outreach programs Larry was appointed as a member of King County's Transportation Concurrency Years Employed by Transpo: 30 Expert Review Panel. The panel includes County staff, citizens, and representatives from the development community. The panel developed recommendations to Education: refine the Concurrency program to reflect the changes in King County to a more MS, Civil Engineering rural County and also to improve the interface between the County's concurrency (Transportation), University of program and SEPA processes. Washington,1983 BS, Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, 1977 Tehaleh Employment Based Planned Community, Pierce County Larry directed Transpo's transportation planning and traffic engineering Professional registrations assistance for this large master Planned Community located in Pierce County and licenses: between Bonney Lake and Orting. When fully developed, the community will have PE, Washington, #25888,1989 over 6,500 residences, a retail center, business park, schools, and golf course. PE, Colorado, #23125,1985 Transpo's assistance has included sizing of on-site roadways, design of Professional Associations roundabouts and street lighting, and roadway channelization for internal roadways. Transpo has also assisted in monitoring the transportation mitigation Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) triggers based on the approved development agreement. Transpo has assisted the project team and agency staff in defining the off-site roadway and mitigation Contact strategies to support future development phases. Larry also led the initial tasks larry.toedtli@comcast.net 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 rtrqn.,;r)orPni P Orton Junction Urban Growth Area EIS, Sumner, WA Larry managed the transportation analysis for the EIS forFthis 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. LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES* BOB WELLS ASSOCIATE 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 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES BOB WELLS 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. LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES LANCE MUELLER, AIA PRESIDENT Education: University of Washington College of Architecture -1962-1967 Professional t 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 Ifni ZRA mc!T! MAIN, II -16-W 4./DN /09130/Cl m- PIA z MM i�C/) c0 �z DYDm C) CA z �Z= �G)D r—oz �z� m 0 m x D = r Wm V X z D C m Qp \-a0' Im D z QUENDALL TERMINALS LARC! MIIp LLpR 6 Ap60CIATB■ g 3 p s 'Swe7aeau8�� v� gw:pcaa:aaaa��� �s m a% `d tnp c iNE Fri: 11NJJ m Nm N Y.I°i O N r� S F a y ® ® ® $ 3 m /om� / 11 10T N N fA a o`n L! ow '� u 2 a m Z � W W W Y .l �- `✓ I _n r m {@� c s m S91 m o a IY� I�I I I I I I I I I IJ �" t c9i o,'� I�4 V•al'1 z MM i�C/) c0 �z DYDm C) CA z �Z= �G)D r—oz �z� m 0 m x D = r Wm V X z D C m Qp \-a0' Im D z QUENDALL TERMINALS LARC! MIIp LLpR 6 Ap60CIATB■ g 3 p s 'Swe7aeau8�� v� gw:pcaa:aaaa��� �s 11 6-09 Niro s/C91M/11EN�/LL/il-a ��ei3'7tl xid lS ��� saaaaaa:eea�g� 3 rs n 9 n ��ei3'7tl xid lS ��� saaaaaa:eea�g� 3 rs n AB - 1881 CITY OF entonae 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 PAC, FSU M MARY' - N/A SUMMARY • • 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. Second, 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. Wd:14fil t_ A. Draft Development Agreement e d: • .j .1 _ '"f .'}� i s -e � , .4 "7i1 i" i#. } • , : 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 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 boundaries 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 w 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement page 2 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 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 Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 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 Draft Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 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. S. 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6 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 36.708.170(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 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7 6.3 Recording, No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.708.190, 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: Campbell Mathewson CenturyPacific, LLLP Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 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 Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10 Denis Law Mayor 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 12017 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS 0 Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative By: Robert Cugini Its: Vice President Date: CITY OF RENTON By: Date: ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 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: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 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: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A— Legal Description of Property Exhibit A -1 -Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29044'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56028'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59024'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 5902456" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 11/11/16 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 Page 15 Cb o ------------ % 0 Xx Z (n !S9 0 00 M CPO 4- Ave n z � POD (Ji O^, '\ m D z' � m N ' 1� z C r .�O o (D mD �O \.\ I cn O X N°'- rn m'�Do z cn o�D rn DCo �ZCO ' D Q NSO 5W Nm 0 K;u , Cl) o m -c 94 �_ pal 3 r-� I Co)m Z N� tN0-1 O O �cc,L4F 00_N1(O'D A' OX ^ V O _ ND I z C) m N NPCA 0-iO�00at Z\ 1 0 OX (NO m r - ls� / o �o m o rn \O� 4 U N z �_ o_ -ni H 10 rn \ o0 C NZ Z in N \sy92oto o g oti cy t ODmo Wooiroc,' F \ o con mm N� oD0 C m O O BNiQ H�ip\8 ooh Zp i°x w G7 +0'0 p, '� �Q�cy61s� �� p), a 2 � zz z z con > c1nmZ Oz = O tis m< S676,b�� T� F \ .. s� o' 0 00 W m 0 c m < ( P rDi m F \ �Yg899, 6�. `��'� gyp\ o' %z r n w o� �Q`Sy/ �F 2�•oo?pp p o•, D O w 0 ^� 1�2 CA (j!cn o� eiOG%O� oozy ` . oo, z -"4 w N. df W r 2 �j �j Hi�� O Dp oma m (�/) Oq0 O (SR4ps Al co 1 w _ too a 1 m z oz U7 .pp yF wrn� n cNo;a `� I 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 boundaries 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 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 Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 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 Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 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. S. 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6 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 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. 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 36.706.170(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 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 Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7 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: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10 Denis Law Mayor 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: Date: ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page it 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: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 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: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — Legal Description of Property Exhibit A -1 -Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29044'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56028'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59024'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59024'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 11/11/16 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 Page 15 � I � o Z N C:) i Irr------------ " III � o � co C4 0 o N C/) I— � n mD Pow m D z r� fm N O/ --A C f NPO m > \�\ I Cl) O �lm m� D� Cl) m w < r 1 O CbC)D rn Doo �D N -m oo D ONmp DCf)m Nm o 71 p O(1 �7 II li c0i0 Z •� x� ND z COD CA En I OX ND z VO-�O� -01 m � N��O�OODD0) Z\ Inn Ox I co Cf)r X (" 00 N D46 c0 w cp C7 CI D = r _ v wQ;ocn �, 00, o0 Z z F- 7.� / CO0MO� ��L. NZ O� N4S� ` °' I Gi z �Np m \y w m F N � OD L4_ p N' \ Oma' \\6.819 \tn ti pX C \ O 76. 61• 0 0 . Cn D C I .o O m m �Do C ;6q o�? 6N N� \B \�� o o� C)v (DD R O• p' Z4 N x IQ z= Q I +A A �30S '� R��'ysls• X400), D y I p Z-1 cOii n 1' z0 p Q �' m<� 616.\� r� F \ �� 0' C) co P> B �wcn D �� I om F \ �g9963�' ?��p\\ oz %�O1 ,CT < v \ w0m D am On 00, go z j ���y rC\ i �.II O0 P. cnO ONti ti IN, rn n �= V ,n _A m_ ,O ��5 O Win. 0 p N z Z —I OS' F 6'76• N D o zG) i, F O 1w M_ N p o�� Z nm Ul 01:� 0 N;u O I wrnA�l to m x D N City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATIONR PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Co ADDRESS: 800S . 00S. Third Street CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 226-3900 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Campbell Mathewson COMPANY (if applicable): Centruy Pacific, L.P. ADDRESS: 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 CITY: Seattle, WA ZIP: 98101 TELEPHONE NUMBER (206) 757-8893 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Campbell Mathewson COMPANY (if applicable): Century Pacific, L.P. ADDRESS: 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 CITY: Seattle, WA ZIP: 98101 ..jtY Of RentO Punning Division Nov 18 2009 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: (206) 757-8893 (206) 757-7899 (fax) cmathewson@_centurypacificlP.com PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Quendall Terminals a PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA 98045 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 2924059002 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Commercial/Office/Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Commercial/Office/Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): Commercial/Office/Residential (unchanged) EXISTING ZONING: COR: Commercial/Office/Residential PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): COR SITE AREA (in square feet): 934,874 SF, 21.46 Ac SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 159,149 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): 46.4 C:\Documents and Settings\robertc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ContentIE5\ADWJOPGAQuendall Terminals Master Application City of Renton[l].doc-1 - 4 a fl a � PR�.�ECT INFORMATION contln4 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NIA NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 800 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS(if appl):245,000 SF (Office) 30,600 SF Retail/Rest SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if appl): 210,000 SF (Office) 27,500 SF RetaiVRest PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. [Si SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 1.583 _ lin. ft. .cr mine 38.768 S4. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ttach legal description on separate sheet with the following information in SITUATE IN THE Southwest QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24, RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, MNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Master Site Plan 2. Site Plan Review Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3. Environmental Review 4. Shoreline Substantial Development Review 5. Binding Site Plan AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) declare that I am (please check one) _X_ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorize epresentative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary a for the P/ sea and purposes mentioned in the instrument. e (Signature of Owner/Repres tative) INN (Signature (Signature of Owner/Representative) r• GCA L.r 10 Q pay Notary Public In and for the State of Washing�n �_ TA q �; 2 tn 00 Notary (Print) 'Obs F2 a ,a4 /l ASH My appointment expires: o C:\Documents and Settings\robertc\Local Settingffemporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\ADWJOPGJ\Quendall Terminals Master Application City of Renton[1].doo- 2 - �ROJECT INFORMA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 800 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS(if appl):245,000 SF (Office) 30,600 SF Retail/Rest SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if appl): 210,000 SF (Office) 27,500 SF Retail/Rest TION continued NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): WA PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. g, ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. {f• ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. © SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 1.583 lin. ft. 151 WETLANDS 38 768 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE Southwest QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24, RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Master Site Plan 3. Environmental Review 2. Site Plan Review 4. Shoreline Substantial Development Review 5. Binding Site Plan Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 1. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP • i. ••- - -� - —• ueciare tnat i am (piease cnecic one) X the current owner of the property involved in this application rr the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that sigiiqd this Instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the 91 ses aftAu7tloned in the instrument. (Signature of wnedRepresentative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the State of Notary (Print) My appointment expires: C:\Documents and Settings\gbaxter\Local Settings Temporary Internet Files\OLK5B\Quendall Terminals Master Application City of Renton.doc -2- CALIFORNIArACKMOWLEDGMENT �i_..�:.ati�{ �:�:\v, �C4:�A'1:!7>�=��..:�.,:�Ss]'.a�3S%j:�=)�.,a:�7S•:.j.!=?:��2��5:'�..: �S,C�:�:jS.�•-1_v:�.::'v: �..n SS.=�S;=�>r.'.�-5� �OS:�.S�a=S.�:wuw!-•'w.T: 7<;:i State of California County of San On Vo M �X?r tZr ZGG before me, Date 1-n personally appeared RAGUEL LYNN GUARNERI 15 Commlaaloa +It 1811874 Notary - t dhin la Sa Iia CoNty !orb: MY icnaa, B* AlIm _"s i. Gir1i Yf1-2 rT who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(') whose name( is/aTe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that N/she/they executed the same inXs/herAft9ir authorized capacityy(imn and that by his/her/their signature. on the instrument the person1s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person`(.&) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing nsranranh Is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Nalary Seal Abave Signature i re of Notary PutrAc OPTIONAL Though the Information below Is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the do , ent and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: 1 I Y/d F' ' L. {�1 U �� ll�t'VYI��'t' 1�I iJJJi"�1�yat'-AA -�Cll Document Date: 1- -2 GDS Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: -' Ail -'2 Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signers Name:��F'C� uta, �O 7AAa'�'Signers Name: Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): _ ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: IGHT-THUMBPRINT. OF SIGNER If - ro,p of thuml! rare ® 2007 National Notary Asscdat on - 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 - Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402• www.NabakV4otary.org Item #5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1.600.876.6827 November 11, 2009 Vanessa Dolby Acting Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Quendall Terminals Master Plan Application s Dear Vanessa: Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Co. together own the 21.46 acre property commonly known as Quendall Terminals located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Per your request, this letter will confirm that CenturyPacific is authorized to submit the Land Use Permit Master Application and other related applications on our behalf. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, flt��4 LVL, '-* Altino Properties, Inc. By: 4Z-v6eV— L�:G,;r► ; Its: \.f F Cc: CenturyPacific J.H. Baxter & Co. Its: CADocuments and Settings\robertc\I.ocal Settingffemporary Intemet Files\Content.lE5\KXOZQ3UZ\Quendall letter of authorization[l].DOC November 11, 2009 Vanessa Dolby Acting Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Quendall Terminals Master Plan Application Dear Vanessa: Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Co. together own the 21.46 acre property commonly known as Quendall Terminals located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Per your request, this letter will confirm that CenturyPacific is authorized to submit the Land Use Permit Master Application and other related applications on our behalf. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Altino Properties, Inc. Its: Cc: CenturyPacific W MAE .-Iffirt-mmew .- By: &"epAgCt- V -Y' U — Its: CADoeuments and Settings',gbaxtei Ucal SettingsUernporary Internet Fi1es\OLK5B\Quendall letter of authorization. DOC of -x OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (DS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA -M LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46 -acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. 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. Proposed Improvements Include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer Improvements. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCS 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist, or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts, are available for viewing in the lead agency's office. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee THE LEAD AGENCY HAS INITIALLY IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING AREAS FOR DISCUSSION IN THE EIS: Earth, Aesthetics/Views, Critical Areas, Land and Shoreline Use, Recreation/Public Shoreline Access, Public Services Utilities, Vegetation, and Transportation/Traffic. ALTERNATIVES: This is a proposal for a private project. The applicant may study reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain or approximate the proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. In this case, the alternatives will include the no -action alternative. A lower density alternative, with fewer residential units and less commercial development, may also be included. SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are Invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 a.m. on March 12, 2010. All written EIS scoping comments must be sent to Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner at the address noted below. PUBLIC MEETING/OPEN HOUSE: A public EIS scoping meeting/open house will be held to provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the proposed actions and to provide Input into the environmental review process. An EIS public scoping meeting will be held at Renton City Hall at a date and time to be determied, additional notice will be provided of the meeting date and time. PROJECT PROPONENT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacifice, L.P. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SEND COMMENTS TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Seinor Planner Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-7314 To appeal this Determination, you must file your appeal document with the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the Determination of Significance (DS) has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110.E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11.680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Determination of Significance and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4- 8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. t J( a Denis Law Mayor February 18, 2010 ^ City Of. -Y r _ IF tet✓—^ � �!, Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA -M Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of the TIA for the subject land use application along with a copy of the proposed site plan. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or email them to me at vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 15, 2010, issued a Determination of Significance and has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency and is available to the public on request. Agencies affected are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS and must be submit comments by 5:00 p.m. on March 12, 2010. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner Enclosures cc: Project File Arneta Henninger, City of Renton — Plan Review Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way * Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Clty 00 i� Mayor JAh February 17, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA -M Dear Mr. Mathewson: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above -referenced project. The Committee, on February 15, 2010, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, -rvu,,�-D dAep, Planner Name (Acting) Senior Planner cc: Altino Properties, :nc. & J.H. Baxter & Co. / owner Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 e rentonwa.gov Denis Law } Mayor f City of s �Y February 18, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development, Alex Pietsch, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 15, 2010: DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM; SA -M LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline. Substantial Deveioprnent Permit and SEPA:Environmental Review for a mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd: The site is 21.46. -acres -and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential .(COR) and located. with'in the'Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre,site would be divided .into 7 lots hof which 4 would -contain 6 7 story=mixecl-use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 800 residential .units (resulting in a net residential density, of 46.4 units/acre), 245,0.00 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet --of retail arid .9,000 square feet of restaurant. The -applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to =the :7' proposed lots.' Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles: 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.. Proposed, improvements• include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 . P.m. on March 5, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the, required fee with: Hearing. Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4 -8 - Renton City Half w 1.055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. • rentonwa.gov 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner Enclosure r cc: King County WastewaterTreatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers,. Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office -Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation lI City of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D m(a AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (DS) AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA09-151, ECF, 135P, SM, SA -M APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46 -acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of- way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. 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. Proposed improvements include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist, or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts, can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: Earth, Asthetics/Views, Critical Areas, Land and Shoreline Use, Recreation/Public Shorline Access, Public Services Utilities, and Transportation/Traffic. SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before March 12, 2010. :RC DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/ /^ :NVIRONMENTALIMPACT STATEMENT (` 'AGE 2 of 2 Zesponsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 5 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.6, accompanied with the non-refundable required appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2010, to: Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the Declaration of Non -significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110.E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non -Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior specific alfor hearing or factual objectionsayContadismissed ct the above office to her appeal or askaboutt been heard. You should be prepared to the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES g Zim ma , dministrator Public W rk D partment February 19, 2010 February 15, 2010 IL Zd a r Dae Mark Peterson, Interim Administrator Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Community Services Department Fire & Emergency Services t� lC Alex Pie sch, Administrat r Date Department of Community & Economic Development