HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 02,
~.~
.j.)
~:i
3,
;--
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
)rior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington, The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County,
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period,
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on September 4, 2015,
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
he sum of $234,88,
/.J /,.".
.,//"'"/:,-,_,,;,7/ ttl /.1 t U'.:......
:~(jnda Mills \lllIlIlIlti ,"'~~ SH~f:>'II" Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscribed and swam to me this 4th day of September, 2015, ,,~ ......... IY.i' ~ -I, •• ;;SION c,t;'", <.<'''''';.
.... ........,.~ ~ •• ',Y ~ 2-....J.:~ ~ •• O~
-0:0 .'O""P,'{ : = -0...0 1'1 111"'\ ._ = ~ PUBLIC J2 ~ otary Public for the State of Washington, -; ~" I f2.:
ay, Washington -:;., 1"~"" 05,1 1.:?··:"....0,~ , /;:: ......... ~~,
'111/ OF Wr-S \"",
//11111111\\
CITY OF RDiTON
NOTICE OF ISSt:ANC[ &
AVAILABILITY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
(>'I: IS) ANn MITIGATION
DOCI;MENT
Notice is given under SEPA,
RCW 4J.2IC080, that the Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the propo!:ial described
belo'W was issued by the City of
Renton Environmental Review-
Committee on Monday, August
31, 2015, and is available for
public review. In addition, No-
tice is hereby given that the City
of Renton Environmental Review
Committee has issued a Mitiga-
tIOn Document for the proposal
describe below on Monday, Au-
gust 31, 2015 pursuant to WAC
197-11-660 and RMC 4-9-070,
and IS available for public
review The FEIS and Mitigation
Documcntarc available for
review at the Renton Mam
Library, located at 100 Mill Ave-
nue South, and the Renton High-
lands Branch LibraI)', located at
2902 NE 12th Street, al Renton
City Hall, Customer Service
Counter. 6th floor. 1055 South
Orady Way, Renton WA 98057,
and on the City of Renton web
site: (wwwrentonwa.gov).
PROPOSAL: The Quendall
Terminals proposal is located
adjacent to Lake Washmgton on
21.46 acres of Commercial!
Office/Residential (COR) zoned
property. The EIS evaluates po-
tential impact .. resulting from a
mixed-use development project.
including four Alternatives, ofa
no action alternative. The Pre-
ferred AlternatIve would contam
21.600 square feet of retail space,
9,000 square feet of restaurant
and 692 residential units.
LAND liSE NlIMBER:
LUA09-15L EIS, ECF, SSP,
SA-M, SM
PROJECT NAME:
Quendall Tenninals
PROPONENT:
Campbell Mathewson Centuty
Pacific. L. P.
1201 ThirdAve.Suite 16&0
Seattle, WA 98101
LOCATION:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
LEAD AGENCV:
City of Renton
Environmental RevieVv
Committee
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Planmng Division
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAl.
Environmental Review
Committee
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Gmdy Way
Renton. WA 98057
DOClCMENT PURCHASE IN-
FORMATION: The Final Envi-
ronmental Impact Statcment and
Mitigation Document is available
for purchase from the Finance
Department on the I st Floor of
Renton City Hall. The FElS is
$35 and the Mitigation Docu-
ment IS $7.50 per hard copy or
$\0.00 per CD ofthe FEIS, plus
tax and postage (ifmailedl.
PUBLIC REVIEW:The impacts
described in the Quendall Tenni-
nals DEIS and EIS Addendum
are the basis for the mitigation
measures established in the Miti-
gation Document. The Mitigation
Document is designated by the
City of Renton as the first deci-
sion document for the proposal.
APPEAL PROCESS: Upon is-
suance of the FEIS and Mitiga-
tion Document, a twenty (20)
day appeal period commences.
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680
and RMC 4-8-110 F .. the ade-
quacy of the Final EI S and the
Mitigation Document mav be
appealed. i\ppeals must: I) state
specific objections of fact and/or
law; 2) be submitted in wnting
by 5:00 p.m September 24,
2015; and 3) be accompanied by
a filing fCe of $250.00. Appeals
must be addressed to Phil
Olbrechl<;. Hearing Examiner,
City of Renton. Renton City
Hall, 1055 S Grady Way. Ren-
ton, WA 98055
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: If you would
like additional information.
please contact Vanessa Dolbee.
City of Renton at (425)430-7314
or vdolbee@,rentonwa.gov.
Published in the Renton Reporter
on September 4, 2015. #1403045
--Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cynthia Moya
Wednesday, November 18, 2015 3:29 PM
Chip Vincent; Craig Burnell; Jason Seth; Jennifer T. Henning; Larry Warren; 'Phil
Olbrechts'; Sabrina Mirante; Vicki Grover; Vanessa Dolbee; Brianne Bannwarth
RE: Quendall Terminals Noticeof Appearance
letter.pdf
On November 17, 2015, the City Clerk's office received the attached letter along with a Notice of Appearance on behalf
of Century Pacific from Amit Ranade, Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson, P.S. for the Quendall Terminals file LUA-09-151.
I do not have the file here so please forward to anyone else that needs to be notified.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton -Administrative Services/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
... r ....... ~ .. ~·-·--,r.
-----;!IJnrr,rl''': _ ... .,_ ... ~::.J_"'.
1
HeMP ell Ills
Clark
Mor-tl'--'I&
Petersor~ F S.
Phil Olbrechts
Renton Hearing Examiner
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98056
October 30, 2015
Re: Quendall Terminals, LUA 09-151
Appeal of FEIS Adequacy Decision
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
HECEiVEOU
crrv CLERK'S OFfiCi
Via e-mail andU.S.Mail
Please find enclosed our notice of appearance on behalf of Century Pacific,
LLLP, the applicant in the above-identified appeal.
cc: Brad Nicholson
Larry Warren, City of Renton
Quendall Terminals
ND: 19958.003 4821·2772·9962v2
Amit D. Ranade
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 I Seattle, WA 98101 I 206.623.1745 I f: 206.623.7789 I hemp. com I--;;T MER ITA S
1
2
3
4
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
Attorneys for Applicant
5 Century Pacific, LLLP
6
7
8
9
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
10 In re: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
QUENDALL TERMINALS FEIS AND
MITIGATION DOCUMENT APPEAL,
Project No. LUA09-151
TO: Office of the Hearing Examiner;
TO: City of Renton;
TO: Altino Properties, Inc., Subject Property Owner, and Davis Wright Tremaine, its counsel;
TO: J.H. Baxter & Co., Subject Property Owner, and Cable Huston, its counsel; and
TO: Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back, Appellants;
Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. hereby make
appearance in the above-entitled action on behalf of the applicant, Century Pacific, LLLP, and
hereby request that service of all further papers in this appeal be made upon the undersigned
attorneys at their address below stated.
IIIII
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - I HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle. WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Facsimile: (206) 623-7789
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
DATED this 1L day of October, 2015.
NO: 19958.00348234143-3386v2
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE -2
I-IILLlS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
it D. Ranade, WSBA #34878
Ann M. Gygi, WSBA #19912
Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, LLLP
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue. Suite 500
Seattle. Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 623·1745
Facsimile: (206) 623·7789
•
· .. ,
... \
':i
"""C <~~)~ ~ ~~,~
.p :::J
Q :;'>:::
J
cc
u:
Denis Law Mayor
October 28, 2016
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Dea r Mr. Mathewson:
On May 23, 2016 the Planning Division of the City of Renton and the City's Hearing Examiner, Phil
Olbrechts, received a request for further continuance of the public hearing scheduled for May 31, 2016
for the subject project. The Hearing Examiner granted the requested in an e-mail dated May20,2016,to
an indefinite date, canceling the hearing scheduled for May 31, 2016. Following the Hearing Examiner's
approval, the city sent an "On Hold" letter requesting materials from the applicant prior to August 29,
2016.
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 the City received an e-mail requesting an extension of the previously
approved project hold deadline of August 29, 2016. The e-mail indicated that they have made "good
progress and would appreciate another extension". The applicant requested an additional 60 days.
Staff concurs with the applicant's request for additional time and requests that any new and/or updated
materials be submitted to the Planning Department prior to December 19, 2016 so that we may
continue the review of the subject application.
At this time, your project remains "on hold" until further notice. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co./ Owners
Phil Olbrechts, City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi! Parties of Record
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cynthia Moya
Thursday, September 24, 2015 3:11 PM
Chip Vincent; Craig Burnell; Jason Seth; Jennifer T. Henning; Larry Warren; Phil Olbrechts;
Sabrina Mirante; Vicki Grover; Vanessa Dolbee
Appeal to HEX -Quendall Terminals
Quendall Terminals Appeal to HEX.pdf
At 2:19 p.m., September 24,2015, the City Clerk's office received the attached "Timely Notice of Appeal of LUA-09-151
FEIS Adequacy Decision" from Brad Nicholson, South End Gives Back along with the $250.00 Appeal Payment.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton -Administrative Services/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
1
Page 1 of 13
South End Gives Back
A Washington oon-profit OJqxllation
BrndNidlol<m, President
2302 N.E. 28'h Street
Renton, Washington 98056
iJrad827@lholrlrail.com
(425)445-0658
September 24, 2015 ClfY oc RENTON
Mr. Phil Olbrechts
Renton Hearing Examiner
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
d'·I'1f""
(;EP 2:1 2015
RECEIVED
cJft'
C.iTY CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: Timely Notice of Appeal of LUA-09-151 FEIS Adequacy Decision
RE: $250.00 appeal fee included
Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner,
The above noted adequacy decision speculates and presumes a specific baseline
environmental condition and then overlays only one significant storm water
management alternative onto that presumption. The decision is invalid.
"Alternatives to a proposed action" and the discussion of alteroatives forms the "Heart of an
Environmental Impact Statement" see Alaska v. Andrus 580 F2d 465, Western Oil and gas v.
Alaska 439 U.S 922, 99 Supreme Ct. 303, 58 LEd. 2d 315.
An Agency "may not define its objectives so narrowly that only one alternative emerges from
among the environmentally benign ones" citing City of New York v. Department of
Tronsporlation 715 F.2d at 715 The un-phased and so called "Final" decision "defmes" one
speculative site configuration then dictates one method of protecting water when they
"may not do that" id. est.
Upon review, our courts affirm the significance of stonn water pollution. See Storedahl
Properties LLC v. Clark County 143 Wn. App. 489. Stating, "The EPA identifies storm
water runoff as (verbatim) "the most significant source of water pollution today" (emphasis
supplied) finding, "J mpervious surfaces significantly increase the volume and velocity of
runoff and the amount of pollutnnts in storm water' (emphasis supplied)
In Trout Unlimited v. Morron 509 F. 2d 1276, 1285 the court found that an "EIS must cover a
whole project when the dependency is such that it would be irrational or unwise to undertake
the first phase if the second phase is not also undertaken" Of course, no disclosure on the
remediation outcome has been included in the FEIS decision because it has yet to take place.
One would want to inquire why then is it so necessary or what is the wisdom to proceed with
making the decision when the project is so dependent upon the outcome of an unaccomplished
superfund process.
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 20f 13
The FEIS states:
CI0. If EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Tenninals
EIS, the City reviewing official shall detennine whether the applicant shall be required to
prepare additional SEPA review, including a possible Supplement to the EIS or Addendum to
the EIS, to address any differences between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS.
The FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) attempts to persuade the readers that the
narrow speculative condition of merely covering over the entire site without a cleanup and
then adding straight pipe water discharges is "adequate" consideration that could possibly be
supplemented, and does nothing to observe the above procedural requirements.
The CERClA process is supposed to have public participation, where the remedy could be
influenced to include infiltration or other measures. They don't even know for certain "the soil
cap" is what will be decided without having had conducted the review. That way is very
dangerous, for example in King County v. Boundary Review Board 122 Wn.2d 648, P.2d
1024 the court adopted the fact sensitive approach as opposed to the categorical approach
because RCW 43.21C.031 mandates an EIS must be complete when significant adverse
impacts on the environment are "prob-able", not when they are "inevitable"
The categorical approach leads to results contrary to the purposes of SEP A. Citing Stempel v.
Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 118, 508 P.2d 166 (1973); Loveless v.
Yantis, 82 Wn.2d 754, 765-66, 513 P.2d 1023 (1973). The court stated that "Decision-making
based on complete disclosure would be thwarted if full environmental review could be evaded
simply because no land use changes would occur as a direct result of an immediate
governmental action. The court articulated that even a change such as a boundary line change,
may begin a process of government action which can "snowball" and acquire virtually
unstoppable administrative inertia. Pointing to Rodgers, The Washington Environmental
Policy Act, 60 Wash. L. Rev. 33, 54 (1984) (the risk of postponing environmental review (as
here) the court then quoted that the result is "a dangerous incrementalism where the obligation
to decide is postponed successively while project momentum builds"). Also citing Settle,
supra at 103 stating "would induce expectations of environmentally significant development
which future decision makers may be reluctant to disappoint")
The case, like here, went on to articulate that even if adverse environmental effects are
discovered later, the inertia generated by the initial government decisions may carry the
project forward regardless. The court stated, "When government decisions may have such
snowballing effect, decision makers need to be apprised of the environmental consequences
before the project picks up momentum, not after"
It was then held by the court that a proposed land use related action is not insulated from full
environmental review simply because there isn't a current specific proposal (for example: the
ROD and Site wide ready for Re-use measure that is absent here) to develop the land in
question or because there are no immediate land use changes which will flow from the
proposed action. Instead, an EIS should be prepared where the responsible agency determines
that significant adverse environmental impacts are probable following the action.
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 3 of 13
There are numerous ways to manage runoff that would result in much lower impacts even on
a totally impervious site even if the cap were to be the case and those methods could fulfill the
consideration. As shown herein, more than one way must be considered for one reason the
area is described as "Prime Chinook Salmon Habitat" see EPA Narrative attached) It's very
near to where people (including SEGB) have andlor need recreation see EPA Narrative
attached). The decision places SEGB and myself in the difficult position of attempting to
comment further andlor establish a challenge about our interests and the above in at least two
jurisdictions with what logically is second stage first, as shown by the lack details of the
EPA's (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) ROD (Record of Decision), or PP (proposed
plan) performed under CERClA (U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response and
Compensation liability Act) having yet to be completed. Additionally, there has yet to be an
opportunity to comment on the EPA processes identified above.
It should be stated in the decision that our State's SEPA statute requires environmental
information to be contained in a single environmental document, and requires the document to
have had been developed with public participation instead of issuing a "Final" "iVthen"
statement. It now follows, therefore, that SEGB and Brad Nicholson contend that in
determining whether an adequate EIS was prepared we will be guided in large part by the
"procedural rules" rooted in the above and herein case law. No synthesis of these rules should
be attempted other than to point out that all such rules have been designed so as to assure that
the EIS serves substantially the two basic purposes. That is, that the EIS is in compliance with
SEPA when its form, content, and preparation substantially (1) provide decision-makers with
an environmental disclosure sufficiently detailed to aid in the substantive decision whether to
proceed with the project in the light of its environmental consequences, (which it does not)
and (2) make available to the public, information of the proposed project's environmental
impact and encourage public participation in the development of that information. (which it
does not)
In order to find that the FEIS is adequate, you will find that it is necessary to close your eyes to
the obvious omissions of significant multiple actions and their impacts going on
simultaneously, and forget about trying to encourage considering the public and the required
procedural rules, and forego considering alternatives because for reason number one you will
not even know what the starting configuration of the site will be when you look at these
workings. The cleanup should be first. The decision, for want of more, considers mitigating
whatever is "appropriate" utilizing "energy dissipation structures" it is not detailed or
thoughtful at all. Right now would be a good time to take the requisite "hard look" necessary
for such decisions. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350
(1989). Before taking major actions agencies are required to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement ("EIS"). 42 U.S.c. § 4332(2)(C). An EIS must take a "hanllook" at the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350; New
Mexico ex reI. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Management, 565 F.3d 683, 713 (10th Cir.
2009). "The EIS must also 'rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives' to a proposed action in comparative form, so as to provide a 'clear basis for
choice among the options.'" See WildEarth Guardians v. U.s. Forest Serv., 828 F. Supp. 2d
1223, 1236 (D. Colo. 2011) (quoting 40 c.F.R. § 1502.14).
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 4 of 13
We at SEGB request that you articulate that the ERC process of analyzing water quality
is severely inadequate and that the procedures used cannot muster consistency with WAC
197-11-060 (3) (a.) (iii.) and (b.) (i.)(ii.). or the definition of "Reasonable Alternative"
WAC 197-11-796, or "Scope" WAC 197-11-792, while the procedural content WAC
197-11-440 (5) (a.) (b.) c.) (d.) is unincorporated. They are evidently just trying to gain
vesting, which should not be allowed when the application is so very completely
incomplete. The actual baseline conditions on the application and SEPA's required
Environmental Checklist must be blank. The FEIS only considers the following:
AlO. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed in accordance with the
applicable stormwater regulations.
All. Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater
control system shall be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to
prevent erosion of the Lake Shoreline and bottom.
B7. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed consistent with the applicable
requirements. The system shall collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake Washington via
a tight-lined system or another system approved by the City's responsible public official.
Water quality treatment shall be provided for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to
prevent water quality impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands.
Perhaps further processes by the EPA will contain consideration of reasonable alternatives and
exercise of substantive authority, but they haven't taken place yet so that is also speculative
and unknown. There is no way to ascertain that EPA's ROD cannot be influenced in such a
way that at least some of the site can be made capable of infiltration (which is the contrary to
the presumption) We at SEGB want the Examiner to know how to proceed, Environmental
review should take place at the earliest possible stage, see Alpine Lakes v. Natural Resources
102 Wn.App.
For most people the segmentation makes such a look and intelligent comments too
formidable. There is no indication that infiltration or retention is being considered here. But,
"Whether an environmental impact statement needs to be prepared in a particular instance
(including reasonable alternatives) (supplied) does not necessarily depend upon the existence
of a specific deVelopment proposal. "Under RCW 43.21C.031, an environmental impact
statement is required whenever a major action by a government agency will have a probable
significant adverse environmental impact. Again put another way, "One purpose of the State
Environmental Policy Act (chapter 43.21C RCW) is to provide consideration of
environmental factors at the earliest possible stage to allow decisions to be based upon
complete disclosure of probable environmental consequences. Alpine Lakes. It should be
noted that no environmental consequences due to the lack of alternatives have been identified
in the document. The DEIS enunciated that the same storm water plan that has been
incorporated into the FEIS is "non-significant" (DNS)
It is possible to look to King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Bd. 91 Wn. App. That clarifies,
stating, "for purposes of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)(iii), which requires that an environmental
impact statement include a detailed statement regarding the alternatives to the proposed action,
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 5 of 13
and WAC 197-11-440(5)(b), which defmes a "reasonable alternative" as an action that could
feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives but at a lower environmental cost or
decreased level of environmental degradation, "an alternative need not be legally certain or
uncontested in order to qualify as a "reasonable alternative" or to be included in an
environmental impact statement. (emphasis supplied) King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Rd.
We at SEGB believe the position should be affirmed that if there was a good Builder of a
project such as this, He would be a steward of the environment and would be wanting to start
hammering away at consideration of all reasonable alternatives, as opposed to stubbornly
outlining that if the straight pipes can't go in then no action alternative will be exercised.
However that is what is happening and the ERC has reinforced exactly this wrong posture
with this decision. Undoubtedly, that is very much the same posture taken by the O'Reilly Tar
and Chemical company started many years ago that has created this quagmire by dumping
455,000 gallons of creosote into the ground water. O'Reilly did not think. like a child, the
developer must have his way or he will sit and pout and do nothing, turning Lawyers onto the
land rather than have cleanup crews, cooperation, and well thought out quality development.
SEGB and Brad Nicholson oppose such processes and ask that they be changed.
The average annual precipitation for Renton is 37 inches; 1 acre of impervious surface will
generate approximately 1,000,000 gallons of polluted storm water runoff per year, adversely
impacting citizens. For 22 acres or 950,000 square feet of impervious surface as a result of the
above presumptions, the rate would be 22,000,000 gallons per year, or an average of 60,000
gallons of runoff every single day. To check and verify calculations see Environment
Education Guide, Protecting Washington's waters from stormwater pollution Ecology
Publication #07-10-058 (attached) The FEIS presumes the entire site (around 22 acres) as
impervious with a soil cap of sand or organic-clay. See FEIS. Considering the probable
deficiencies in transportation capacity from up to 800 new single family units, the impervious
area as a direct result of the presumption is extremely likely to go up. We at SEGB will not be
entertained by Proponents that may contend that calculations are not accurate and then identify
zero flow control. Using conservative numbers, there would be 1,320,000,000 (1.32 billion)
gallons of polluted runoff discharged from Quendall Terminals in the next 60 years. As shown
herein, there is an abundant plethora of polluting substances contained in that runoff. What
difference or case could be made if say, it is too difficult to determine whether a discharge can
be reduced by either 45% or 55 % instead of 0%
Pollution in storm water runoff is widely considered to be one of the main sources of the 52
million pounds of harmful pollution that end up in Puget Sound each year. See Q&A
Earthjustice, attached. Evidently they realized this, because the FEIS removed the DNS
nomenclature but still charges ahead with exactly the same straight pipes discharging from an
unknown site configuration. Presumably they are sticking with, but attempting to hide the
DNS decision, because nothing has been altered in their approach.
In addition to erroneously deciding that the plan need not divulge any of the details of "water
quality treatment" its apparatus' and/or facilities that would be used, or make any attempt to
divulge the pollutants that would be discharged, the approach used does not include any data
about how conserving the wetlands, or using un for example not cutting down the 450 trees
(vegetative uptake) on the site (EIS) could be used in conjunction with better processes to
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 60f13
reduce the amount of discharge of pollution and achieve better numbers for the Lake and
Puget Sound. The FEIS for want of more states that whatever is "appropriate" (word used in
FEIS) will be used. The ERC is admitting that they don't care and have not considered the
facts before the decision was arrived at by finding such a statement as whatever is
"appropriate" to be adequate. See Sisley v. San Juan County 89 Wn. 2d 78 It is necessary to
consider the facts and circumstances and SEP A's terse procedural requirements before a
decision is made. We can be certain that they don't know even know what they are doing,
because they don't even know the site they are talking about. They think a FEIS consists of
articulating that they will do whatever is "appropriate" There was not much thought that went
into that mitigation measure.
One thing they did recognize in the FEIS is the complete lack of comprehensive storm flow
control analysis by calling for the installation of massive "energy dissipation structures" to
mitigate damage to the lake bottom from the billions of gallons of unrestricted flow off of the
site from the proposed three "outfall" straight pipes that would discharge almost every
contaminant entering the system. They have proposed that the shoreline be ''trenched'' to a
location "offshore" and then when and where efficient to do so, put the poorly conceived
"energy dissipation structures" in place.
In other jurisdictions, way more conscientious planning work, detailed disclosure, and
contemplation has taken place (and reasonable alternatives have been considered and
incorporated into their decisions), information is abundant and it is all free for the taking-for
example see Chevy in the Hole, Design principles for Stormwater Management on
Compacted, Contaminated soils in Dense Urban Environments EPA Document 560-F-07-231
Apr. 2008 attached. Many of those ideas are feasible and beneficial for use on this site, would
result in decreased environmental impacts and better water quality, WAC 197-11-440(5)(b),
and would not effect the eventual approval still allowing the proponent to achieve the
objectives of the project. But we would be stuck with a guy that wants to make millions of
extra dollars with the straight pipes.
The acronym "LID" is referred to for many of the techniques (Low Impact Development)
On the high intensity land use Chevy Superfund site described above, the export
concentrations of toxic contaminants would have been the highest of any land use, while
expensive retrofitting of similar existing development types and low impact development
techniques are needed. Also see Conclusion, Control of toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound
Ecology Publication No.ll-03-DlO. The Proponents can find any of these exhibits online just
like SEGB has. They have evidently refused to do so.
Some of our leaders probably dictated that the EIS authors just take the quick and easy way
out of trying to do a small amount of work; they reassure them to use straight pipe discharge
according to the Developer wishes or he might just sit there. The pipes don't have enough
resistance to worry about calculations, i.e. it is so rapid that it does not matter. Infiltration
and/or flow control that has been disclosed = zero. No complicated calculation is necessary.
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 7 of 13
It is precisely the type of significant impact that we have spent millions if not billions of
dollars trying to remedy using State resources developing plans, with a developer that perhaps
will contend that they are not feasible. see Low Impact Development Technical Guidance
Manual for Puget Sound -Puget Sound Action Team
One of the important unconsidered reasonable alternatives is simple to design Green Roof
systems that can reduce the quantity of discharge from their hot roof surfaces by 50% through
evaporation-transpiration, and in combination with the menu of other un techniques like
leaving some trees, making the houses a little smaller, membrane under pervious pavement
w/underdrain, or creating water features such as flow-thru-landscaping that recycle or store
water into that landscaping, the massive energy could be nearly eliminated-and with no
straight pipes. On a life cycle basis they cost no more than straight pipe high impact
techniques and have the advantage of reducing energy usage, limiting resource usage by being
recyclable. These principles and techniques are commonplace in many other jurisdictions. In
this case, the temperature of the discharge and of the buildings would be significantly reduced.
They work very well on larger projects. See LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget
Sound. Many of our exhibited documents list resources galore for the alternatives.
Nothing in the EIS considers dissipating the thermal waste their presumptions will generate,
(pollutants that become dissolved and into solution in the water like high temperature) see
exhibits, (composition or asphalt roof roads stores, restaurants, and 800 dwelling units put
over clay and sand?) or reducing the amount of discharge that is known to contribute to
damage to the ecosystem in the first place.
Business as usual will surely result in un-naturaI selection of and kill (Take) of endangered or
threatened species, and cause threats to human health to people that want to recreate in the
water. It has already been proven that Salmon timing is significantly altered by temperature
change alone, and results in un-natural selection when the runs spawn either earlier or later,
resulting in illegal loss of genetic diversity. See "Take"A Citizens guide ro the 4D role,
Thomas Quinn University of Washing ron, Issue Paper no. 5 EPA. Attnched.
Another writer explains that, many of the toxic chemicals contained in runoff is persistent
(does not break down easily) and bioaccumulate at harmful levels. He explains that these
toxins (PBTs) include; heavy metals, P AHs, phthalates and PCHs discharged from local
jurisdictions. PBTs (Persistent Bio-accumulating Toxins) released at any concentration
level are certainly harmful to Chinook salmon, and other organisms, because of their
persistent and bioaccumulating characteristics and harmful effect. In the Puget Sound
region PBTs have been found in mussels, sole, rockfish, Salmon, Chinook Salmon, seals,
and Orca whales. See David LaLiberte, Liberte Environmental Associates Wilsonville
Oregon. (attached) Other authors stress that Superfund sites are even more susceptible.
Citizens will lose more of the expectation of confidence in the quality of our waters. The
chemicals that will be in the water from development threaten the genetics of people as
well. See summary FS and RI, EPA documents.
A decision of no environmental significance because of whatever is "appropriate" can not be
made without actual consideration of the facts and circumstances and the procedural and
substantive requirements of SEPA See Sisley v. SanJoon County 89 Wn. 2d 78. SEPA is a
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 80f13
full disclosure and consideration environmental law. Norway Hill Preservation and
Protection Association v. King County 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674.
It is evidently hoped we will overlook the fact that disclosure of pollutants that go into solution
with the water as a direct result of the speculative development are not removed by the so
called "treatment" and the only appeal left will be of the code decision and no one will be
notified when that will take place. There is a 14 day appeal period with no required notice for
those other stages. Other alternatives for review could consist of a Federal case. SEGB is not
planning on overlooking the quality of our environment or the quality of the adequacy
decision.
The thoughtful and realistic contemplation SEGB performs recognizes that Orca, Salmon, and
many other species are at the brink of extinction, and our water quality is crucial and very
important to our way of life, and more effective mitigation alternatives are needing to be
carefully looked at. That our wildlife is a part of our lives and heritage .... Our Salmon and
quality of water playa vital role for wildlife and people in our City and region. The health of
our children and people that recreate with the Lake is at risk. See EPA synopsis.
Evidently the contract and presumptive plans were made simultaneously speculating that the
455,000 gallons of toxic PAH, (polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons) BTEX, (Benzene
Tolulene Ethylene Xylene) and DNAPL (Dense non Aqueous Phase Liquids) creosote and
wood preservative chemicals already existing in the site would be merely covered over with
organic clay or sand, expecting them to stay put instead of being removed from the site. There
are Di-benzo Furans in the PAH, considered to be one of the dirty dozen. Pentaclorophenol?
Arsenic?
SEGB expects the EPA process performed under CERCLA will remove the chemicals from
the site entirely because of the threat they pose to human and animal health. SEGB has not
been given an opportunity to comment on the ROD or PP yet. Techniques that could be used
on the site that will still allow the development to proceed and would consider these facts may
be implemented. We at SEGB are planning to participate.
But when the above happens and reviews are illegally scattered, segmented, and so incomplete
and so slow, it probably would be that nobody can even figure out, remember, or pinpoint how
all of the toxic compounds and pollution get into our water in the first place-there is no
absolute precision, and it becomes much more expensive than it would be if considered in the
beginning and with the single review contemplated by SEP A.
STANDING
Standing is affirmed by the harm that would be caused by the numerous harmful wastes that
would be discharged and eventually end up in Lake Washington and Puget Sound, adversely
impacting and harming our members and myself, or for that matter the entire City and State's
enjoyment and quality of life, present and future generations included, if information is not
included on the alternatives and measures put in place to mitigate impacts. We have already
suffered harm from the lack of a site configuration because we can't comment based upon true
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 9 of 13
information or on our interest in such other activities as the availability and enjoyment of
Fishing and wildlife. Brad Nicholson and SEGB enjoy high environmental expectations and
enjoyment of wildlife and recreation such as boating, swimming, and fishing in and around
Lake Washington in this area and this security and these activities would be lost and risk to
our health would be added if this decision is not reversed and environmental amenities
protected. Brad Nicholson is a member of SEGB. We do recognize that the difficulty of
articulating some harms that will be caused by the project are difficult to articulate, because
the site is not defined and the results of the Superfund cleanup are incomplete. We must
presume the site and water is in its original natural state for purposes of reviewing impacts,
degradation, and standing. The proposal or the FEIS has no water quality improvements.
We at SEGB recognize that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a safe,
enjoyable, and healthful environment RCW 43.21C.020 (3) and, each person has a
fundamental responsibility to preserve and enhance that right. Without a decision in favor of
this appeal, the ability of SEGB to preserve and enhance our environment will be damaged.
See also RCW 70.105D.010(1)(2)(4)(5)(6). We at SEGB contend that our concerns place us
within the purview of being "arguably within SEPA's purpose" and that we will be adversely
impacted and suffer actual harm if something is not done to reverse this decision. Those are
the requirements for standing.
The clear mandate of SEP A, and the purpose behind the environmental impact statement
requirement, is consideration of environmental values based on full information ........
Where the effect is significant, SEPA requires an environmental impact statement in order that
full information (emphasis supplied) is available before government action is taken, with or
without the imposition of conditions .... By failing to review adequately the effectiveness and
enforceability of mitigation measures used to justify a negative determination on a major
action, the courts lose an opportunity to enforce the underlying state environmental policy.
The ERC did not resolve to undertake to utilize "all practical means consistent with other
essential considerations of State policy" to "fulfill the responsibility of each generation as
trustee to the environment, nor did they "improve the plans, functions, programs, and
resources, so that we may attain the widest range of beneficial uses without degradntion,
(emphasis supplied) or assure "safe and healthful, (emphasis supplied) productive
surroundings, preserve natural aspects of our heritage, "enhance the quality of life RCW
43.21C.020(2)(a)(b)( c)( d)( e )(f)(g)
The difficulty obviously originates and arises from the differing objectives of different
interests and the fundamental lack of coherence in the EIS description of objectives
pertaining to water quality. The water quality objectives have been framed way too
narrowly and been given so little attention that it has resulted in one alternative emerging
that could make the FEIS merely a formality that does not accomplish what an EIS is
supposed to accomplish.
We at SEGB believe that proponent fundamental beliefs must object to preparation of the
statement in the first place. We represent opposing views that have standing and
incorporating information like our contentions would carry out SEP A's purpose. The
extent of impacts and quality of our Environment depend fundamentally on the clear and
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 10 of 13
coherent goals and compliance being outlined in the documents because they are what are
supposed result in information that is to be used to make future planning and engineering
decisions, where decision makers carry out SEPA substantial requirements. Instead of
being a local success story the message of toxic runoff could prevail without SEGB. We
contend the PElS should be at the vanguard of effective solutions to curb toxic runoff.
Clean water advocates across the Region and the Country will look at our work as
stepping stones toward efforts to strengthen clean water policy and launch cost-effective
and practical low-impact development projects.
The DroDosal is inconsistent with SEPA because it does not discuss reasonable
alternative mitigation such as LID or even consider the successes achieved in other
jurisdictions. Droving the FEIS is deficient
SEPA, see RCW 43.21C.03O(c)(i)(ii)(iii) requires that reasonable alternatives be discussed in
the EIS. "Reasonable alternative" is defined by SEPA rule, see WAC 197-11-786
"Reasonable alternative" means an action that could feasibly attain or approximate a
proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental
degradation. This is exactly what un and other cases have been engineered to accomplish,
that is, to improve and protect water quality by lowering the quantity of runoff and/or amount
of pollution entering the environment using un techniques. The technology that could be
incorporated into the document is readily available in any location. Further, "Reasonable
alternatives may be those over which an agency with jurisdiction has authority to control
impacts, either directly, or indirectly through requirement of mitigation measures. (See WAC
197-11440(5) and 197-11-660.id) They could still build their project and protect the water at
the same time.
Discussion of relative scientific parameters of significant environmental concern for this
tyue of project is not evident in the adequacy decision.
This project is very large and polluted and actual review of cleanup plans has yet to take place.
It has been described as one of the largest parcels on the shores of Lake Washington. They
visualize up to 800 residential units, 30,000 sq ft. of retail commercial development, and 2,171
parking spaces on the Shore of Lake Washington, and three outfalls discharging to the Lake
and Puget Sound. Without any alternative mitigation, some more disclosure must take place.
Omcerns with superfund re-use determination have not been decided and/or remedial actions
are unperformed and unreviewed, all with no mitigation of the high pollution concentrations
that would be encountered, no mention of the large volume of debris and solids that would be
discharged, certain inappropriate discharges that will take place etc., or the microorganisms,
toxicants, nutrients, or organic debris, and high heat elevated temperature that will be
discharged, See Urban Stormwater Management in the United States, National Academy of
Science pp. 180 Table 3.3. attached. Also see, Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5068,
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, Contaminant Concentrations in
Stormwater Runoff Synopsis ppAO, Control of toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound Ecology
Publication No.11-03-OlO. The temperature increase from roofs and other pollution is directly
linked to "Take"
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 11 of 13
Most if not all of the local educational material about storm water pollution express the same
concerns and indicate this science is widely accepted. See exhibits.
Here, the EIS concludes the review is adequate only reviewing "Earth" and does not disclose
or discuss or disclose the water pollution environmental concerns. Again the documents
erroneously dismiss the concerns; SEPA is a full disclosure and consideration environmental
law. Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Associntion v. King County 87 Wn.2d 267,
552 P.2d 674.
Even though the single proposal is inconsistent with Washington's anti-degradation
statute RCW 90.54.020 there is no indication that an attempt will be made to obtain the
required exception or disclose the facts.
Substantial information would be required for a SSDP (Shoreline substantial development
permit) that requires no degradation of the shoreline from the baseline or natural condition of
the shoreline. The impacts are "significant" There is no way that anyone can state that three
untreated straight pipes will not degrade the water and shoreline beaches on the site or nearby.
We should be getting some idea of how to comply with all of the State or Federal
requirements through information in in the document as opposed to just a philosophy, which is
incontrovertibly much less protective of the environment. They presume to be able to violate
Laws at will. Our fundamental requirements have not been considered in the document that
dictate that "high quality waters" are necessary, that no degradation may occur, and that all
known and reasonable treatment methods (AKAR1) must be utilized according to
RCW 9O.54.020(3)(b) see Washington Law 5510411. Pollution control Hearings Board.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/LID/S4SJOrderHighiights.pdf
The FEIS is premature and piecemeal because there has been no "Site Wide Ready for
Anticipated Re-Use" or PP or ROD. operating to foreclose the disclosure and
consideration process and divide the project into illegal segments
Among other things, in addition to the facts discussed above, the FEIS discloses that SMA
(Shoreline Management Act) shoreline permits, master planning and site planning, and
subdivision of land into 7 parcels to create the 800 residential dwelling units, retail and
restaurant components, 2,171 parking stalls will be required. The ROD and PP are incomplete
processes. In Merkel v. Pori of BrownsviUe 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1973) The size of
the project and type of uses proposed were also significant. Piecemeal development results in
damage to the natural environment. Merkel.
We contend that the EIS is fatally inadequate because it does not discuss the environmental
relation to the Second Phase (which should be the first phase). The case here is that the
cleanup should be done first before anything is built. We rely upon cases which hold that a
series of interrelated steps constituting an integrated plan must be covered in a single impact
statement. For example the Trout case was found to be inapposite to the rule, but that is not
the situation here in the instant case. The distinction between these situations in which it has
been held that the EIS must cover subsequent phases and that before us is that here the First
Phase is not substantially independent of the Second while in those in which the EIS must
extend beyond the current project, the project is dependent on subsequent phases. The
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 12of13 September 24, 2015
dependency here is that it is such that it would be absolutely irrational to work on this place
without the ROD or PP, or to undertake the first phase if the subsequent ROD phases were not
also undertaken. They have it backwards. These arguments are confusing. We at SEGB take
note that the error is zoning and FEIS is the first phase with the ROD being the second. That is
precisely where the problem lies. The EPA must recognize that the cleanup has occurred
regardless of whether the project will be built and not vise versa.
What's worse, is that the site has already been piecemealed, as the City zoned the SMA urban
designation for the land based on whim, (they knew of all these problems but acted anyway to
build administrative inertia) not even knowing the final condition of the land or its usability,
and not providing opportunity for the public to comment on environmental consequences prior
to the issuance of the ROD, or caring enough to have measures in place to protect against
storm water pollution flowing off of the Superfund Site with straight pipes in the first place.
They charge ahead and argue things as they come up, with the "Final" paradigm that could
make appropriate review and consideration untimely. It can not be stated that no piecemealing
will take place because it already has. The ERC determines that the EIS is adequate and
"Final" without ever having had the procedural and systemic assistance of a cleaned up
"baseline condition" or put another way the actual site configuration! and/or consideration of
special un features that were originally requested in our comment letter (attached).
They have zoned the site for buildings that some say are bigger than the 737 assembly plant,
and they don't even know the conditions of the Land before they begin considering. See
conceptual photo exhibit. It is questionable whether any of the zoning was even legal. It was
done to benefit the few rather than the City. Citizens have not commented on the ROD. One or
all of the decisions are subject to a performance measure for re-use. See Guidance for
Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Sitewide Ready-for-Re-use Performance Measure,
OSWER 9365.0-36.
We at SEGB contend that the ROD measures need to be included in the document for the site
and reviewed. Obviously it has not. The Council on Environmental Quality requires agencies
to consider connected actions within a single document 40 CFR § 1508.25. Actions are
connected, when (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger
action for their justification. 40 CFR § 1508.25 (a.) (1.)
In Trout Unlimited v. Morlon 509 F. 2d 1276, 1285 the court found that an "EIS must cover
a whole project when the dependency is such that it would be irrational or unwise to
undertake the first phase if the second phase is not also undertaken" (emphasis suppled)
Do they need to have an ROD ...... yes they do. Would it be unwise to just build and forget
about the EPA and the ROD? Yes it would. The decision needs to be reversed.
The above case is dispositive. The decision is inconsistent with procedural rules that are clear
that the information must be in the EIS ( single document) prior to decisions or issuing permits
where the project, (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of
proposals) are implemented simultaneously with them; or (li) Are interdependent parts of a
larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as their justification or for their
implementation. See WAC 197-11-060 (3) (b)
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
Page 13 of 13 September 24, 2015
The requirement can only be satisfied by incorporating tbe ROD and the Site wide ready for
reuse decision into tbe PElS. Putting the EIS on hold and allowing anotber comment period
after tbe ROD seems to be the only rational way to proceed. Citizens want to be confident that
the CERClA process will be carried out to its conclusion; right now only a feasibility study
and investigation has taken place. The question posited is only whetber it would be unwise not
to undertake the CERClA process. Thus the CERClA ROD and PP information must be
included in tbe PElS.
An invalid decision is also indicated by tbe failure to follow otber rules of procedure. See
WAC 197-11-080(3)(a)(b) No worst case analysis has been performed. This is precisely the
type of information tbat is required by SEGB and necessary for protection of environmental
quality tbat we value. It is required by SEP A.
We advance our challenge to you noting tbe issues will turn on whetber SEP A's procedures
are followed. "The whole range of process requirements for EIS preparation and use are
potential grounds for legal challenge" See R. Settle, The Washington State Environmental
Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis § 14 (a), at 149. This challenge should be evaluated
under tbe "Rule of Reason" R. Settle, at 154. Furtber citation may follow.
An Exhibit list is attached.
Thankyou in advance for your tboughtful consideration,
Brad Nicholson, and SEGB, Brad Nicholson President
Appeal Adequacy decision Brad Nicholson
EXHIBITS
1. Water quality Page Department of ecology
2. PElS Notice
3. Site description EPA
4. Wiki encyclopedia "Creosote"
5. conceptual photo
6. Focus on Puget Sound May 2011
7. Resolution no. 3761
8. Science of Stormwater King County
9. LID manual section 6.4 vegetated roofs
10. Map-Distribution of Chinook Salmon
11. Proponent web page
12. Publication No. 11-03-010
13. Roofing material abstract ASCE Sept/Oct 2008
14. Radke memorandum
15. 17 September 2012 agenda bill
16. addendum notice
17. Summary WRlA 8 strategy
18. Notice of significance
19. EPA issue paper no. 5
20. WL5510411 (2008)
21. Temperature abstract Thomas Quinn U of W
22. Relative sources of concern pp.180 USM in the United States
23. EPA-841-F-03-003
24. EPA-560-F-07-231
25. EPA-560-F-07-232
26. USGS Scientific Investigations report 2012-5068
27. EPA OSWER 9365.0-36
28. SEGB comment letter
29. Sightline abstract March 2011
30. EPA OSWER 9365.0-30
31. Executive summary RI report
32. EPA 560-F-06-244
33. Ecology publication #07-10-058
34. Renton letter dated Feb 3, 2012
35. EPA letter 13 Jan. 2011
36. EIS addendum
37. EPA executive summary
38. Blumen contract
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE & AVAILABILITY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FE IS) AND MITIGATION DOCUMENT
Notice is given under SEPA, RCW 43.21C080, that the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental
Review Committee on Monday, August 31,2015, and is available for public review. In
addition, Notice is hereby given that the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has
issued a Mitigation Document for the proposal describe below on Monday, August 31, 2015
pursuant to WAC 197-11-660 and RMC 4-9-070, and is available for public review. The FEIS
and Mitigation Document are available for review at the Renton Main Library, located at 100
Mill Avenue South, and the Renton Highlands Branch Library, located at 2902 NE 12th Street,
at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA
98057, and on the City of Renton web site: (www.rentonwa.gov).
PROPOSAL: The Quendall Terminals proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The EIS evaluates potential
impacts resulting from a mixed-use development project, including four Alternatives,
including a no action alternative. The Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet
of retail space, 9,000 square feet of restaurant and 692 residential units.
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
PROPONENT:
LOCATION:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Quendall Terminals
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third
Ave., Suite 1680; Seattle, WA 98101
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER
VANESSA DOLBEE AT (425) 430-7314.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICAL:
City of Renton, Environmental Review Committee, Department
of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee, Department of Community
& Economic Development, Planning Division, 1055 S Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Mitigation Document is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor
of Renton City Hall. The FE IS is $35 and the Mitigation Document is $7.50 per hard copy or
$10.00 per CD of the FEIS, plus tax and postage (if mailed).
PUBLIC REVIEW: The impacts described in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are
the basis for the mitigation measures established in the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation
Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal.
APPEAL PROCESS: Upon issuance of the FEIS and Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day
appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E., the adequacy
of the Final EIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state
specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. September 24,
2015; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $250.00. Appeals must be addressed to Phil
Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA
98055.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER
VANESSA DOLBEE AT (425) 430-7314.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
Stormwater
Water Quality
Stormwater
Stormwater is rain and snow melt that funs off surfaces such as rooftops, paved streets,
highways, and parking lots, As water runs off these surfaces, It can pick up pollution such as: all,
fertilizers, pesticides, soil, trash, and animal waste. From here, the water might flow directly into
a local stream, bay, or lake, Or, it may go into a storm drain and continue through storm pipes
until It is released untreated Into a local waterway.
In addition, the large impervious surfaces in urban areas Increase the quantity of peak flows of
runoff, which In turn cause hydrologic impacts such as scoured streambeds channels, Instream
sedimentation and loss of habitat, Furthermore, because of the volume of runoff discharges, mass
loads of pollutants in storm water can be significant,
Human Health: In general, untreated stormwater Is unsafe. It can contain
toxic metals, organic compounds, bacteria, and viruses, Untreated
stormwater Is not safe for people to drink and is not recommended for
swimming, Polluted storm water can lead to beach closures for swimming
and shellfish harvesting. It can also trigger toxic algal blooms.
Drinking Water: In some areas of Washington,
A1-6 ~.~
.-; .... ",~
notably Spokane County, and parts of Pierce and Clark counties, gravelly
soils allow rapid infiltration of stormwater. Untreated stormwater discharging
to the ground could contaminate aquifers that are used for drinking water.
Degraded Water Quality: Virtually all of our urban
creeks, streams, and rivers are harmed by stormwater
pollution. Stormwater Is the leading contributor to water quality pollution of
urban waterways in Washington,
Permits
Impaired Habitat: In Washington, urban stormwater
harms and pollutes streams that provide habitat for
fish and wildlife. Alterations to the watershed, such as building homes and
other structures and clearing away trees and shrubs, are the leading causes
for stormwater pollution, Federal agencies identified habitat loss from
stormwater runoff as one of the primary obstacles to salmon recovery. (See
more about regulating flows to protect habitat.)
• Construction Stormwater General Permit
• Industrial Stormwater General Permit
o No-Exposure Online Form (Industrial Stormwater Permit only)
• Municjpal Stormwater Permits (Phase I and II)
• Sand and Gravel General Permit
• Washington State Department of Transportation Municipal Sto(rnwater General Permit
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/index.html
Page 1 of2
--.------
WAWebDI
Washingt,
Sto!':'mwat
How To 01
Stormwat
=-AGuide
Industrial
St.OJnlwat
MO,n,itorinl
Certified I
Sediment
(CESCLl -
and Certif
Programs
How Is St
Regulated
7/5/2012
QUENDALL TERMINAL Page 1 of 3
QUENDALL TERMINAL
WASHINGTON
EPA 10# WA0980639215
Last Update: November, 2009
,...Site Description
EPA Region 10
King
Renton
8th Congressional District
Other Names:
The Quendall Terminals Superfund Site is located on the southeastern shore of Lake
Washington, in Renton, Washington. The site is a former creosote manufacturing facility
and has been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other hazardous chemicals.
Altino Properties and J. H. Baxter & Company, two of the site's Responsible Parties, have
begun a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RlIFS) to better understand the
contamination and develop a cleanup plan. The study includes sampling of soils,
groundwater, and lake sediment along the shoreline of the site. EPA expects to review the
sampling results, complete the RIfFS and select a cleanup plan in about three years.
Earlier sampling showed that contamination at Quendali Terminals could pose a risk to
people and the environment.
The facility began operating in 1917 as the Republic Creosoting Company, which became
Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation in 1956. Creosote was manufactured onsite for
about 53 years until 1969. This creosote manufacturing facility refined and processed coal
tar and oil-gas tar residues. The tars were purchased from the Seattle Gas Company on
Lake Union and were shipped or barged to the site. The tars consisted of poly aromatic
hydrocarbon (P AH) compounds, phenolic compounds, light aromatic compounds
(including benzene, toluene, and xylenes) and other organic compounds. At the facility,
tar distillates were refined to creosote and other chemical products. Releases oftars and
creosote products to the environment occurred in portions of the site where the transport,
production and/or storage of the products were performed. In 1971, the site was sold to
Quendall Terminals. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used intermittently to store
diesel, crude and waste oils. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage
yard.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through an administrative order on
consent with two potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
INPL Listing History IIDates
IProposed Date: 1109/14/2005
IRemoved Date: II
II II
httn:llvQsemite.eDa.gov/rl O/noload.nsf/eoaidlW AD980639215 9119/2015
QUENDALL TERMINAL Page 2 of3
IWithdrawal Date: II
IFinal Date: 1104/19/2006
IDeleted Date: II
..... Threats and Contaminants
Media Affected:
The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic P AHs and benzene. These
contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These
compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and
industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the
surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants
to Lake Washington are of particular concern.
Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and
swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is
located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal
Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake
Washington approximately two miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the
contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments
including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming
beaches located within one half mile of the site .
.,..Cleanup Progress
Until 2006, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) was the lead
regulatory agency for overseeing the cleanup. A Remedial Investigation report and a draft
Risk AssessmentIFocused Feasibility Study were completed by Quendall under oversight
by Ecology. No removal actions have taken place to date. In May 2005, Ecology
requested EPA take the lead for overseeing the cleanup at the site. EPA assumed the role
of lead agency at that time and in 2006 the site was added to EPA's Superfund National
Priorities List. In September 2006, Altino Properties and J. H. Baxter & Company, two of
the site's Responsible Parties, entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
with EPA. The AOC requires the Responsible Parties to complete a remedial investigation
and feasibility study (RIIFS). Based on the RIIFS EPA will propose a preferred cleanup
remedy, and after seeking public comment will select a final cleanup remedy. The
Responsible Parties have collected additional data during July through October 2009. That
data will be used to fill data gaps identified during the review of historic site data. EPA
expects that the RIIFS will be completed by December 2010.
httn·J Jvo,emite.ena.!!ov/r 1 O/noload.ns£leoaid/W AD980639215 9/19/2015
QUENDALL TERMINAL
.." Regional Contacts
SITE MANAGER(S):
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
COORDINATOR:
E-MAIL ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER:
Lynda Priddy
priddy.lynda@epa.gov
206-553-1987
Suzanne Skadowski
skadowski.suzanne@epa.gov
206-553-6689
Page 3 00
Information pertaining to this site is housed at the following location(s):
EPA Quendall Terminals webpage:
http://yosemite.epa.gov 1R1 O/CLEANUP .NSF /sites/ quendall
EPA Region 10 Records Center
1200 6th Ave, Ste 900
Seattle, WA 98101
Call for appointment: 206-553-4494
Renton Public Library
100 Mill Ave South
Renton, W A 98057
Call ahead for hours: 425-430-6610
httn'//vn<pm;fp pn~ u"vlr1 O/nnlnad.nsf/enaid/WAD980639215 911912015
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Ann M. Gygi <ann.gygi@hcmp.com>
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:22 AM
Larry Warren
Mathewson, Campbell; Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; Ryan Durkan
Quendall Terminals LUA09-1S1: Request to Extend On-hold Period
Follow up
Flagged
Larry: On behalf of Quendall Terminals, we appreciate the City's efforts to work with us to narrow the issues before
hearing. We have made good progress and would appreciate another extension in order to finalize our discussions
before hearing. We ask that you extend the on-hold period for the Quendall Terminals applications for an additional 60
days. Please let us know if you need anything additional to act on this request.
In addition, I plan to email Hearing Examiner Olbrechts to advise him of this additional extension request and let him
know that we will ask the City to get back in touch with him in approximately 60 days to request a new hearing date. Are
you good with that?
Thank you,
Ann
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue I Suite 4600 I Seattle. WA 98104
d: 206.470.7638 I 206.623.1745 I f: 206.623.7789
ann.gygi@hcmp.com I www.hcmp.comlvCard
1
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bob,
Vanessa Dolbee
Monday. June 06. 2016 11:33 AM
'Bob Becker'
RE: Quendall Terminals
: I ',: " .... /
Thank you for your comments, these will be placed in the official project file. However, I do want you to be aware that
the project is currently not in an official comment period and is currently on hold. Once the project comes "off hold" a
new Public Hearing Date will be set. Your comments are best submitted as a part of the public hearing, either written
and/or verbal. If you have any questions about the process please feel free to give me a call.
Thank you and have a great day.
'Vanessa 'lJo{[;ee, Current Planning Manager
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
From: Bob Becker [mailto:Bob@beckerarch.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: Quendall Terminals
Hi Vanessa,
Please find attached, some comments to the MITIGATION DOCUMENT / August 2015.
Thanks
Bob
Robert George Becker. AlA
Becker Architects
1007 N 42°' Place
Renton, WA 98056
Tel: 425.827.9246
email: rgb@beckerarch.com
1
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Hi Vanessa,
Bob Becker <Bob@beckerarch.com>
Thursday, June 02, 20164:23 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Quendall Terminals
Quendall Terminals COR response.docx
Follow up
Flagged
Please find attached, some comments to the MITIGATION DOCUMENT / August 2015.
Thanks
Bob
Robert George Becker. AlA
Becker Architects
1007 N 42"' Place
Renton, WA 98056
Tel: 425.827.9246
email: rgb@beckerarch.com
1
COMMENTS TO MITIGATION DOCUMENT / August 2015
Quendall Terminals
Page i-iii A. Earth
THIS IS A SUPERFUND SITE and there should be language in the Mitigation Document outlining what
criteria was used in determining this classification.
Placing a cap over the existing site could squeeze the existing on site carcinogenic PSH's and Benzene,
located throughout the site, down into Shallow or Deep aquifers or possibly out into Lake Washington.
These volatile contaminants are well above the allowable state/federal allowable levels. The cap is on
top of the volatile contaminants and the piles driven down through this cap, to purchase will stir up
these contaminants with all the vibration generated by driving the piles.
Can DOE or EPA guarantee that these contaminants will not be driven down into the aquifers, when
THOUSANDS of piles are driven down to purchase depths, or excavation occurs to place utilities
throughout the site? Paragraph A7 discusses 'installation of sur/ace casing through the cantaminated
zane; instal/otion of piles composed of impermeable materials using soil displacement methods; the use
of pointed-tip piles to prevent corry down of contaminotion; and/or, the use of ground improvement
technologies, such as in-place densification of compaction grouting. A pile vibration analysis and
vibrotion monitoring shall be conducted during the pile installation in order to ensure that impacts due to
vibrotion do not occur.
Which department can guarantee that piles driven down THROUGH the contaminants, too purchase,
will not carry volatile contaminants down into the aquifers and out into Lake Washington? Who will
monitor potential leakage of contaminates into Lake Washington? What is the fall back position of the
DOE, DOFW,EPA, City of Renton, Duwamish Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe or Puyallup Tribe of Indians
if this becomes a problem? Who, how often, and how will these levels be monitored on this
SUPERFUND SITE?
We haven't seen the type of foundations and/or excavation techniques proposed for the project. There
is a strong potential for volatile contaminants in the subsurface to generate vapors that could rise up
into the open parking garage as well as the living/working areas above it. What if the project is
constructed and the levels of contaminates/vapor levels exceed governmental allowable levels and
contaminates/vapors? Residences/office tenants/shop & restaurant patrons in Quendall Terminals or
residences in Barbee Mill could be exposed to these hazardous contaminates/vapors, not to mention
the possibility of these elements finding their way into Lake Washington.
Page iii-iv B. Critical Areas
An open parking garage spans the entire width of the project. The garage and the above garage housing
units will be producing artificial lighting. Will the adverse affects of artificial lighting on the wetland
and riparian habitats between the project and the lake negate any chance of this having any value for
the wildlife? If this setback area is supposed to replace some of the removed site wetlands, how can the
quality of the new wetlands be insured with all the artificial lighting? The setback will have an
Page 20f2
COMMENTS TO MITIGATIONA DOCUMENT / August 2015
emergency road and trial in this area and should not be included in the 100 foot setback.
How does the existing road drainage ditch, on the isolated property to the northeast of the Main
Property across Ripley Lane N, qualify as an associated wetland to the main Quendall Terminals
property? How does this ditch qualify as a wetland if it has a wide sidewalk for pedestrians/bicycles
passing through it? (HiD) Environmental standards require buffers for this wetland and bicycle
sidewalks should not be in these buffers. This wetland should be located on the main property, not
across the street in a ditch.
Page vi-vii F. Aesthetics/Views
There should be a heavily landscaped buffer of 50-60 foot minimum between the Barbee Mill
development to the south and the Quendall Terminals project adjacent parking areas. Placing a couple
of hundred surface parking stalls and a parking garage with residential units, right up against the
adjacent Barbee Mills homes is completely out of character with the neighborhood. Also, these surface
parking stalls and the parking garage, at this southern location should have lighting fixtures that do not
allow any spillover lighting into the residences to the south.
It would be helpful to have visual examples of Fi to show what the intent is. What does human scale
mean for 6 story high buildings with flat roofs on top of parking garages in a residential zone?
What does Fll mean? If the setback from the waters edge is a minimum of 100 feet, then the height
reduction would not apply.
Page viii-IX G. Parks and Recreation
The shore land area is shown as wetland areas to replace the wetlands removed from the project site.
What is the replacement wetland ratio? This would provide passive areas. It is not clear from any
documents that the plan meets the active and/or passive open space requirements. There should be
specific plans for active recreation, as well as passive spaces for a project of this size. These are City of
Renton mandated major requirements for allowing a large scale development to occur on this site. The
plans should show the active and passive areas on the site plan submitted with the Mitigation
Document. This should be part of the review process.
Page x-xii H. Transportation
Future transit zones/flyer stops should be located and identified as part of the Mitigation Document.
Thank you for considering our comments and concerns.
Robert and Mary Becker
1007 N 420d Place
Renton, WA 98056
..
May 23, 2016
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals I LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
On May 20, 2016 the Planning Division of the City of Renton and the City's Hearing Examiner, Phil
Olbrechts, received a request for further continuance of the public hearing scheduled for May 31, 2016
for the subject project. The request was received from Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. on behalf of
the applicant (enclosed). The Hearing Examiner granted the requested in an e-mail dated May 20,
2016, to an indefinite date, canceling the hearing scheduled for Mav 31, 2016.
In the enclosed letter the applicant has indicated that they are in the process of preparing and
evaluating site plan revisions and other project responses to address items raised in the Staff Report
issued on April 12, 2016. The applicants have requested 4S -60 days prior to re-scheduling a new
hearing. Staff concurs with the applicant request for additional time and requests that any new and/or
updated materials be submitted to the Planning Department prior to August 29, 2016 so that we may
continue the review of the subject application.
At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" until further notice, Please contact me at (425)
430-7314 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Enclosure: Request for Hearing Continuance dated May 20 1 2016
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / OWners
Phil Olbrechts, City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit O. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi/ Parties of Record
Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Remon City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 9S()S7
May 20, 2016
Via Email (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com)
Reo Request ;Or Hearing Contimlani' on Quendall Terminals Master Plan ApplitYlfiotJ
Package: Renton File # UJA09.t51; ECF; SA·M, SM, ESP
Dear Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
On behalf of the Applicant, Quendall Terminals, We request a further continuance of
the rescheduled hearing date for the above-referenced applications. On April 19, yon approved
the applicant's request for a hearing continuance, and rescheduled the hearing on the abovc-
referenced Qucndall Terminals applications to May 31, 2016. The applicant has since met with
City staff and is in the process of preparing and evaluating site plan revisions and other project
responses to address items raised in to the Staff Report issned on April 12. The applicant
believes that with additional time we should be able to narrow the issnes for hearing. Rather
than request a specific date now, we propose to get back to the Examiner again in 45 -60 days
to request a new hearing date. We have coordinated with the City attorney on this request, and
the City concurs with the applicant's request for a continuance.
We respectfully request your approval of this request. Thank you.
AMG:kah
E·iVfait ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Direct Dial' (206) 470·7638
Fax: (206) 623·7789
cc: Lan), Warren
Vanessa Dolbee
Jason Seth
Campbell Mathewson
Very truly yours,
/~ --yj t1,
fllf7 t"'c If/I. /Vtft'-
(' .
AnnM. Gygi
1221 Second /\venue, Suite 500 I Seattle. WA 98101 I 203.623.1745 I f: 206.623.77891 '
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Amit Ranade
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann GVgi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Bob & Marv Becker
1007 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles & Rebecca Tavlor
1252 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Christine Chen
1128 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Connie Tavlor
2425 NE 2Sth St
Renton, WA 98056
DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS
3605 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 980S6-1509
William Popp Associates
14400 Bel Red Rd, #206
Bellevue. WA 98007
Amv & Kevin Dedrickson
1012 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
ANNE SIMPSON
3001 Mountain View Ave N
Renton. WA 98056-2516
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 NE 28th St
Renton. WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles Witmann
907 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Chuck & Svlvia Holden
3609 Meadow Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Cvrus McNeelv
3810 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 980S6
Diane Espev Jackson
2419 Talbot Crest Dr S
Renton, WA 98055
AARON BELENKY
1800 N E 40th St, H4
Renton. WA 98056
AMY LIETZ ROBERTS
ALR DESIGN INC
1006 NE 34th
Renton, WA 98056-1938
Anne Woodlev
7920 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 N E 28th St
Renton, WA 98056
Bud Worlev
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 980S6
Carol O'Connell
1241 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
CHARLIE CONNER
CHG SF LLC dba CONNER HOMES AT
PIPER'S BLUFF LLC
846 108th Ave N E, #200
Bellevue, WA 98004
Clair Hong
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10
1200, ECL-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101
Dan Mitzel
111 Cleveland Ave
Mt. Vernon, WA 98040
Dima.
1815 NE 27th Ct
Renton, WA 98056
Ed Goines
Seattle Sea hawks
12 Sea hawks Way
Renton. WA 98056
FAYE JANDERS
2717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton. WA 98056
Gretchen Kaehler
Department of Archaeology & Historic
Prevention
PO Box 48343
Olvmpia. WA 98504
Inez Petersen
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, #1
Renton. WA 98056
Jennv Manning
1205 N 10th PI
Renton. WA 98057
Jim Hanken
15543 62nd Ave
Kenmore. WA 98028
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Jon & Marilvn Danielson
1308 34th St
Renton. WA 98056
Kellv Smith
6811 Ripley Ln N
Renton. WA 98056
kim Douthitt
5901143 PI SE
Bellevue. WA 98006
Elisabeth Durr
1206 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Gwendolvn High
155 Yakima Ave NE
Renton. WA 98059
INEZ PETERSEN. J.D.
STARFISH LAW PLLC
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, 1
Renton. WA 98056-1909
Jessica Winter
7600 Samd Point Way
Seattle. WA 98115
Jim Hanken
Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc.
1111 Third Ave, Sulie 1800
Seattle. WA 98101
John Hansen
4005 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
KATHLEEN DOW
1210 N 42ND PL
Renton. WA 98056
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley Ln
Renton. WA 98056
Larrv & Linda Boregson
1013 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Farrel & Jonell Wilson
4063 Williams Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Glen St. Amant
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn. WA
IMPORT IMPORT
IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT
Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford
1102 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
JH Baxter & Co.
Allino Properties, Inc. &
800 S Third St
Renton. WA 98057
Jim Rov
1111 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
John Murphv
New Home Trends, Inc.
4314 148th St SE
Mill Creek. WA 98012
Keith Preszler
3818 Lake Washington Blvd
Renton. WA 98056
KEVIN POOLE
627 High Ave S
Renton. WA 98057-3918
Larrv Revmann
1313 N 38th St
Renton. WA 98056
Laura & James Counsell
1122 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Lawrence Hard
4316 NE 33rd St
Seattle. WA 98105
Leslve Bergan
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N. Suite #2
Renton. WA 98056
Marcos Santos
1209 N 31st St
Renton. WA 98056
Michael Mullinaux
1415 N 24th St
Renton. WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Misty Blair
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue. WA 98008
Paul & Susan Siegmund
1006 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Ramin Pazooki
WSDOT
PO Box 330310
Seattle. WA 98133
Richard & Kathleen Bergauist
7244 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Laurie Baker
3107 Mountain View Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 980S6
linda Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton. WA 98056
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle. WA 98138
Mike & Sharon Glenn
8825 114th Ave SE
Newcastle. WA 98056
Mike Cero
8300 Avalon Dr
Mercer Island. WA 98056
Nancy Denney
3818 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Paw Thao
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Ricardo & Maria Antezana
1025 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Richard Ferry
7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
LAWRENCE DIXON
DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC
PO BOX 2350
Renton. WA 98056-0350
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
LOUIS TIBBS
807 N 33rd St
Renton. WA 98056-1901
MICHAEL CHRIST
IMMERSION SERVICES LLC
1083 Lake Washington Blvd N. SUITE 50
Renton. WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Mimi MacCaul
Patty Witt
1204 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Raiendra Agrawaal
1113 N 29th St
Renton. WA 98056
Rich WaRner
2411 Garden Ct
Renton. WA 98056
Robert & Sonya Tobeck
1003 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Roger Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC
1111 3rd Ave, #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Ave
Renton, WA 98056
Rvan Durkin
1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building
Seattle, WA 98101
ShengWu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Van Til
Vulcan
505 5th Ave S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Susan Stow
1309 N 36th St
Renton, WA 98056
Tim Riley
3607 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
TONY BOYDSTON
3920 NE 11th PI
Renton, WA 98056-3537
William Skilling
3814 E Lee St
Seattle, WA 98112
Ronald & Sachi Nicol
1030 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
SALLY ROCHELLE
3626 Lk Wa Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056-1508
Sherry and Robert Cline
4267 Williams Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Sue & Mac iahnke
1717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056
Suzanne & Donald Orehek
4103 Wells Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Tim Stewart
Development Services Group, City of
Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th St
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Trudy Neumann
922 N 28th PI
Renton, WA 98056
Winnie & Yuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Ronald & Vanessa Brazg
1019 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Rov & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Sally Scott
1405 N 28th St
Renton, WA 98056
Spencer Albert
Albert International, LLP
2442 NW Market St, Suite #722
Seattle, WA 98107
SUSAN MILLER
806 N 30th St
Renton, WA 98056
THEO & KIM BROWNE
1409 N 37th St
Renton, WA 98056
Tom Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton, WA 98056
Victor Chiu
1128 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin
1120 N 38th St
Renton, WA 98056
HeMP Hillis
Clark
Martn &
Peterson PS.
Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Renton Citv Ibll
IOS5 S. Grady Wa)
Renton, Wi\ 98057
May 20, 2016
Via Email (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com)
Re: Request for Hearing Continuam~ on Quendall Terminals AfaJter Plan Application
Package: Renton Fz!e # LUA09·151; ECf~" SA·At, SM, BSP
Dear Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
On behalf of the Applicant, Quendall Terminals, we request a further continuance of
the rescheduled hearing date for the above· referenced applications. On April 1 9, you approved
the applicant's request for a hearing continuance, and rescheduled the heating on the above·
referenced Quendall Terminals applications to May 31, 2016. TIle applicant has since met with
City staff and is in the process of preparing and evaluating site plan revisions and other project
responses to address items raised in to the Staff Report issued on April 12. The applicant
believes that with additional time we should be able to narrow the issues for hearing. Rather
than request a specific date now, we propose to get back to the Examiner again in 45 -GO days
to request a new hearing date. We have coordinated with the City attorney on this request, and
the City concurs with the applicant's request for a continuance.
We respectfully request your approval of this request. Thank you.
AMG:kah
E-lHail.-aoo.gygi@hcmp.com
Direcl Dial.-(206) 470· 7638
Fax: (206) 623-7789
cc: Larry Warren
Vanessa Dolbee
Jason Seth
Campbell Mathewson
Very truly yours, ~7It'~r-
Ann M. Gygi
1221 Second Avenue. Suite 5001 Seattle. WA 981011 206.623.1745 1 f:206.623.7789111cmp.com I ~ M E RITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on May 6, 2016.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum of $140.63.
.-;,-:;-. .... /
/,/. . .9''/ //./,7hf4 p/~~<:-'
mda Mills
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
ubscribed lmQsworn to me this 6th day of May, 2016.
ale Gwin, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in
Puyallup, Washington
.. , .
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON,
HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTOI\
A Public Hearing will be held
by the Renton Hearing Examiner
in the 7th Floor Council Cham·
bers Room 702 of Renton City
Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, Washington, on May 31,
2016 at 10:00 am to consider the
following petitions:
Quendall Terminals
LUA09·151
Location: 4503 Ripley Ln N
The applicant is requesting
Master Plan Review, Binding
Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial
Development Penn it and Envi-
ronmental (SEPA) Review for a
mixed-use development. The site
is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR
and located within the Urban
Shoreline designation.The
21 .24-ac site would be divided
Into 7 lo~ of which 4 would con-
tain multi-story mixed-use build-
ings. Overall, the development
would consist of 692 residential
units (resulting in a net residen-
tial density of 40.95 dulac),
20,025 sf of rctail and 9,000 sf of
restaurant The applicant has
proposed to dedicate 3.70 ac for
public ROWand 0.65 ac of pri-
vate streets, which would provIde
access to the 7 proposed lots
Surface and structured par!.ing
would be proVIded for 1,366 ve-
hicles. The site contains sensit
slopes. seismic
hazards. wetlands and 1,583 If 0
shoreline along Lake Wa<;hing-
ton. The subje<.:t site has received
a Superfund designation from the
EPA and the property owners are
currently working on a remediu-
tlon plan with EPA. Proposed
improvements include remedia-
tion of existing contamination
and associated wetland and
shorel ine restoration as approved
by the EPA. The subject land use
applications are assuming a clean
site following an approved and
implement Record of Decision
from the EPA
Legal descriptIOns of the files
noted above are on file at the
City Clerk's Office. Seventh
Floor, City Hall. Renton All in-
terested persons arc invited to he
present at the Public Hearing to
express their opinions. Question
should be directed to the J-Icarin
Examiner care of City Clerk at
425-430·6515
Published in the Renton ReporLer
on May 6. 2016. # 1596759
I
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Jason Seth
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:26 AM
Cynthia Moya
Subject: FW: Quendall Terminals (#LUA09-151; ECF; SA-M, SM, BSP) Applicant's Request to
P H · I / ostpone eanng , ......
FYI
Jason Seth, CMC
City Clerk
jseth (wrentonwa ,gov
425-430-6502
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:25 AM
To: Ann M. Gygi <ann.gygi@hcmp.com>
Cc: Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov>; Larry Warren <LWarren@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa,gov>; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com
Subject: Re: Quendall Terminals (#LUA09-151; ECF; SA-M, SM, BSP) Applicant's Request to Postpone Hearing
Scratch the prehearing motion idea. Since staff advised people today's hearing would be continued
(thankfully!), there would be a notice problem if I made any prehearing rulings on substantive issues.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Phil Olbrechts <"lbrccht,1 ClW (Ii ~Illai I. C() Jll> wrote:
I was not able to rule within the 90 minutes given to me last Friday as I was speaking at a
conference in Lacey at the time. The Quendall Terminals hearing is postponed to a date that will
be set tomorrow during the scheduled hearing time at 10:00 am. It appears that date will likely
be May 17, 2016. In order to accommodate persons who have taken time off from work and/or
have assumed other burdens to appear at the hearing on Tuesday, members of the public will be
allowed to testify tomorrow in lieu of testifying at the rescheduled hearing date. Members of the
public who choose to testify tomorrow will not be allowed to testify again at the rescheduled
date.
On Fri, Apr 15,2016 at 3:37 PM, Ann M. Gygi <ann.gv~i (fi hClllp.C(lIn> wrote:
Dear Examiner Olbrechts: Please see the attached request from the Applicant, Quendall
Terminals, to postpone the hearing on Quendall Terminals Master Plan application package,
referenced above. We would be happy to conference with the City and Examiner this afternoon
or Monday if that would help to address any procedural considerations.
Sincerely,
Ann Gygi
1
•
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson PS
1221 Second Avenue I Suite 500 I Seattle. WA 98101
d: 206.4LQ.76~8 I 20Ei.6nJ 7·15 I f: 206G2377,~9
ann.gygi@hcmo.com I vvwv'i.hcOillS.&lll I vCard
2
Cynthia Moya
From: Jason Seth
Sent:
To:
Monday, April 18, 2016 8:48 AM
Cynthia Moya
Subject: FW: Quendall Terminals (#LUA09-151; ECF; SA-M, SM, BSP) Applicant's Request to
Postpone Hearing
FYI
Jason Seth, CMC
City Clerk
i se t h@rent9D.IIJ<l_,gQY
425-430-6502
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com)
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:47 AM
To: Ann M. Gygi <ann.gygi@hcmp.com>
Cc: Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov>; Larry Warren <LWarren@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com
Subject: Re: Quendall Terminals (#LUA09-151; ECF; SA-M, SM, BSP) Applicant's Request to Postpone Hearing
I was not able to rule within the 90 minutes given to me last Friday as I was speaking at a conference in Lacey
at the time. The Quendall Terminals hearing is postponed to a date that will be set tomorrow during the
scheduled hearing time at 10:00 am. It appears that date wililikely be May 17, 2016. In order to accommodate
persons who have taken time off from work and/or have assumed other burdens to appear at the hearing on
Tuesday, members of the public will be allowed to testify tomorrow in lieu of testifying at the rescheduled
hearing date. Members of the public who choose to testify tomorrow will not be allowed to testify again at the
rescheduled date.
On Fri, Apr 15,2016 at 3:37 PM, Ann M. Gygi <alln.,!y~i(a;hclllp.c()lll> wrote:
Dear Examiner Olbrechts: Please see the attached request from the Applicant, Quendall Terminals, to postpone
the hearing on Quendall Terminals Master Plan application package, referenced above. We would be happy to
conference with the City and Examiner this afternoon or Monday if that would help to address any procedural
considerations.
Sincerely,
Ann Gygi
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
1221 Second Avenue I Suite 500 I Seattle, WA 98101
1
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
a) Custer Fund (RCF) Donation: Lynn Bohart from the Renton Community Foundation provided a
brief history regarding the Custer Fund Donation. She also announced that this year a grant
will be provided to the City of Renton's Parks Division to help fund the 'Nature Playground' at
Meadowcrest Playground and presented the City with a check in the amount of $55,000.
Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning / Natural Resources Director outlined what the 'Nature
Playgound' will provide to the community.
b) Renton Human Trafficking Awareness Event: Jeanette Millmann from the Planning
Committee for the upcoming Human Traffic Awareness Event on June 8, 2016, and provided a
brief presentation about the event that will highlight problems related to human trafficking in
the Seattle area. Ms. Millmann will be returning to present the results of the event at a
Council Meeting later this summer.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report
summarizing the City'S recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of
its business plan for 2015 and beyond. Items noted were:
• Preventative street maintenance will continue to impact traffic and result in
occasional street closures.
• The Solid Waste Utility will host its last Eco Film presentation Thursday, March 10th at
6:30 p.m. at Carco Theater. The film, Sound and Vision, produced by People for Puget
Sound, will be screened followed by a community discussion with speakers working to
prevent water pollution in our region. The free event provides others an opportunity
to learn what can be done to improve the quality of our waterways and help protect
marine life.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
• Beth Asher, Renton, provided an update regarding the achievements ofthe Renton Youth
Advocacy Center (RYAC) over the past year. Additionally, she invited Council and the public to
attend the RYAC Gala on April 23, 2016 at the Robert C. Roberts Campus Center at Renton
Technical College.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the consent agenda were adopted with one motion, following the listing. At the request
of Counei/member Pavone, Consent Agenda item 6.g. was pulled for separate consideration.
a) Approval of Cduncil Meeting minutes of February 22,2016. Council Concur.
b) AB -1614 Community & Economic Development Department recommended adoption of an
ordinance granting a lO-year franchise agreement with Level 3 Communications, LLC as a
purveyor of broadband telecommunication services within the City of Renton. Refer to
Utilities Committee.
AB -1616 Community & Economic Development Department submitted 10% Notice of Intent
to Annex petition for the proposed Bradley Annexation and recommended a public meeting
be set on 3/21/2016 to consider the petition; 17.7 acresbordered to the south by parcel lines
located near SE 146th PI. (if extended), by parcel lines near 157th PI. SE to the east, parcel
lines in proximity to SE 142rd PI. to the north, and by 154th PI. SE to the west. Council Concur.
March 7, 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Campbell Matthewson
Brad Nicholson
Altino Properties
Parties of Record
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
)
) SS
)
Contact
Applicant
Owner
See Attached
,
i ,
. .". '". \ 'Ij
.,.,OLLY"'!},
"'-\\\\\\\'11,, I:.lO "1 ~<-'o"'''''~''' ~; .. v " I
(» ff .,.01': \ ft\ ~
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante'J ~ ... '. ~~ ~~ :;0 §
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tne~~l1d'pur 1!9 E
. d' h' O~;":>n re = mentlone In t e Instrument. ~ "1~""77 =
. It-. '"", ~ g
. ~.sH'NG'10 "" & --) .. Vj '" , .... ' Dated: ,4"",,;g (2
I i
20\(£
tary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (print): ___ ~li"'O,",I"'[ ~._ ... t'c-'-J"'ld"-'-' "'e"'.r...,'"--,,,-_________ _
My appointment expires: /·f :ex. q dDt ~
,-' C r
(
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
template· affidavit of service by mailing
Denis Law
Mayor
April 12, 2016
Parties of Record
Various
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:00 am in
the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report
to the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available:
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the i h Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff
report is $16.80, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change
if documents are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.govifyou have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
__ ~r~Of.
----.... ...-'I' ~ [)[r".:l (~)
NOT~CE
OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
A public Hearing will be heltl by the Rent H rl Exa ~~~~ ~~'dyin ~e co~ne:r Ch~mbe'8 00 Ih~~e:nl~~loor ~~e:r:nM~I~3~~~I~~~:~
a BY, en on, Bshlngton, to consider the following patJUone:
aUENDAL.L. TERMINALS
FILE NO. L.UA09-151, ECF. EIS, SA·M, SM
localfolll 4350 !.lob Wuhlng'o" BLVD Des . Ii Review, Blndlllg Site Plan, ShOrelin. Sub:::'P tI D~:DTh·IIPPlicanll. reqllOSting Mast., Plan
(SEPAl Rlllliew I.,.. • mlud-usa dnal me"nt..B The"" "pm"nt permit and Environmental
CommerclalIOfficelResldenlial (CORI and::'c led "It1r sitftu Is 21.46 aeras and Is zon"d
21',24-100"' slt8 would b" dlvlded Inlo 1101:!11 8 I ~' h n the .ban ShoreUne deaignall .. I\. Th"
bu,ldlng •• 0_1 the dlVelopm t Id" wh c 4 would contain mul~.."lgry mlxed .... 9.
resldenll •• density' "I 40.95 un~~7~ =_1 .. of 692 nosldanllal unllll (r"ublng In a ""t
rutlluranL The applicant hall ra " squan fefi of atall and 9,000 aq""" feet 0'
acraS ,,' privata srrulll, wnjC~ w~~:d ~~IC.tlI3.7D aCHS far public rlght-Of·waV and D.OS
alnlctured p..,.king would btl ,..-.Id P acoas. (0 tha 7,propo,sad 1-Surface .nd ~Ismlc hu..,.dB, waU""ds a~d 1 ~ ~or 1,36! lItthiclas. Th •• , .. contain. 58n5;11 ... "lop •• ,
"ubJect site haa receIVed. Su 'rlu IM ... r t 0' sh"rellne along lake W .. nington. The
Agency (EPA) and the p,epsrty ~wn nd designation from !he U.s. Environmental Protection
Proposed ImprOlr"",antll Inlll d. ar. ·"'Ia~urrN1Uy working an • ..,madlallan ph,n with EPA.
weiland and shoreline res1oratJ~n 83"'m~ ~n of .... I.tlng conlllml"",tion and associaled
anl ..... urnlng • clsan s,ta followln, :~":,,,";""~ the,", A. The subject land uss applications the EPA. an mplementad Roocord of O&elsion frQm
Fora.:opy of the Preliminary Staff Report lothe Hearing Examiner go to
www.rentcnwa.govlbuslno55(defautt.aspx?ld~S4S8 and loate the project by t"-abo
referenced LOA Numbar: iI link will ba ava/lablelG downloael the report. ttyou haUl! a:::
questions, ple;JSe ~all42S-43o-6578.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON ON THE SCHEDULED HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF
RENTON HEARING EKAMINER'5 OfFICE AT 425-4311-6510
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOnCE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
P"'~ase indude tile project NUMBER when ~alling for proper file IdentlfiClition.
CERTIFICA nON
I, !] e'SJ 0, hereby certify that ~ copies of the above document
were posted in __ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date:~-2q-1 W Signed~<21:J'1ct <-£);1:!/0<-
STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS
COUNTY OF KING
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that {<l.fl ~ 5 S' H Yo (b ee
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
lic in and for the State of Washington
Nota ry (Print) : __ ...;HW><JQ 1 ... ~t_._-.!.P-"OJ~"c.s'«S~------
My appointment expires .. · ____ ....:L:./-"C::.:i~':t"f.lIA"'><..;+_....:;Z::-...l'i'r-i .!dJ)~:..i 1.1-· ---
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Amit Ranade
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann GVgi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.5.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle. WA 98101
Bob & Marv Becker
1007 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
I Mathewson
Century Pacific, loP.
1201 Third Ave, #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles & Rebecca Tavlor
1252 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Christine Chen
1128 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Connie Tavlor
2425 NE 25th St
Renton. WA 98056
DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS
3605 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056-1509
William Popp Associates
14400 Bel Red Rd, #206
Bellevue. WA 98007
Amv & Kevin Dedrickson
1012 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
ANNE SIMPSON
3001 Mountain View Ave N
Renton. WA 98056-2516
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 NE 28th St
Renton. WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
I Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles Witmann
907 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Chuck & Svlvia Holden
3609 Meadow Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Cvrus McNeelv
3810 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Diane Espev Jackson
2419 Talbot Crest Dr 5
Renton. WA 98055
AARON BELENKY
1800 N E 40th St. H4
Renton. WA 98056
AMY LIETZ ROBERTS
ALR DESIGN INC
1006 NE 34th
Renton. WA 98056-1938
Anne Woodlev
7920 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 NE 28th St
Renton. WA 98056
Bud Worlev
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Carol O'Connell
1241 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
CHARLIE CONNER
CHG SF LLC dba CONNER HOMES AT
PIPER'S BLUFF LLC
846 108th Ave NE. #200
Bellevue. WA 98004
Clair Hong
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10
1200. ECL-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900
Seattle. WA 98101
Dan Mitzel
111 Cleveland Ave
Mt. Vernon. WA 98040
Dima.
1815 NE 27th Ct
Renton. WA 98056
Ed Goines
Seattle 5eahawks
12 5eahawks Way
Renton. WA 98056
FAYE JANDERS
2717 Aberdeen Ave N E
Renton. WA 98056
Gretchen Kaehler
Department of Archaeology & Historic
Prevention
PO Box 48343
Olvmpia. WA 98504
Inez Petersen
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N. #1
Renton. WA 98056
Jennv ManninR
1205 N 10th PI
Renton. WA 98057
Jim Hanken
15543 62nd Ave
Kenmore. WA 98028
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Jon & Marilyn Danielson
1308 34th St
Renton. WA 98056
Kellv Smith
6811 Ripley Ln N
Renton. WA 98056
kim Douthitt
5901143 PI 5E
Bellevue. WA 98006
Elisabeth Durr
1206 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Gwendolvn HiRh
155 Yakima Ave NE
Renton. WA 98059
INEZ PETERSEN. J.D.
STARFISH LAW PLLC
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, 1
Renton. WA 98056-1909
Jessica Winter
7600 Samd Point Way
Seattle. WA 98115
Jim Hanken
Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc.
1111 Third Ave, Sutie 1800
Seattle. WA 98101
John Hansen
4005 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
KATHLEEN DOW
1210 N 42ND PL
Renton. WA 98056
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley Ln
Renton. WA 98056
Larry & Linda BoreRson
1013 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Farrel & Jonell Wilson
4063 Williams Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Glen 51. Amant
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division
39015 172nd Ave 5E
Auburn. WA
IMPORT IMPORT
IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT
Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford
1102 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
JH Baxter & Co.
Altino Properties, Inc. &
800 S Third 5t
Renton. WA 98057
Jim Rov
1111 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
John Murphy
New Home Trends, Inc.
4314 148th St SE
Mill Creek. WA 98012
Keith Preszler
3818 Lake Washington Blvd
Renton. WA 98056
KEVIN POOLE
627 High Ave S
Renton. WA 98057-3918
Larrv Reymann
1313 N 38th St
Renton. WA 98056
Laura & James Counsell
1122 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Lawrence Hard
4316 NE 33rd St
Seattle. WA 98105
Leslye Ber~an
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2
Renton. WA 98056
Marcos Santos
1209 N 31st St
Renton. WA 98056
Michael Mullinaux
1415 N 24th St
Renton. WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Misty Blair
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave, SE
Bellevue. WA 98008
Paul & Susan Sie~mund
1006 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Ramin Pazooki
WSDOT
PO Box 330310
Seattle. WA 98133
Richard & Kathleen Bergquist
7244 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Laurie Baker
3107 Mountain View Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Linda Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton. WA 98056
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle. WA 98138
Mike & Sharon Glenn
8825 114th Ave 5E
Newcastle. WA 98056
Mike Cero
8300 Avalon Dr
Mercer Island. WA 98056
Nancv Denney
3818 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
PavvThao
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Ricardo & Maria Antezana
1025 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Richard Ferry
7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
LAWRENCE DIXON
DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC
PO BOX 2350
Renton. WA 98056-0350
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
LOUIS TIBBS
807 N 33rd St
Renton. WA 98056-1901
MICHAEL CHRIST
IMMERSION SERVICES LLC
1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, SUITE SO
Renton. WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Mimi MacCaul
Patty Witt
1204 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Raiendra Agrawaal
1113 N 29th St
Renton. WA 98056
Rich Wagner
2411 Garden Ct
Renton. WA 98056
Robert & Sonya Tobeck
1003 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
<'''~,
.. o.er flearct!
Foster Pepper LLC
1111 3rd Ave, #3400
Seattle. WA 98101
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Ave
Renton. WA 98056
Ryan Durkin
1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building
Seattle, WA 98101
Sheng Wu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Steve Van Til
Vulcan
505 5th Ave S, Suite 900
Seattle. WA 98104
Susan Stow
1309 N 36th St
Renton. WA 98056
Tim Riley
3607 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
TONY BOYDSTON
3920 NE 11th PI
Renton. WA 98056-3537
William Skilling
3814 E Lee St
Seattle. WA 98112
,<::tii)::'~:<,::!!', ''''''':\:~~:~1riE;:iu: ;'Iir;1:"'l:,',,,,,',,,,
Mnold !It 50thl NicOl
1030 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 980S6
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
SALLY ROCHELLE
3626 Lk Wa Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056-1508
Sherry and Robert Cline
4267 Williams Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Sue & Mac iahnke
1717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton. WA 98056
Suzanne & Donald Orehek
4103 Wells Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Tim Stewart
Development Services Group. City of
Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th St
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Trudy Neumann
922 N 28th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Winnie & Yuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
fIIon81d & Vaneull ~,.tII1!R
1019 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Roy & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Sally Scott
1405 N 28th St
Renton. WA 98056
Spencer Albert
Albert International, LLP
2442 NW Market St. Suite #722
Seattle. WA 98107
SUSAN MILLER
806 N 30th St
Renton, WA 98056
THEO & KIM BROWNE
1409 N 37th St
Renton. WA 98056
Tom Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton. WA 98056
Victor Chiu
1128 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin
1120 N 38th St
Renton. WA 98056
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on April 29, 2016.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum of $147.88 .
./ ~" h'?Ifi/'f/ 7tt£f)
UindaMiIls
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
bscribed aful sworn to me this 29th day of April, 2016.
Gafe Gwin, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in
Puyallup, Washington
'.
~
,',
q:; ~';} t
'_.' <. ',' ',-'
".
NOTICE OF
PlIBLIC HEARIl\'G
RENTON, HEARIl\'G
EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A Public Hearing will be held by
the Renton Hearing Examiner in
the 7th Floor Council Chambers
Room 702 of Renton City Hall,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
Washington, on May 31, 2016 at
10:00 am to consider the follow-
public ROWand 0.65 ac of pri-
vate streets, whIch would pro-
vide access to the 7 propost!J
lots. Surface and structured
parking would be provided for
U66 vchicles_ The site con·
tains sensitive slopes. seismiC
hazards, wetlands and 1,5&3 If
of shoreline along Lake Wash-
ington. The subject site has reo
ceived a Superfund designation
from the EPA and the property
ing petitions' owners arc
Quendall Tenninals currently working on a reme·
LUA09.t51 diation plan with EPA Pro-
Location: 4503 Ripley Ln N poscd Improvements include
The applicant is requesting remediation of cXlstmg con-
Master Plan Review, Binding tamination and associated wet·
Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial land and shoreline restoration
Development Permit and Envi· as approved by the EPA. The
ronmen1a1 (SEPA) Review for subJcct land usc applications
a mixed-use development The are assuming a clean sIte tol·
site is 21.46 ac and is zoned lowing an approved and imple·
COR and located within the ment Record of Decision from
Urban Shoreline designation. the EPA.
The 21.24-ac site would be di-Lcgal dcscriptions of the files
vided into 7 lots of which 4 noted above are on file at thc
would contain multi-stoTY City Clerk's Office, Seventh
mixed-use buildings. Overall, Floor, City Hall, Renton. All in-
the development would consist terested persons are invited to be
of 692 residential units (result-present at the Public Heanng to
ing in a net residential density express their opinions. Qucstions
of 40.95 dulac), 20,025 sf of should be directed to the Hearing
retail and 9,000 sf of restau-Examiner care of City Clerk at
rant. The applicant has pro-425·430-6515
posed to dedicate 3.70 ac for Published in the Renton Reporter
April 29, 2016. #1592038
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on April 1,2016.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum of $144.25.
<1;>/ "f:te , <;'Li~d~'Mills
> Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
~."': <hi, ,,, day of ApriL ml6
........ (-/'
.~ ..
Gale Gwin, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in
Puyallup, Wa~hington -: :', "'. -..
",>;
.\
.:'1
.,', , , .::.
-~
~
2'
1-'
, ,.'"
NOTICE OF public ROWand 0.65 ac or
PUBLIC HEARING private streets. 'Which would
RENTON provide access to the 7 pro-
HEARING EXAMINER posed lots. Surface and struc-
RENTON, WASHlNGTON tured parking would be provld-
A public hearing will be held by cd for 1,366 vehicles. The Site
the Renton I (earing Examiner in contains sensitive slopes, selS-
the Council Chambers on the mic hazards. wetlands and
seventh floor of the Renton City 1.583 If of shoreline along
Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Lake Washington. The subject
Renton, Washington, on April site has received a Superfund
19, 2016 at 10:00 am to consider designation from the EPA and
the following petitions' the property owners are cur-
Quendall TeTT11lnais rently working on a remcdia-
LUA09-151 tion plan with EPA. Proposed
Location: 4503 Ripley Ln N. improvements Include remedia-
The applicant is requesting tion of existing contamination
Master Plan Review, Binding and associated wetland and
Site Plan. Shoreline Substantial shoreline restoration as ap-
Development Permit and Fnvi-proved by the EPA. The sub-
ronmenta] (SEPA) Review for Jeet land use applicatIOns are
a mixed-use development The assuming a clean sitl! following
site is 21.46 ac and is .zoned an approved and implement
COR and located withm the Record of DecIsiOn from the
Urban Shoreline designation. EPA
The 21.24-ac site would be Legal descriptions of the files
divided into 7 lots of which 4 noted above are on file in the
would contain multi-story City Clerk's Office, Se"enth
mixed-use buildings. Overall, Floor, City Hall. Renton. All in-
the development would consist terested persons are invited to bc
of 692 residential units (result-present at the Publtc Hearing to
ing in a net residential density express their opinions. Questions
of 40.95 dulac), 20,025 sf of should be directed to the Hearing
retail and 9,000 sf of restau-Examiner at 425-430-6515.
rant. The appl icant has pro-Published in the Renton Reporter
posed to dedicate 3.70 ac for on April 08,2016. #·1584012
-
AM\( LlElZ ROBERTS
AlR DESIGN INC
1006 NE. 34th
Renton, WA 98056-1938
;U""
~fie4/2E/1C;
RETURf·j TO SE!~D::r,
ATTEMPTED -NOT KNOWN
~NAB~E TO FORWARD
26 CRSPi'~hP 9
9B0S7@.3232
Be: 98057,323255 x2188-b8162-26_32
'Iii 11'11" 1I1111 jill 11111 III I , II, 11'1 1111 1" I ,I j, iii i 111 111' I" I
n®
Sallv Scott
1405 N 28th St
Renton. WA 98056
2E CRElPNHP Si
98057193232
NIXIE
~ -""~ --_.
[illil .' ': ,f~~..ilt£r£:'!:'.-' ~:5 _ -:;I o/~S'I1NlYI>OWl.' £:: "02 1M $ 00.452
LU~ 0008005640 APR 22 2016 g:u: . MAILEDFROl'IIl ZIP CODE 980~7
RETURN TO SENDER
ATTEM~TED -NOT KNO~~
~NABL~ TO ~ORWARD
Be: 98057323255 *2189-08315-26-52
11'11 11' \" Iii III jill! 1'1 111' Iii' 11'1 Pili II '1,1"" jI i; "Ii I II 'I
I:!-IJ r~ f??v.==.-~-= z \4 4 ~.lJj>"~""",............,
::J ~-P"""'''''''''-'
02 1M $ OO.4!F
0008005640 APR22 2016
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 98057
i~~~ t ~~s~j ~:eRmund
Renton. WA 93056
N I .X:::
R!TURN TO SENDER
ATTEM~TEC -NOT KNOWlj
UKAELE TO FORWARD
Be: 98057323255 ~~lBS-081SB-Z6-3
1,11111'111,11111'111'1111'1111,,1"1'11'11,111111'111,11'PII;"
~
nton·~
02 1M .$ 00.452
c
"'i
Ronald & Sachi Nicol
1030 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
0008005640 ~PR22 2016
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 9S0 57
0034/26/1.6
RETuR r'o1 TO SENDER
ATTEM?TEO -NOT KhQW~
UNA5LE TO FORWARD
26 CRSFNMF 96 Be; '3835 7"32'-:3 :: S 5 :or 2 1. B 9: -3815 7 -2: 6 -3. 2
9 B 0 S 7 (n 2 3 2 'ill!\'\\" i I \ I '\lllll' il! Ii I" \' III, II 1\1 1, 11'1 1, 'II ii' IIII ,11,1
021M $ 00.452
Y OF )nE>
Charles Wilmann
907 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
3C:
:1 8 0 5 7 @.3 :2 3 Z
Sheng Wu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
0008005640 APR22 2016
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 9 80 5 7
"
:)3'0 DE 1. 0004/Z6/1.5
7:"ETIJRN TO S:NDER
!NS~FFICIENT ADDRESS
0NA3LE TO FORW'RO
9B057323255 -.126-0674L-23-01
i iii\! 'lIl!' '\'iilili I \1\" ,\, II", III \II lI.i, Iii,!! illl!' 'Ii' i"
~.7:. T\J R
,;T712: \1? T
'J N A3 L
, -.' MA'LEDFROMZIPCODE-9S0S;
8 r",,("
-: E 1;) .? G
a004/26/:l.S
55 "2189-08 -, •
• ' I j ,"'" _. 1:;,3-,;,6-37 '1""1'" ·'1,11' I' I" ' -"II,dl 1')11 Hi/Ill dll!I!!dHl
i
\
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
Privatt, Amanda <AmandaP@Seahawks.com>
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:36 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: FW: Quendall Terminals Info
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Hi Vanessa,
Flag for follow up
Flagged
As a follOW-Up to our conversation yesterday, would you mind updating your records to have Ed Goines listed as your
contact (you can remove Peter Fonfara)?
Here is Ed's contact information:\!' (t(,\,~tfl (ff 9 D(2..--·
Email: EdG@Seahawks.com
Phone: (425) 203-8001
Address:
ATTN: Ed Goines
Seattle Sea hawks
12 Sea hawks Way
Renton, WA 98056
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thank you!
Amanda Privati
Legal Coordinator and
ExecutivA Assistant
Seattle Seahawks
12 Seahawks Way
Renton, WA 98056
offk:e 425.203.8058
cell 360.710.0114
This communication is the property afthe Seattle Seahawks and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized
use a/this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments_
From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:46 PM
To: Privatt, Amanda <Amanda P@Seahawks.com>
Subject: Quendall Terminals Info
Amanda,
1
Per your request here is the link to the QuendaJ/ Terminals development staff report and other documents:
http://rentonwa.qov/business/defoult.aspx?id=32800
I you have any questions let me know.
'Vanessa 'lJo[[jee, Current Planning Manager
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
2
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
From: Webmaster
Sabrina Mirante
Thursday, April 21, 20164:31 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
FW: Content changes have been made
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Sabrina Mirante
Subject: Content changes have been made
LV,AO,"{-/5/
The changes to the content Quendall Terminals Land Use Application have been approved. The content changes
went live immediately.
1
Renton
You are here
~ Print Friendly Version
Quendall Terminals Land Use Application
This 25-acre portion of Port Quendall has historically been the most contaminated area due to the earlier
manufacturing of creosote and coal tar at the site. In 2006, the property was added as a "Superfund"
site by the Environmental Protection Agency and placed on the National Priorities Ust. As such, the EPA
is conducting studies to determine the extent of the pollution and the best course of action to clean the
site. The City looks fOrNard to the property being redeveloped for another use after the environmental
clean up is completed.
Project Number:
LUA09-ISI, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M
Description:
Application requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
and Environmental (SEPA) 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.
General Location:
43S0 Lake Washington Blvd N
Zone:
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
Required Reviews:
Environmental (SEPA) Review, EIS Review, Binding Site Plan Review, Shoreline Management Review,
Master Site Plan Review
Project Manager:
Vanessa Oolbee, tel: 425-430-7314, email: vdolbee@rentonwa.qov
Applicant/Project Contact Person:
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 1680, Seattle, WA, email:
cmathewson@centurvpacific.com
Date of Application:
November 18, 2009
http://rentonwa.govlbusiness/default.aspx?id=32800
Page 1 of2
4/22/2016
Renton
Notice of Complete Application:
February 5, 2010
Comments may be submitted through:
• Ap1i138, 2818 ([15 Seel"i!i~ EOllilliejlt'3)
• JaRl:JBI119, 2811 (8E15 .. li~~Ui CDiiii ile"b)
• JElRl".IBI, 25, 2811 EBEIS '" me" eOI "",ellts extel 'SiM)
• reb,ua" 9,2911 (eELS •• ,it:ee'1 eonj,jiEi,hI eX~I':3io")
• Plo;e,libel 19, 2812 (EIS AddEiiduiI, EOiilii,eilb)
Map:
The map below is for illustrative purposes only. In the event of omissions, errors or differences, the
documents in CEO's files will control. Click on map to be directed to the City's GIS Portal.
Ouendal1 Terminals Map
Decision(s):
• Environmental (SEPA) Determination Notice -February 2010
• Environmental (SEPAl Determination Notice -April 2010
• Draft Environmental Impact Statement -December 2010
• [IS Addendum -October 2012
• final [IS and Mitigation Document Notice -September 2015
• Final EIS -September 2015
• Mitigation Document -September 2015
• IIDE Aeeeel Boe~ll;el"\t Septel'l;bel 2815
• Report to the Hearing Examiner-April 2016
• Exhibits to the Hearing Examiner Report -April 2016
**This project has been tentatively rescheduled for a public hearing on May 31, 2016 at
10:00 am. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the CED-Planning
Division at (425) 430-6578, to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.
If you have questions about this proposal, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7314.
Hard copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Mitigation Document
are both available for purchase in the Finance Department on the 1st floor of Renton City
Hall, $35 for the FEIS, $7.50 for the Mitigation Document and $10 per CD plus tax and
postage (if mailed). Hard copies of the FEIS and Mitigation Document are also available for
viewing at the Renton Main Library, Renton Highlands Library and Renton City Hall
Customer Service Desk on the 6th floor.
http://rentonwa.goy/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Page 2 of 2
4/2212016
Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, \y'i\ 98057
April 15, 2016
Via Elllail (olbrechtslaw@grnail.cOlll)
Re: RequeJ/ to ReJchedllie [ fearing on .Quendall Termina/.r Master Pian Appikation Pa,k«~e;
Renton File # LUA09-151; EO';SA-M, SM, BSP
Dear Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
On behalf of the Applicant for the above-referenced applications, Quendall Terminals,
we request that the hearing on the applications for Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, and
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit be rescheduled to a date approximately four weeks
out. We have spoken with the City Attorney and he is amenable to this request, although he
has not had an opportunity to conftnn with the Planning Ditector.
When we received the Staff Report on Wednesday morning, April 13, the Applicant
was surprised to find that the 45 page Staff Report contained an additional 44 conditions, one
of which has 17 sub-points, and 67 pages of exhibits. This is in addition to the 91 conditions
in the l\1itigation Document, to which the Applicant has agreed. We were not provided a
review copy prior to publication of the Report, which is the City's prerogative. In this case,
however, the lack of notice to the Applicant of the extent of new conditions being proposed
works against an efficient proceeding. More importantly, with a consolidated report on three
applications and so many new conditions, the Applicant cannot meaningfully ascertain the
impact of the new conditions on the proposal in such a short time. This is especially important
when the Applicant must compare the new conditions with those in the Mitigation Document
to understand the impact of the two sets of conditions on the Project when layered together.
Some of the new conditions may restate things that have been agreed to in the
l\1itigation Document; some may be fme by the Applicant; but others may have a profound
impact on the layout, unit counts, lot coverage, and financial feasibility of the proposal. We
simply have not had sufficient time to evaluate the conditions. Because of the sheer volume of
new information contained in the Staff Report, and the subjective nature of many of the
decisional criteria, we respectfully ask that the Examiner postpone the heating to provide the
Applicant additional time to respond to the new conditions.
1221 Second Avenue. Suite 500 1 Seattle. WA 98101 1 206.623.1745 1 f: 206.623.77891 I -".
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 15, 2016
Page 2 of2
Because the Applicant bears the burden to show compliance by a preponderance of
the evidence, it would be prejudicial not to allow sufficient time for the Applicant to respond
to this significant new information. Further, it may be that we could work out solutions to
some or all objections the Applicant may have, if we have an opportunity to engage with City
staff on these conditions. We believe it would be inefficient and create confusion to begin the
hearing with the presentation of the Staff Report as is, and then continue it to enable the
Applicant a reasonable amount of time to address the Staff Report, especially if there may be
revisions that can be agreed to. For these reasons, we ask that the Hearing Examiner postpone
the hearing. If the Hearing Examiner could rule today, the City could provide advance notice
to parties of record via email regarding the rescheduling to min.im.ize any inconvenience to
those who might have planned to attend.
AMG:kah
E-Mail·ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Direct Dial-(206) 470-7638
Fax: (206) 623-7789
cc: Larry Warren
Vanessa Dolbec
Jason Seth
Campbell Mathewson
ND: 19958.002 4819-6409-8352v1
Very truly yours,
/.1 ,.
. i'
;
/1
J,_ '
, /,
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday, April 18, 2016 8:47 AM
Ann M. Gygi
Jason Seth; Larry Warren; Vanessa Dolbee; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com
Re: Quendall Terminals (#LUA09-1S1; ECF; SA-M, SM, BSP) Applicant's Request to
Postpone Hearing
Follow up
Completed
I was not able to rule within the 90 minutes given to me last Friday as I was speaking at a conference in Lacey
at the time. The Quendall Terminals hearing is postponed to a date that will be set tomorrow during the
scheduled hearing time at 10:00 am. It appears that date will likely be May 17.2016. In order to accommodate
persons who have taken time off from work and/or have assumed other burdens to appear at the hearing on
Tuesday. members of the public will be allowed to testify tomorrow in lieu of testifying at the rescheduled
hearing date. Members of the public who choose to testify tomorrow will not be allowed to testify again at the
rescheduled date.
On Fri. Apr 15,2016 at 3:37 PM, Ann M. Gygi <ann.gygi@hcmp.com>wrote:
Dear Examiner 0lbrechts: Please see the attached request from the Applicant, Quendall Terminals, to postpone
the hearing on Quendall Terminals Master Plan application package, referenced above. We would be happy to
conference with the City and Examiner this afternoon or Monday if that would help to address any procedural
considerations.
Sincerely,
Ann Gygi
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
1221 Second Avenue I Suite 500 I Seattle, WA 98101
d: 206.470 7638 I 206.623.1745 I f: 206.623.7789
1
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Ann M. Gygi <ann.gygi@hcmp.com>
Friday, April 15, 2016 3:37 PM
olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
Jason Seth; Larry Warren; Vanessa Dolbee; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com
Quendall Terminals (#LUA09-151; ECF; SA-M, SM, BSP) Applicant's Request to Postpone
Hearing
20160415153542582.pdf
Follow up
Completed
Dear Examiner Olbrechts: Please see the attached request from the Applicant, Quendall Terminals, to postpone the
hearing on Quendall Terminals Master Plan application package, referenced above. We would be happy to conference
with the City and Examiner this afternoon or Monday if that would help to address any procedural considerations.
Sincerely,
Ann Gygi
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
1221 Second Avenue I Suite 500 I Seattle. WA 98101
d: 206.470.7638 1206.623.1745 If: 206.623.7789
ann.gygi@hcmp.com I www.!1cmp.comlvCard
1
LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET
Quendall Terminals/ LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
. NAME(\
y, 'OA ,t!j)](P»I, J .-
,J
f-
'-"!lER/2y (l L //l/e
KrO"-l
,
SRA-z&
~
April 19, 2016, 10:00 AM
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS Phone # with area code
(including City & Zip) (optional)
A )
-'-' 5 30(:. Jld<. tU~ ~ £0 f;z. s-
¥( J S;s--5Sif3
f{ e«J!Ji eviL Y cfL9 S 16
,/;;) (, 7 {Y/LL / #/Jt ~ /l t/ /Y ~A".7 ?-Y Yclc"? 7/ ·£'8'8% . /
IO{1 Fl, 4')"<{ If.., ~C7YVfOtV (?J~os~ 4)')· y.tj5'-i7 73.
Email
(optional)
..J-~ r/e~c/~ ~ cP
.~ (p/ :!kf~,
.d5C~(2~c£//'=r
('b('a7<y<i),-~ (X""t..r J
<.J
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
HEARING DATE: April 19, 2016
Project Name: Quendall Terminals
Owner: Altino Properties, Inc. and J. H. Baxter & Co., 800 S. Third Street, Renton WA, 98057
Applicant/Contact: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle, WA
98101
File Number: LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
Project Monager: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and Environmental (SEPA) Review for a mixed-use development.
The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located
within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.24-acre site would be divided into 7 lots
of which 4 would contain multi-story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the development
would consist of 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95
units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The
applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.70 acres for public right-of-way and 0.65 acres of
private streets, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and
structured parking would be provided for 1,366 vehicles. The site contains sensitive
slopes, seismic hazards, 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 and associated wetland and shoreline restoration as approved by
the EPA. The subject land use applications are assuming a clean site following an
approved and implemented Record of Decision from the EPA.
Project Location: SW X Section 29, Township 24 N, Range 5 E. Parcel 2924059002. South of the Sea hawks
VMAC Training Facility
Site Area: 21.24 acreas (upland)
Project Location Map
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
~ B, EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Staff report to the Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 2 of 45
Exhibit 2: Environmental Review Documents -Draft EIS, Addendum to the Draft EIS, FEIS and
Mitigation Document: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Environmental Review Committee Signature Sheets
Neighborhood Detail Map
Binding Site Plan
Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal and e-mail chains following
request.
Exhibit 7: Site Plan (black and white and color)
Exhibit 8: Parking Plan (black and white and color)
Exhibit 9: Area Outline of Spaces
Exhibit 10: Elevations
Exhibit 11: Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit 12 Conceptual Storm Drainage and Grading Plan
Exhibit 13 Roadway Sections
Exhibit 14 Conceptual Utility Plan
Exhibit 15: EA Letter addressing EPA and public involvement in the process
Exhibit 16: Advisory Notes/Plan Review Comments
Exhibit 17: Concurrence Memo
Exhibit 18: Additional Lanes Required
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
II C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner(s) of Record:
2. 20ning Classification:
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation:
4. Existing Site Use:
5. Critical Areas:
6. Neighborhood Characteristics (2016):
Page 3 of 45
Altino Properties, Inc. and J. H. Baxter & Co.
800 S. Third Street
Renton WA, 98057
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
Vacant -Superfund Site
Sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, wetlands, and
Lake Washington
a. North: Sea hawks Training Facility, COR
b. East:
c. South:
d. West:
6. Site Area:
King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) ROW, 1-405,
undeveloped COR zoned property
Barbee Mill Development, R-l0 zone (in 2009 zoned COR)
Lake Washington
21.24 acreas (upland)
i D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action
Comprehensive Plan (vested)
Zoning (vested)
Annexation
I E. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Existing Utilities
Land Use File No.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ordinance No.
5099
5099
1791
Date
11/01/2004
11/01/2004
09/09/1995
a. Water: Water service will 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 an 10 inch water main extending into
the Quendall Terminals site.
b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is a 12 inch sewer main extending
near the east property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel. The Baxter Lift Station is also located
in the north east corner of the site, within an existing Sanitary Sewer Easement, Rec. No.
2008090200178.
c. Surface/Storm Water: There is an existing 12 inch diameter stormwater line on N 420d Place that
ends near the west property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel.
2. Streets: New streets would be required to be developed to serve the proposed development. Access to
these roads would be from N 420d Place and Ripley Lane (Sea hawks Way).
3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report 01 Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Page 4 0145
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (VESTED FEB. 5, 2010):
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table
c. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations
a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations
b. Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations
3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards
4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations
a. Section 4-7-230: Binding Site Plans
6. Chapter 9 Permits-Specific
a. Section 4-9-190: Shoreline Permits
b. Section 4-9-200: Site Development Plan Review
7. Chapter 11 Definitions
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHEN51VE PLAN {VE5TED}:
1. Community Design Element
2. Economic Development Element
3. Housing Element
4. Land Use Element
5. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
and Trails Element
i H. FINDINGS OF FACT {FDF}:
1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on
November 18, 2009 and determined the application complete on February 10, 2010. The project was
subject to an Envirmentallmpact Statement (EIS) therefore, per RMC 4-8-050B.6., the project is exempt
from the 120 day review process.
2. The November 2009 application did not include a request for a Binding Site Plan. The Binding Site Plan
request was included in the February 2010 resubmitall. Binding Site Plan applications allow for vesting
persutant to the Washington State Vested Rights Doctrine. Therefore the subject project vested to the
regulations in place in 2010 when the Binding Site Plan application was submitted and the project was
determined complete. The project has vested up to ORD 5520. All code sections referenced in this staff
report are reflective of the vesting date, February 10, 2010.
HEX RfPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 5 of 45
3. The project site is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington, north of the Barbee Mill
Development and south of the Seahawks (VMAC) Training Facility, parcel number 2924059002. Access is
from 1-405 Exit 7.
4. The site includes 20.04 acres on the Main Property, which fronts along Lake Washington, and
approximately 1.20 acres on the Isolated Property located across Sea hawk's Way to the northeast.
5. The Preferred Alternative re-submitted to the City on January 13, 2016 consists of 692 residential units
(resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square
feet of restaurant spread across four lots (2 -5). All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 - 5
stories over one parking/commercial level. The table below provides a breakdown of what is proposed
on each lot (see site plan, Exhibit 7, for more details):
lot Proposal ....
Lot 1 100 foot shoreline buffer area abutting Lot 2.
First Floor: 5,425 SF Retail, 4,500 SF Restaurant, 95 car parking garage, and 38 stall
Lot 2 (NW)
surface parking lot.
On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (NW 1 and NW
2). NW 1 is 5 floors with 71 units. NW 2 is 4 floors with 56 units.
First Floor: 4,700 SF Retail and 206 car parking garage.
Lot 3 (NE) On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (NE 1 and NE 2).
NE 1 is 5 floors with 82 units. NE 2 is 4 floors with 72 units.
First Floor: 4,700 SF Retail, 318 car parking garage, and 42 stall surface parking lot.
Lot 4 (SE) On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (SE 1 and SE 2)
and a 130 car parking deck. SE 1 is 5 floors with 82 units. SE 2 is 4 floors with 72 units.
First Floor: 5,400 SF of Retail, 4,500 SF Restaurant, 347 car parking garage, and 151 stall
surface parking lot.
Lot 5 (SW) On top of the first floor platform four residential towers are proposed (SW 1, SW 2, SW
3, and SW 4). SW 1 is 5 floors with 71 units. SW 2 is 5 floors with 80 units. SW 3 is 4
floors with 64 units. SW 4 is 3 floors with 42 units.
Lot 6 100 foot shoreline buffer area abutting Lot 5.
lot 7 Isolated Parcel. Identified as the Middle Parcel on the binding site plan.
6. 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 u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
7. The site received a Superfund designation from the EPA. 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).
8. The EPA's CERCLA process is a separate process then the City's land use review. The project manager at
the EPA for the site is Clair Hong, hong.clair@epa.gov.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 6 of 45
9. 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).
10. In short the CERCLA remedy is assumed 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.
11. Access to the site would be provided via to primary access points. The first would be an extension of N
42" Place to Street A. The second would be a new crOSSing over the existing rail bed from Ripley lane
(Sea hawks Way) to Street E. The overall development would gain access by the construction of three
new east west roadways and two new north south road ways, identified as Road A-E. The applicant
has proposed to dedicate Road A, B, and C and Roads D and E would be private driveways.
12. The property is located within the Commercial Office Residential (COR) Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and zoning classification.
13. The site is located within Design District C.
14. The site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical Areas Map.
Due to the baseline assumptions described above under FOF 6-10 it is assumed the only remaining
critical area would be seismic hazards following cleanup and wetland and shoreline restoration would
be located in the 100 foot shoreline setback.
15. The site is located within Shoreline Jurisdiction, Urban Shoreline designation.
16. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 -133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site.
17. The applicant is proposing to begin construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
identifing a remedy for clean up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.
18. A total of 75 comment leters from both the public and agenecies were received during the comment
period on the DEIS, and 8 people commented at the DEIS public hearing held on January 4, 2011. A
total of 12 letters were received during the comment period on the EIS Addendum. Please see Exhibit
2, FEIS, Chapter 3 for comment letters and responses.
19. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended),
on February 19, 2010 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance (DS)
for the Quendall Terminals Project, which initiated the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process.
The following table provides a time line related to the EIS process for the project:
Date , EIS Action, see Exhibits 2, 3, and 15. '.
.
2/19/10 -EIS Public Sea ping Period, 70 days (extended) 4/30/10
4/27/10 Public Scoping Meeting
12/10/2010 DE IS Issuance
12/10/10 -DE IS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended) 2/09/11
1/04/11 DEIS Public Hearing
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
• City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 7 of 45
10/19/12 EIS Addendum Issuance
10/19/12 -EIS Addendum Public Comment Period 11/19/12
8/31/15 FEIS Issuance
8/31/15 -EIS Public Appeal Period 9/24/15
9/24/15 Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back
2/18/16
Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the
Appellant and Applicant
2/22/16
Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner.
Appeal Dismissed.
20. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERe) issued a Mitigation Document on August 31, 2016 which includes 91 mitigation measures for the
project, Exhibit 2, Mitigation Document. The mitigation measures address impacts to Earth, Critical
Areas, Environmental Heath, Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land and Shoreline Use,
Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Cultural Resources, and Construction Impacts.
21. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file,
and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report
and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report, also see Exhibit 16.
22. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the
City's Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of the COR designation is to provide opportunities for
large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multifamily projects developed through a master plan and
site plan process incorporating significant site amenities and/or gateway features. COR sites are
typically transitions from an industrial use to a more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment
opportunities on Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River. The proposal is compliant with the COR land
use designation and the Community Design Element, Economic Development Element, Environmental
Element, Housing Element, Land Use Element, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space and Trails Element if
;ill conditions of approval are met. See analysis, Exhibit 2, DEIS Page 3.6-1-3.6-13.
23. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The site is classified Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
on the City's Zoning Map. Development in the COR Zone intended to provide for a mix of intensive
office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development
that is integrated with the natural environment. Commercial retail and service uses that are
architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high
economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone.
The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be
designed accordingly. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all
conditions of approval are met:
Compliance COR Zone Develop Standards and Analysis
Compliant if Density: The allowed density range in the COR zone is a minimum of 30 to a maximum
condition of of 50 dwelling units per net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of
approval are sensitive areas, areas intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements.
met
In the COR zone, the same area used for commercial and office development can also
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City oj Renton Department oj Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 8 of 45
be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are
utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to
ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in
another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance.
Staff Comment: Based on the provided site plan 4.35 acres would be located in rights-
of-way or private access easements. At this time, the EPA has not issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) for the remediation project or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD)
settlement. As such the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or
expanded wetlands has nat been determined. Once the EPA has issued a ROD and the
extent of the wetland has been determined, the area included in sensitive areas could
be calculated. Until which time this number is identified the City is unable to
determine compliance with density for the project site. However, based on gross land
area and 4.35 acres in rights-of-way or access easements the current density would be
calculated tt 40.95 dulac which is below the maximum of 50 dulac.
To ensure that the overall site is compliant with the maximum density, staJ!
recommeni!!s as a condition of approval that upon the EPA ROD and NRD settlement, a
density worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager
identifying I compliance with net density for the overoll site. Once compliance is
identified, he maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding
site plan t allow the maximum permitted density to be shored among the entire
property.
,r Lot Dimen ions: There is no minimum lots size, width or depth in the COR zone.
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
Setbacks: Setback are determined through site plan review in the COR zone.
Stoff Comment: See the Mitigation Document for setbacks established as mitigation
for the subject project. The setbacks identified in the EIS Addendum and Mitigation
Document shall be the minimum setback applied to the project, which are as follows:
100 foot setback from the OHWM of Lake Washington -Mitigation Measure B6
40 feet from the site's south boundary (adjacent to Barbee Mill) -Mitigation Measure
El
38 teet trom the site's north boundary (adjacent to the Seahawk's Training Facility) -
Mitigation Measure E1
70 teet trom the east boundary as shown on the Preferred Alternative, Site Plan,
Exhibit 7.
All setbacks should be measured from the underlying parcel boundaries and the
OHWM and not from the edge of the proposed lots in the binding site plan. There are
no setbacks required from the edges of the individual lots created as a part of the
binding site plan except as noted above.
Building Standards: The COR zone has a maximum building coverage of 65% of total
lot area or 75% if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage.
The maximum building height is 10 stories and/or 125 ft., unless when a building is
abutting a lot designated as residential.
Staff Comment: Lots 2, 4, and 5 are proposed to contain some sUrface parking stalls
therefore the building coveroge maximum for these lots would be 65%. Specific
calculations per lot would be identified at Site Specific Site Plan Review. Based on the
calculations provided on the site plan, Exhibit 7, the total impervious area would be
City oj Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 9 of 45
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Pion
Review
Compliance
to be
determined
ot Site Pion
Review
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
665,548 SF (15.27 acres) which equates to approximately 72% of the site and the total
overall building coverage would be 392,976 SF (9.02 acres) or 42.47% building
coverage for the overall project, which would be compliant with building coverage
maximums. Based on the proposed Preferred Alternative, it appears Lot 3 may exceed
the maximum building coverage per code, as currently designed. However, based on
the overall building coverage standards above, if Lot 3 is developed in combination
with another lot the two lot coverages could be combined to identify compliance with
the overall site coverage. To ensure compliance with building coverage standards staff
recommends as a condition of approval that all lots shall meet maximum building lot
coverage either individually or combined through site plan review.
Building Height was reviewed through the EIS process and the building height shall
comply with Mitigation Measure E4, F9, and F11 also as shown on Exhibit 7.
Upper Story Setbacks: Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50')
in height shall include upper story setbacks as follows: The minimum setback for a
fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (10') minimum from the preceding
story, applicable to each story.
Staff Comment: A number of proposed residential towers would exceed 50 feet in
height and would be required to comply with the upper story setback standards.
Based on the conceptual elevations, Exhibit 10, it appears the upper stories may not
comply with the minimum setback standard. Each individual building would be
reviewed for compliance upon lot specific site plan review.
Roofline and Fa~ade Modulation: Buildings shall provide vertical and horizontal
modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a
minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds
interest and quality to the project.
Staff Comment: Based on the conceptual elevations, Exhibit 10, it appears the building
designs begin provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades
however compliance with the minimum standards cannot be determined at master
site plan review. Each individual building would be reviewed for compliance with the
above standards and Mitigation Measures E3, F1, and F15 upon lot specific site plan
review.
Landscaping: Onsite landscaping required along street frontages is determined
through site plan review.
Staff Comment: As discussed in the mitigation document, Mitigation Measure £1, 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 conceptuallandscope 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 Develapment). A 10 foot wide
landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5 faot wide landscape buffer is
proposed east of Road C along the north property line (Seahawk's Troining Camp). The
proposed preferred alternative would be compliant with Mitigation Measures E1, E2,
and F5. Staff recommends as a condition of approval 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,
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 10 0145
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review or as
conditioned
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
B, and C. All street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and
the tree grates are required ta be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan daes
not comply with the minimum caliper inches and/or tree grates sizes as such staff
recommends as a condition of approval 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 af 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 nat 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.
Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations
require the retention of 5 percent of trees in a commercial zone.
Staff Camment: As explained above in FOF 9 and 10, the site conditions are assumed
post site remediation. As such, it is assumed that no trees would remain on the site
following remediation, therefore zera trees are located on the project site. The
pravided landscape plan identifies new trees would be planted throughout the site,
therefore the project is compliant with the minimum tree retention standards.
Parking: The following parking ratios apply to the proposed development:
Attached dwellings: A minimum of 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger unit, 1.6 per 2
bedroom unit, and 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio unit.
Eating and Drinking Establishments: A minimum of 1 per 100 SF 01 net floor area
Retail Sales: A maximum of 0.4 per 100 SF of net floor area
Staff Comment: The overoll project includes 692 residential units, however the
application did not identify if these units were studio, 1, 2, or 3 bedroom units. As such
the minimum parking standard could not specifically be calculated. Hawever,
assuming a minimum requirement of 1.8 per unit a total of 1,246 stalls may be
required for the proposed residential.
For bath the restaurant and retail areas net square footage was not provided
therefore specific minimum and maximum parking standards could not be calculated.
However, based on gross SF a minimum of 90 stalls would be required for the 9,000 SF
of restaurant and a maximum of 80 stalls would be required for the 20,025 SF of retail
component. Tagether all three uses could require up to 1,416 parking stalls.
Based on the provided parking plan, Exhibit 8, a total of 1,366 parking stalls are
proposed across the site, in both structured parking garages and sUrface parking lots.
Overall, the site appears to have capacity to meet minimum and/or maximum parking
standards per code. Mitigation Measure H6, requires compliance with minimum off
street parking standards of the RMC. Compliance with the minimum standards,
Mitigation Measure H6, minimum stall and aisle dimensions, ADA standards, and
parking lot landscaping standards wauld be reviewed in detail at site plan review.
As noted in Mitigation Measure F12, the required amount of parking may be reduced,
relocated and/or redesigned thraugh transportation demand management (TOM) or
other means to allow for an enhanced aesthetic character at the ground level and
pedestrian experience. In addition Mitigation Measure H7 requires the implementation
of TOM and shared parking agreements between uses to reduce parking demand
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 11 of 45
Compliance
to be
determined
ot Site PIon
Review
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review
during peak period. A TOM program and/or a shared parking agreement was not
included with the master site plan application materials. As such, staff recommends as
a mitigation measure that a TDM program and draft shared parking agreement
become a submittal requirement of site specific site plan review, identifying
compliance with Mitigation Measures H7 and F12.
On street parking is included in the proposed overall project design on Streets A, Band
C. The on street parking shall be maintained as public parking and not allocated to a
specific use within the proposed development. In addition, Mitigation Measure G4,
requires public parking be provided for the public trail to be locoted along the
shoreline. This parking shall be located in the same general area as the
retail/restaurant parking and the applicant is required to specifically identify the
parking' prior to site plan approval. The provided parking plan does not specifically
identify the public parking therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval that
a parking plan 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.
Screening: Surface Mounted Equipment, Roof-top Equipment, and outdoor storage,
loading, repair, maintenance and work areas shall be screened pursuant to RMC 4-4-
095.
Staff Comment: Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot
specific site plan review.
Refuse and Recycling: Multi-family developments require a minimum of 1.5 SF per
dwelling unit in multi-family residences shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas
and a minimum of 3 SF per dwelling unit shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A
total minimum area of 80 SF shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit
areas.
Retail development require a minimum of 5 SF per every 1,000 SF of building gross
floor area for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of 10 SF per 1,000 SF of
building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum
area of one hundred square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit
areas.
Staff Comment: Based on 692 residential units 1,038 SF of recyclables deposit areas
and 2,076 SF of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project. Based on
a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restauront and 20,025 SF of retail a combined total of
145.13 SF for recyclobles deposit areas and 290.25 Sf of refuse deposit areas shall be
provided for the overall project. The application materials did not identify an area for
refuses and recycling on the project site. Detailed compliance with these standards
would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review.
24. Design District Review: The project site is located within Design District 'C'. The following table
contains project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District 'C' Standards
and Guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E. It should be noted that a large number of the design
standards will be deferred to lot specific site plan review as they do not apply at the Master Site Plan
stage. Those standards that apply have been incorporated below, otherwise a note is provided
indicated the standards of a particular subsection will be deferred to site plan review. However, even if
a specific design standard in reviewed at Master Site Plan review stage the same standard shall be
reviewed again for compliance with the Master Site Plan at lot specific site plan review.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 12 of45
Compliance Design District Guideline and Standard Analvsis ..
1. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the
Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity.
a. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts;
plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at
high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe convenient network of streets
of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation and provide service to businesses.
Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local street in addition to public
arterials.
Staff Comment: The proposed master site plan identifies Roads A -E in a gridded
network. Road A connects to N 42"d Place that connects with Lake Washington Blvd.
and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to connect to the overall City street grid.
Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the
roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special
design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation
function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as principal arterial on the City's Arterial
Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a
concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic,
narrow travel lanes, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local road (public or private)
Staff Comment: The provided master site plan has three "pedestrian oriented streets"
Streets A, B, and C. Roods D and E would be classified as internal or local roods, private.
Based on the proposed hierarchy of streets that provide organized circulation the
project is compliant with the standards. However, to ensure that at individual site plan
review each building is designed in accordance with the standards applied to each
street, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the street classification is
noted on the binding site plan.
b. Building Location and Orientation: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to
other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking
areas, and other land uses; and increase privacy for residential uses.
Compliance
to be
determined
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
Standard: Buildings shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses, feature "pedestrian-
oriented facades," and have clear connections to the sidewalk, if located on pedestrian
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINAl.S
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 13 of 45
at Site Plan oriented streets.
Review
Staff Comment: A building facades praposed along Streets A, B, and C shall have
pedestrian-oriented facades. Based on the conceptual elevations provided some
buildings would begin to comply with the above standard. However, it should be noted
that a significant length of Rood A and C features parking structures and do not feature
pedestrian oriented uses such as retail. Stoff encourages the addition of pedestrian
oriented uses at the ground level to be added at site plan review to increase
compliance with the above intent, guideline and standards, it should also be noted that
the analysis completed in the EIS would allow for the addition of commercial uses at
the ground floor.
Standard: Buildings that do not have a pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have
Campliance landscaping between the Sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten
to be feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk.
determined Staff Comment: As noted above a significant portion of the ground floor of all the
at Site Plan proposed buildings would be structure parking garages and would not feature
Review pedestrian-oriented uses. As such, these portions shall be screened with a minimum of
10 feet of landscaping measured from the back of the sidewalk to the building facade.
c. Building Entries: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building
entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
d. Service Element Location and Design: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (I.e., waste receptacles, loading
docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening
them from view in high visibility areas.
e. Gateways:
Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, special design
features and architectural elements at gateways should be provided. While gateways should be
distinctive within the context of the district, they should also be compatible with the district in form
and scale.
Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually
prominent features.
Staff Comment: The Quendali Terminals site is located at the Gateway to not only the
Kennydale Neighborhood from 1-405 but is also is Gateway to the entire City of Renton
Compliant from the north. Mitigation measure F14 requires that design features such as public
i/ condition art, special landscape treatment, additional open space/plaza, landmark building form,
0/ etc. be provided to further enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site. The re-
approval is submitted Preferred Alternative did not provide any additional gateway feature as
met required in mitigation measure F14 nor does the resubmittal comply with the subject
design standards. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a
"gateway feature" package 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.
Compliant Standard Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians if condition
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 14 of 45
0/ and vehicles.
appraval is
Statt. Camment: See comments above. met
Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following:
1) Public art
2) Monuments;
Compliant 3) Special landscape treatment;
if condition 4) Open space/plaza;
of
approvalls 5) Identifying building form;
met 6) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards;
7) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo);
8) Neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs do not qualify).
Statt. Camment: See comments above.
2. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate
various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and
other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in
reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining
contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades;
minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban
edge to the district.
a. Surface Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in
back of buildings.
Standard: Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building and may not occur
between the building and the street. However, if due to the constraints of the site,
parking cannot be provided at the side or rear of the building, the Administrator may
allow parking to occur between the building and the street. If parking is allowed to
occur between the building and the street, no more than sixty feet (60') of the street
frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and
.; vehicular access .
Statt. Comment: Parking is nat provided between the buildings and the designated
Pedestrian Oriented Streets, A, B, and C. Parking is provided between the buildings and
private street D and E. The design of individual sUrface parking lots would be reviewed
at the time of each lot specific site plan review and landscaping and screening will be
required to be incorporated into the site specific design review. The location of the
surface parking lots meets the intent of the standards.
Standard: On Designated Pedestrian Oriented Streets on-street parallel parking shall be
.; required on both sides of the street .
Statt. Comment: Parallel parking is provided an Roads A, B, and C. See further discussion
below under FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review.
Meets Standard: Surface parking lots shall be designed to facilitate future structured parking
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 15 of 45
exception and/or other infill development. For example, provision of a parking lot with a minimum
dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200') and one thousand five hundred feet
(1,500') maximum perimeter area. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in
the original parcel.
Staff Comment: The master site plan identifies surface parking lots that do not meet the
standard dimension above to demonstrate future structured porking. However, the
subject parcel is constrained by both Lake Washington shoreline setbock of 100 feet ond
an odd shape along the south praperty line. Furthermore, the sUrface parking lots are
located along the north and south property lines to address public comment and
concern related to bulk and scale, access to views, and access to light and air as
evaluated in the EIS, Exhibit 2. As such, the proposed sUrface parking meets the
exception standards for inherent constraints of the site.
b_ Structured Parking Garages: With the exception of the stondard noted below, compliance to be
determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of
structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the
overall impact of parking garages.
Intent of
the
standard is
met with
conditions
of
approval
Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets
(a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along
street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building
frontage Width.
(b) The entire fa~ade must feature a pedestrian-oriented fa~ade.
Stoff Comment: Streets A, B, ond C should be considered pedestrian ariented streets as
noted above. However, special circumstance apply to the subject site that limit the
developments ability to provide below grade parking, particularly environmental heath
concerns related to the sites soil contamination (more information can be found in
Exhibit 2, DEIS). Due to these special circumstances the proposed master site plan with
commercial uses located primarily along Road B would be compliant with the intent of
the design standard if sufficient landscape screening is provided between the structured
parking and the pedestrian oriented street. Ten feet of screening landscaping is required
along high visibility streets, using a similar standard 10 feet should be provided to screen
the above ground parking garages. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that
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.
c. Vehicular Access:
Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or
eliminating vehicular access off streets.
Intent of
the
standard ;s
met with
conditions
of
approval
Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings.
Staff Comment: The site plan is designed to provide access to the parking garages from
Road C at six locations, access to the two parking decks are proposed from Road A at
two locations and access to the sUrface parking lots can be gained from both the private
streets 0 and E or Road C. Each additional curb cut interrupts the sidewalk minimizing
consolidated safe pedestrian walkways. Based on the site constraints, i.e. bordered on
one side by Lake Washington and the other by an old rail corridor some curb cuts can be
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report 01 Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 16 0145
Compliant
if condition
of
approval is
met
expected along Roads A and C; no curb cuts should be permitted along Road B.
Furthermore, the parking decks are accessed separately then the ground level parking
garages, the parking decks could be accessed internally from the ground level parking
garages ta consolidate access points. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that
curb cuts be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted pedestrian
mobility along Raad A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. If the
project complies with the condition af approval the intent of the guideline has been met.
Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points shall be
restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured
horizontally along the street.
Staff Comment: Based on the provided site plan, parking lot entrances are closer than
500 linear feet. As such, these entrances spaces shall be reduced to meet the standard.
Staff recommends as a condition of approval that vehicular access points be restricted
to one entrance and exit per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street.
3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village
by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building
entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant
to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and
promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular
traffic.
a. Pedestrian Circulation and pathways to parking lots:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and
enhance the pedestrian environment and provide safe pedestrian connections to buildings, parking
garages, and parking lots.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
Standard: A pedestrian Circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and
connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and
abutting properties shall be provided.
(a) Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety.
(b) Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the
applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the
development.
Staff Comment: The provided site plan includes a number of pedestrian connection via
sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian troil along the shoreline. However,
based on the provided site plan some key connections are missing. For example the
sidewalk along the west edge af Raad C does not continue along the private street E
either north or south. To the west is the troil connection and to the east is the access
point to Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Again you see the same missing connection
along the south edge along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the
residential court yards show stairways alang 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 staff recommends as a condition of approval that an updated
site plan is provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system for
City of Renton Department of Community & Ecanomic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 17 of 45
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.
Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by
Compliance material or texture (Le., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting
to be paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be
determined perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty
at Site Plan feet (150') apart.
Review
Staft. Comment: To be reviewed for compliance at lot specific site plan review.
Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100
or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide Sidewalks at least
12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed
Compliant if walking surface.
condition of (b) Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a
approval is hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no
met smaller than five feet (5') and no greater than twelve feet (12').
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate the anticipated number of users.
Staft. Comment: Pursuant to mitigation measure G6, 15 foot wide sidewalks shall be
provided along Street B. All other sidewalks shall meet the minimum standards as
identified in the Transportation Section, FOF 26 and Exhibit 16.
Standard: Mid-block connections between buildings shall be provided.
Compliant if Staft. Comment: The provided site plan identifies 11 crossings along Road C, 3 along
condition of Road B, and 4 to the center of each round about. However, no crosswalks are provided
approval is across Road A to access Lake Washington Blvd. or Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way).
met Crosswalks shalf be included in the pedestrian circulation plan as conditioned above to
evaluate pedestrian safety and vehicular mobility.
b. Pedestrian Amenities: Compliance to be reviewed at lot specific site plan review.
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting
and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of
activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
4. LANDSCAPING, RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area b the
community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by reSidents, workers, and
visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide
the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such
activity.
a. Landscaping: With the exception of the standard noted below, compliance to be determined at
Site Plan Review.
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture of concept of an area; provide visual
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDAU TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 18 of 45
and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the
community.
Complionr If
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: On Pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree
grates.
Standard: Underground, automatic irritation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted with the conceptual landscape
plan. An irrigation plan shall be provided for all common landscaping along with the
detailed landscape plan for common landscaping, as detailed above in FOF 23,
Landscaping. All individual lot landscape plans and associated irrigation plans will be
reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
b_ Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
Intent: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents,
workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in
convenient locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to
promote pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners.
Compliant if
condition oj
approval is
mer
HEX REPORT 09-151. docx
Standard: All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or
more dwelling units shall provide common opens space and/or recreation areas equal
to fifty (50) SF per unit. The area shall be aggregated and usable for residents, subject
to the approval of the Director. One or more of the following shall be include when a
part of a development of more than 100 units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above
the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are
provided as an asset to the development.
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public
street system;
(d) Recreation facilities including but not limited to tennis/sports courts, swimming
pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
(e) Children's play areas.
The following shall not be considered common open space:
(a) Required landscaping, driveways, parking or vehicular use areas;
(b) Yard setback areas
(c) Private decks, baiconies, and ground floor open space/recreation area
requirements
(d) Landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as
pedestrian trails.
Staff Comment: Based on the campleted mitigation document, mitigation measure G12
requires landscaped plaza areas an top of the parking garages. The provided
landscape plan, identifies compliance with mitigation measure G12, and provides 2.7
acres of plaza space. Based on the provided the site plan and landscape plan (Exhibit 7
and 11) the plaza spaces provide a generic passive recreation plaza space which only
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 19 of 45
contoins landscaping. These plaza areas could provide other omenities to the
residences such as children's play areas, swimming pools, bocce boll courts, eating
areas, water features, or other amenities. To ensure these spoces meet the intent of
the design district 0 detoiled design of these areas shall be submitted 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.
Mitigation Measure G8 requires 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor areas for active
recreating, such as Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, exercise rooms, or active
recreation areos in the courtyards. Active recreation areas were not identified in the
re-submitted application materials to identify compliance with mitigation measure G8.
As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that either the site plan is
updated to identify 1.8 acres of active recreation area or a plan is provided to identify
which portion of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot prior to lot specijic site
plan review.
5. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building deSign that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human
scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To
discourage franchise retail architecture.
a. Building Character and Massing: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure
that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
b. Ground-Level Details: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale
character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or
distant public view have visual interest.
c. Building Roof Lines: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban
project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
d. Building Materials: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use
of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that
add visual interest to the neighborhood.
5. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance;
encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality
signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create
color and interest.
Staff Comment: A signage package was not included with the opplication materials. The signage of
the overall development should be coordinated with the building design and should conSider both the
residential development and the retail and restaurant business that are proposed to be located
throughout the site. To ensure that oil uses receive equal signage opportunities stoff recommends as
a condition of approval that an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and
HEX REPORT 09-151.dacx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 20 0145
appraval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the
site.
Compliant
if condition Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
of
approval Is Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
met
Compliant
if conditIon Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
of
approval is Staff Comment: See camments above under 5. Signage.
met
Compliant
Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the if condition
of overall building design.
approval is Stott. Comment: See comments above under 5. Sign age.
met
Compliant Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary
if condition entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (5') above finished grade, including support
of structure.
approval is
met Stott. Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
Compliant Standard: Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or
If condition shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately,
of signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the
approval is Director.
met Statt. Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
Standard: All of the following are prohibited:
a. Pole signs;
Compliant b. Roof signs; and i/ condition
of c. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated
approval ;s cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are
met permitted as area signs with only the individual letters back-lit (see illustration,
subsection G8 of this Section).
Statt. Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
6. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as
plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase
the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Stott. Comment: 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
measure F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures 811 and Fl to
ensure adverse lighting effect on wetland, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
down lighting and shielding among other techniques.
However, common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 21 of 45
roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other
common areas, as required by mitigation measures 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
cauld not verify campliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or compliance with the design
standards. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a site lighting plan be provided
identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the
common areas for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, the Public Works
Department, and Cammunity Services.
Compliant Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building
if condition entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting
of and decorative street lighting.
approval is
met Statt.. Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting.
Compliant Standard: Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces)
if condition and/or to illuminate other key elements ofthe site such as gateways, specimen trees,
of other significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork.
approval is
met Statt.. Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting.
Standard: Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and
Compliant vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved
if condition administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-
of 075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site (Le., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or
approval is decorative lighting, right-of-way-lighting, etc.). met
Stott.. Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting.
25. Critical Areas:
a. Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas
Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). As noted above in FOF 9 and 10 an assumed baseline condition has
been established for the Quendall Terminals development, see DE IS pages 3.2-2 for details on
wetland baseline conditions. The outcome of the EPA's ROD and NRD Settlement would
specifically identify the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded
wetlands and critical areas on the project site. It is assumed at this phase of the development
that the proposed project would not result in impacts to the recreated wetlands and/or their
buffers, see Mitigation Measure B4. Once the ROD and NRD Settlement has been established
and recreated wetlands and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas
should 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 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 (Le. 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 ensure 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.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 22 of 45
b. As noted in Mitigation Measure C10, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is
assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, the 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, staff recommends a condition of approval that 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 ROD and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA.
c. The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions of approval are
complied with.
26. Master Site Plan Review: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.6, Master Site Plan Review is required for
development in the COR zoning classification when a project is not exempt from Environmental (SEPA)
Review. For Master Plan applications compliance with the review criteria for Master Site Plans are
analyzed at a general level of detail to ensure nothing would preclude the development of the Site Plan.
Given Site Plan applications are evaluated for compliance with the specific requirements of the RMC 4-
9-200.E.3 the following table contains project elements intended to comply with level of detail needed
for a Master Site Plan request:
Compliance SltePlari Criteria anclAnalysis , ,; "':' ;;;", ; ',,/ ,'; "
Compliant i/ a. Comprehensive Plan Compliance and consistency.
Conditions
a/Approval Staff Comment: See previous discussion under FOF 22, Comprehensive Plan Analysis.
are Met
Compliant i/ b. Zoning Compliance and Consistency.
Conditions
a/Approval Stat!. Comment: See discussion under FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard
are Met Compliance.
Compliant i/ c. Design Regulation Compliance and Consistency.
Conditions
a/Approval Stat!. Comment: See discussion under FOF 24, Design District Review.
are Met
N/A d. Planned action ordinance and Development agreement Compliance and
Consistency.
e. Off Site Impacts.
Stat!. Comment: Off-site impacts were extensively evaluated through the DEiS and EIS
Addendum process. The Preferred Alternative proposal was formulated by the
applicants based on information provided in the DEIS, comments from agencies and
the public, input and continued coordination between the applicant and the City, and
Compliant i/ additional analysiS. Under the preferred alternative redevelopment assumptions were
Conditions amended in the following areas:
a/Approval • Shoreline Setback -increased to 100 feet.
are Met • Setbacks from Adjacent Properties
• View Corridors
• Building Height Modulations
• Open Space and Related Areas
• Building Design
• Emergency Access
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 23 of 45
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
For a detailed analysis of the changes see Exhibit 2, EIS Addendum pages 2-12 -2-14
and Figures 2-5 -2-9.
Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on
a particular portion of the site.
Staff Comment: As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height
were analyzed for impacts on adjacent properties. As a result mitigation measures E3,
E4, Fl, F8, F9, Fll, and F15 were established. Provided the project complies with
these mitigation measures which address setbacks from adjacent properties and Lake
Washington, building height, and building modulation, the Preferred Alternative
proposed would not result in an overconcentration of development on any particular
potion of the site.
Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24, DeSign Review: 2. Parking and Vehicular Access,
subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian Environment.
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.
Staff Comment: 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, that could be accommodated in the
parking garages or the private roadways at off peak hours.
Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features.
Staff Comment: The subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The
current site is vacant and allows for exponsive views to 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 corridor are maintained staff recommends as
a condition of approval 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.
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.
Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard:
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 24 of 45
Landscaping_
Ughting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets_
Staff Comment: See Lighting discussion under FOF 24, Design Review: Lighting_
f_ On Site Impacts_
Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building
placement, spacing and orientation_
Staff Comment: 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 far 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
windaw coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
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.
Staff Comment: The praposed building design includes parking structures on the
graund floor. It is assumed that the EPA ROD would not permit sub-grade parking as
such above grade parking would be required. The proposed parking structures have
been conditioned to be screened with a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping where they
Compliant if
front a road. However, the parking garages will also be visible from Lake Washington
if you are walking on the proposed trail, a public promenade, boating, or live across the Conditions Lake on Mercer Island. These parking garages are not designed to have a relation to a/Approval the natural characteristics of the shoreline and appear to wall off the lake from the are Met
development. Conceptual elevations were provided depicting the building elevation as
seen fram Lake Washington, Exhibit 10. Based on the conceptual elevations it is clear
that the parking garage becomes the dominate structure and aesthetic seen from the
Lake Washington. In order to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relationship
to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.) staff recommends a
condition of appraval that the east elevations shall be re-designed to reduce the
parking garage walls from the view along the lake. An artistic rendering was provided
in the EIS Addendum, Figure 2-8 that depicts a view of the development from Lake
Washington. In this rendering walls are minimized by landscape screening and
berming along the shoreline. In addition to architectural treatments landscape
treatments could be employed to reduce the parking garage walls along the Lake side
of the development.
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.
Staff Comment: See FOF 9 and 10, which provides an explanation of the baseline
conditions on the site.
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
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 25 of 45
Compliant i/
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage
from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
Staff Comment: See FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard: Landscaping.
g. Access
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.
Staff Comment: The overall development has two primary access locations, one from
Lake Washington Blvd. N at N 42"d 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 42"d Place but no existing
crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are two primary access points to the
development, the applicant would be requred to receive approval from King Coundy to
construct a second crossing across the roil-road right-of-way. This crossing shall
include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. Staff recomends as a
condition of approval that documentatio" be provided to the City identifing rights to
construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review application
and construction permit application submittal. Also See FOF 24, Design Review: 2.
Parking and Vehicular Access, subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian
Environment.
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.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review: 2. Parking and Vehicular Access,
subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian Environment.
Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access.
Staff Comment: 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 30" St. interchange and 1-405. Future potential public
transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound
Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44" Street interchange.
Mitigation measure 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
condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public right of way,
Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this mitigation
measure.
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 troil corridor. In
February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor
which continues to include a multi-purpose troil at this location. Considering, the site
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 26 of 45
Compliant i/
Conditions
of Approval
are Met
Compliant if
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
does not currently have public tronsit options the primary form and most readily
available form of alternative non-motorized tronsportation 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 tronsportation impacts on planned
vicinity transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of
the project the applicant shall prepare a TOM 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, staff recommends a condition of approval that
bicycle parking be provided in the farm 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 staff
recommends as a condition of approval 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.
Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review: 3. Pedestrian Environment.
h. 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.
Staff Comment: See FOF X, Design District Compliance: Recreation Areas and Common
OpenSpoce.
i. Design: The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally
consistent, and provides quality development.
Staff Comment: The proposed overoll urban design concept is internally consistent
based on the conceptual elevations (Exhibit 10). However, each site specific building is
required to undergo site plan review including detailed design review. Additional
architectural details and fa,ade treatments will be reviewed and evaluated at that
time. To ensure that each building developed on each lot maintains a consistent design
concept, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a compatible architectural
design sholl be maintained throughout the site and that consistency sholl be evaluated
at site plan review for each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 with each other.
j_ Distinctive Focal Points: The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public
area plazas prominent architectural features, or other items.
Staff Comment: The proposed plan contains limited distinctive focal points, no
prominent plazas are proposed and architectural features are unknown at this time.
The two round about features located in Road B provide limited public focal points an
site. These roundabouts could be designed with additional amenities such as art work
and/or fountain features to add interest and provide a gateway feature. Based on the
provided utility plan, the roundabout located at the intersection of Road Band C has a
sewer man hale located in the center. The location of this man hole limits the
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-l5l
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 27 of 45
opportunities for this round about to feature a point of visual interest or focal point.
However, based on the artistic renderings provided in the EIS Addendum, Figure 2-8
and 2-9 both of these roundabouts would feature a center water fountain. There are a
number of inconsistencies in the provided plans and it is difficult to determine if these
roundabouts would meet the intent demonstrated in the artistic renderings. The
gateway features that could be added to the roundabout however would not provide a
plaza space or prominent architectural features, but would provide a gateway feature.
To ensure the distinct focol points are provided, staff recommends as a condition of
approval that usable public plaza space is provided along Lake Washington and the
NW corner 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
for lots 5 and 2.
k_ Conservation of Area Wide Property Values
Staff Comment: The proposed development would add amenities to the area which
could add value to area wide properties. View impacts and traffic impacts are also
~ anticipated, which could reduce mare localized property values. Overall, the
development would facilitate the remediation of a contaminated Superfund site. The
improvement to Environmental Heath as a result of cleaning up a Superfund site with
the aversite of the EPA is anticipated to add value to area wide property values.
Compl/ont if I. Provision of Adequate Light and Air
Conditions
of Approval Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: f. On site Impacts, Structure
are Met Placement.
Compliant if m_ Mitigation of Noise, Odors and Other Harmful or Unhealthy Conditions
Conditions Staff Comment: Due to the sites superfund designation the DEIS evaluated
of Approval Environmental Heath, section 3.3. As a result of this analysis mitigation measures C1 -
are Met C10 were established. The project shall comply with these mitigation measures.
n. Prevention of Neighborhood Deterioration and Blight
~ Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: k. Conservation of Area Wide
Property Values.
o. Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines
and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines
Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: e. Off Site Impacts, Views. The
proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public access to the shoreline.
This trail could double as a fire lane lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
Compliant i/ width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA, ROD and NRD Settlement, it is
Conditions anticipated that access to the lake shore would not be permitted. However, mitigation
o/Approval measure Bl0 requires that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive
are Met viewpOints. 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, staff recommends as a condition of approval 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.
Compliant i/ Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to
Conditions accommodate the proposed use:
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 28 of 45
o/Approval Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Availability and Impact on Public Services.
Qre Met
Phasing: 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.
,I' Pursuant to RMC 4-9-2001. Expiration and Extensions of Site Plan Review, for non-
phased Master Plans the Hearing Examiner shall determine the expiration date for the
Master Plan which may exceed two years but shall not exceed five years. Staff
recommends 5 years from the date of the decision for the period of validity of the
subject master plan. However, it should be noted that all lot specific site plan review
applications shall be submitted and approved as well as a building permit for each of
the subsequent buildings within the 5 year time frame for the project to remain valid.
27. Binding Site Plan: An optional process for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or
mixed use zones CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, COR, UC, IL, 1M, and IH through a binding site plan as authorized in
chapters 58.17 and 64.34 RCW. This method may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and
short subdivision procedures. The applicant has applied for a Standard Binding Site Plan per RMC 4-7-
230B.1.a. and is located in the COR zone a mixed use zone. The proposal is compliant with the binding
site plan standards if all conditions of approval are met
Cpmpliance Subdivision Regulations and Analysis ..... ~i ..•. .. .. ... ..
.... ..... . .
.... .... ...... .....
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.
Staff Comment: The subject parcel is a /egally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in FOF 23 above.
,I' 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, shoreline
buffer, or NRD Settlement mitigation as identified through the EIS process with the EPA.
As such, lots 1, 6, and 7 should become open space tracts instead of lots because these
areas would not be buildable if created.
The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified
as a lot or tract on the binding site p/on. This area remains a part of the porce/ and shall
be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopab/e area and placed in a
tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial,
,I' or mixed-use lone.
Staft. Comment: The site is located in the COR zone.
,I'
Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall
comply with all of the zoning code reqUirements and development standards of the
underlying zoning district.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 29 of 45
Compliant if
Conditions
of Approval
are Met
Staff Comment: See comments above, Legal Lots, FOF 27.
Shared Components: Under either new construction or existing development,
applicants for binding site plan may proposed shared signage, parking, and access if
they are specifically authorized per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100ES, and
other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's development
standards.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not requested shared signage or parking, however
shared access has been proposed.
Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Measure 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.
Shared access has been proposed through on internal street system, identified as Roods
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 Roods 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.
A shared signage package was not submitted with the application.
Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC
Not yet 4-5-010.
determined Staff Comment: Building code compliance will be reviewed at the time of building
permit submittal.
Compliant if
Conditions
of Approval
are Met
Compliant if
Conditions
o/Approvol
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
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.
Staff Comment: Upon Binding Site Plan recording details sholl be included identifying
compliance with the infrastructure provisions. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval
prior to recording.
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
Staff Comment: See comments above under "Shared Components" to address lot
access. Each lot would 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 stoff recommends as a condition of approval 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
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 30 of45
separate phasing plan is approved through site pion review.
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 .
.r 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.
N/A
Compliant if
Conditions
of Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
Staff Comment: See discussion above under "Shared Components"
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.
Staff Comment: 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, staff recommends compliance with this standord as
a condition of approval.
Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the
applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding
site plan
Staff Comment: No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Improvements: The following tangible improvements shall be provided for, either by
actual construction or a construction schedule approved by the City and bonded by the
applicant, before a binding site plan may be recorded: grading and paving of streets
and alleys, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm
sewers, street lights, water mains and street name signs, together with all
appurtenances thereto to specifications and standards of this Code, approved by the
Department and in accordance with other standards of the City. A separate
construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated
engineering plans prepared per the City Drafting Standards.
2. Phasing of Improvements: To satisfy these requirements, the Administrator is
authorized to impose conditions and limitations on the binding site plan. If the
Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will not adversely
impact the public health, safety or welfare, the Administrator may allow requirements
to be satisfied prior to issuing the first building permit for the site, or prior to issuing
the first building permit for any phase, or prior to issuing a specific building's certificate
of occupancy, or in accordance with an approved phasing plan, or in accordance with
plans established by a development agreement or as otherwise permitted or required
under City Code.
Staff Comment: A Phasing plan was not included with the application. As such, staff
recommends as a condition of approval that all common facilities including but not
limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, Sidewalk, and street trees or landscape
strip), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping, trails, 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 and if the Administrator
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 31 of 45
determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will nat adversely impact the
public health, safety or welfare.
Oft-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, include but not limited to
the following mitigation measures:
• 810 -public trail
• G2 -public trail and open space
• G3 -Frantage impravements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
• G7 -trail signage
• G9 -crasswolk
• Gl0 -trail amenities
• H3 -frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
• H4 -trail
• H5 -traffic calming measures
• HB -fire access road
• Hl0 -bicycle lane
• Hll -H15 -aft site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
signalization
All the above mitigation measures shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and
substantial complete prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project
site. The above mitigation measures are necessary to protect the public health, safety
and welfare and to mitigate the substantial impacts of the project.
28. Availability and Impact on Public Services
.
Compliance Availability and Impact on Public Services AnalYSis
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist
to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code
required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee would be applicable to the
proposal.
Pursuant to mitigation measure 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 lOa-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the
EPA ROD and any NRD settlement, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If
EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the minimum
lOa-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, see comments below under Water. Considering the water service
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report 01 Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 32 0145
requires paved access staff recommends 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, see additional comments below under
FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Schools: It is anticipated 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 Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be
evaluated upon lot specific site plan review.
Not
compliant
HEX REPORT 09-151. docx
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.
Parks: A Park Impact Fee would be required for the proposed multi-family units. The
fee in effect at the time of building permit application is applicable to this project and is
payable at the time of building permit issuance.
Staff Comment: Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, Exhibit 2.
The mitigation document identified a number of porks and recreation mitigation
measures (Gl --613) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas. Specifically
mitigation measure 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 O.S 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 provided 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 provided site plan the Preferred
Alternative does not identify compliance with Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigatian
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 insulation. An
easement for public access shall be recarded on with the binding site plan. Mitigation
measure Gl0 requires that the trail shall 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 measure G11 requires that the trail connect to
the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. The provided 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 mitigation measure G11. Based on the above analysis
the provided materials were not compliant with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and
G11. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant provide an
updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with
mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and Gl1 for review and approval of the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator prior to lot
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 33 of 45
Compliant i/
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
specific site plan review or binding site plan recording.
Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage
of all surface water.
Staff Comment: The preferred alternative is assumed to use the 2009 King Caunty
Surface Water Design Manual, with the City Amendments, for the proposed storm water
facilities. 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 Ai, AiD, All, B2, and B7
were established and will become a condition of this permit. Because the internal
streets of the development are required ta be private, the storm water system for the
development will be required to be private. A storm water covenant for allowing the
City access to inspect the storm water 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 storm water shall be
maintained staff recommends as a condition of approval 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.
A drainage plan and droinage report (TlR) (based on the City of Renton Amendments to
the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual) is required to be submitted with the utility
construction permit. The site is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested
site conditions. The applicant is proposing ta use the direct discharge exemptian for
the project. Water quality treatment is proposed for the praject and shauld fallow the
requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water
Manual. 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, whom has
provided project specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14,
2009. As noted in Exhibit 16, the updated TlR required to be submitted with the
construction permit should include, an offsite analysis report that assesses potential
off site drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the praject
site and proposed appropriate mitigation for any of the identified off site impacts,
KCRTS printout of all land use input values for pre-and post-developed impervious and
pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing canditions and developed
condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrolagy.
As noted above under FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review, subsection Phasing, staff
recommends an approval of the subject master site plan and associated binding site
plan for 5 years. The Hearing Examiner has discretion to determine the project
expiration time frame, which cannot exceed 5 years. Staff is recommending the 5 year
maximum expiration dote understanding the scole of the subject project and the
necessary clean-up of the site under the Superfund designation. However, the City is
also subject to the Western Washington Phase" Municipal Storm water permit. Per the
requirements of the Phase " permit; all projects that have been approved prior to
January 1, 2017 and have not started construction by January 1, 2022 shall follow the
new Surface Water Drainage Manual. Assuming an appraval of the subject project no
later than May of 2016 the recommended 5 year approval would result in an expiration
date of May 2021. If the applicont requests a one-year extension or submits building
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 34 of 45
Compliant if
Conditions
of Approval
are Met
Compliant if
Conditions
of Approval
are Met
permits the expired land use permit could be extended beyond January 1, 2022 for
construction. Based on the City's obligations under Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Storm water permit, staff recommends as a condition of approval that any
extension to the project approval beyond January 1, 2022 or building and construction
permits submitted that would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022 shall be
subject to the updated storm water manual, in effect at the time of extension or
application.
All utilities: The information provided in the utility plan, Exhibit 14, is not adequate to
confirm if there is compliance with the minimum utility spacing standards. The
required horizontal and vertical separation as per City of Renton Standards should be
provided between the utility lines. To comply with this standard additional pavement
width may be required in some areas; if this is the case roads may need to be modified
accordingly.
The title report submitted with the application is dated 2009, which is 7 years old and
out-of-date. As such, staff is unaware if the easements reflected on the drawings are
current. Based on the information provided there are existing easements that cross the
property in areas proposed for buildings. Any existing utilities under the proposed
building or that will result in a conflict shall be required to be abandoned and removed,
and the easements shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. An
updated title report will be required to be submitted prior to Binding Site Plan
recording.
Water: New water lines are proposed to be constructed to provide service to the new
Lots and buildings. The water utility main lines for the project will be public water lines.
However, these lines will primarily be located in private streets; as such a minimum 15
foot wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton
for the public water lines located on site.
Based on the provided conceptual utility plan, Exhibit 14, the water line design shall be
amended as follows:
• 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.
• 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. To comply with these
conditions, the buildings will need to be moved back further to the east to
allow for the construction of the water main.
• Complete the water main loop within a paved surface with sufficient access for
maintenance along the west side of the project from Street B to Street E.
Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the above water line design changes
shall be provided and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review
and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to lot specific site plan application and
construction permit application.
Compliant if Sanitary Sewer: New sewer lines are proposed to be constructed to provide service to
Conditions the new Lots and buildings. The sewer utility main lines for the project will be public
HEX REPORT09-1S1.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 35 of 45
of Approval sewer lines. However, these lines will primarily be located in private streets; as such a
are Met minimum 15-foot wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
sewer main located in the private streets. Each individual building is required to be
served by individual side sewers.
Compliant if
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
The provided sewer report states that the sewer system was designed to convey the
peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location at a new manhole installed on an
existing 12" diameter City of Renton sewer pipe, which would lead to the existing
Baxter lift station, a City owned facility. A sewer report was submitted with the
application which showed an allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day for infiltration and
inflow at the existing lift station. Based on review by the City's Waste Water
Department, the allowance number should be increased to 1,500 gallons/acre/day. As
such staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised sewer report be
submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing
Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance.
The current utility plan identifies a sewer man hole located in the center of the island
on Street B. The manhole should be relocated outside of this area to ensure the City's
sewer maintenance department can access the facility. Utility casing may need to be
provided on pipes constructed through the islands.
Transportation: 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 42'd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Sea hawks Way). See additional
comments related to roads and access above under FOF 24, Design Review: 2. Parking
and Vehicular Access, subsection c. Vehicular Access and FOF 26 Master Site Plan
Review: g. Access.
Transportation impacts were extensively evaluated in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and in
the FEIS, Exhibit 2. As a result mitigation measures Hl-H15 are a requirement of the
project, and are conditions to be completed prior to temporary occupancy of any
building on the site. Mitigation Measure H3 requires frontage improvements along the
west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Sea hawks 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 mitigation measures G3 and H3, 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 (Sea hawks 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 as 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 Counyy,
who owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington
Blvd. N, and WSDOT. Do to the necessary coordination with adjacent property owners
and WSDOT staff recommends as a condition of approval that before construction
permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 36 of45
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
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.
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 inconstancies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and
requirements evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve
the inconstancies between the mitigation measures, Figure 2-1 and the traffic analysis,
a new graphic has been created and is attached as Exhibit 18 which fully depicts
additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the Mitigation
Document. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that all new lanes as shown
on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
In addition 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 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; in addition to meet the standards of public access under the
shoreline master program (see FOF 29), as such staff recommends as a condition of
approval 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. As noted above under FOF 24 Design Standards, 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. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that the applicant amended 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.
Road A is currently designed with a center turn lane; the need for this turn lane was not
analyzed in the EIS documents or in a separate transportation study submitted with the
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 37 of 45
application. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a study is
completed to identify the need for a center turn lane in Road A. Depending upon the
outcome of this study, Road A street designs shall be amended accordingly.
The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to generate 5,656 net new average weekday
daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate
approximately 435 net new trips (104 inbound and 331 outbound). During the weekday
PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 530 net new trips (340
inbound and 190 outbound). The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic
Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as shown in Exhibit 17.
See additional comments related to pedestrian connectivity and bicycle access above
under, FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, subsection g. Access.
29. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: No shoreline development shall be undertaken on
shoreline of the City without first obtaining a substantial development permit. No permit shall be
issued unless the proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP, and the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971). The site is located in the Urban Environment of the SMP and is consistent
with the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act as demonstrated in the table
below if all conditions of approval are met.
Compliance Shoreline Permit Analysis
Compliont i/
Conditions
o/Approvol
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
.
Use Regulations:
a. Commercial: New commercial development on Lake Washington which are
neither water-dependent, nor water related, nor water-enjoyment, nor
which do not provide significant public access to and along the water's
edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline.
Staff Comment: The proposed commercial development is not water-dependent, nor
water related, nor water enjoyment. However, a public trail is provided along the
shoreline to provide public access along the water's edge, if approved by the EPA ROD
and any NRD settlement. Conditions of approval have been recommend throughout this
staff report for designated public parking for trail use, amenities to be incorporated into
the trail including view points, large public plaza spaces along the lake side of Road B,
and a public promenade along the lake side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and
5. If all these conditions of approval are met significant public access along the water's
edge would be provided and therefore the new commercial development would be
considered a permitted use. However, if the public amenities are prahibited by the EPA
ROD ond any NRD settlement the subject use would not be permitted, becouse
significant public access is not provided. As such, staff recommends as a condition of
approval that if the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public
access from the project a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval
prior to construction permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording thot
complies with the shoreline master programs requirements for significont public occess.
b. Parking: Public parking is to be provided at frequent locations. Both public
and private parking is discouraged along the water's edge.
Staff Comment: Surface parking and structured parking are both proposed
approximotely 100 feet back form the OHWM. These parking lots are not located along
the water's edge.
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 38 of 45
Compliant if
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
Incorporation of Public Recreational Opportunities: Commercial developments should
incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline for the general public.
Multi-family development shall provide public access along the water's edge, in the
Case of Lake Washington, significance public access shall be provided.
Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposed public access which includes 0 trail
within the shoreline riparian area. The Mitigation Document requires this trail included
view points and amenities. The proposed trail begins to meet the standard of
significant public access. The trail is the only amenity provided in the Preferred
Alternative which on its own does not pass the test of significant public access. There
are a number of opportunities for additional public access to be incorporated into the
project deSign, some of which have been identified throughout this staff report,
including a public plaza at the terminus of road B. This plaza space would provide visual
access to the loke and could include amenities such as benches, terraced setting, public
art, or gateway features. Furthermore, as noted above under FOF 28 Availability of
Public Services, the loaped water main required around buildings proposed on Lot 2 and
S is required ta have an access roadway and be located out of the shoreline riparian
area. The waterline requirement combined with the fire access requirements presents
an opportunity to combine both the water line, fire access and design the space in a
way that it could be used as public access to the shoreline. This space, if designed with
omenities such as public art, seating, water features, etc. would create a public
promenade with visual access to the shoreline. The addition of a public promenade
along the lake side of both Lots 2 and 5 would add significant public access to the
project. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that 0 public promenade
is added along the lake side of the buildings on Lot 2 and 5. This promenode should
connect to the terminus of Road B and the surface parking lots ot the north and south
ends of the site.
See comments abave under "Use Regulation.
View Impacts: The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed
commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area.
,/ Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit what steps have been take in the
design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference
with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people the area.
Campliant
i/
canditians
o/approval
are met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: e. Off Site Impacts, Views.
Setback: A commercial building should be located no closer than 50 feet to the ordinary
high water mark.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24 Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Setbacks.
The provided conceptual utility plan, identifies the required looped water line in the
shoreline riparian area (100 foot buffer). Pursuant to the EIS and Mitigation Document
a 100 foot shoreline buffer was required from the OHWM of Lake Washington. This
area is assumed in the baseline conditions to be utilized for habitat restorotion and
wetland mitigation and buffers. The waterline shall not be constructed within the
riparian area and shall be located outside the buffers. Staff recommends as a condition
of approval that the waterline shall be relocated outside the 100 buffer and an updated
conceptual utility plan shall be provided identifying compliance with this standard.
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 39 of 45
II. CONCLUSIONS:
Time Requirements for Shoreline Permits: RMC 4-9-190J permits extension of the
standard SSDP time lines identified in RMC 4-9-190J.2. if consistent with RCW 90.58.143
and the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the
Department of Ecology, established appropriate time limits as part of a SSDP. SSDP are
valid for 2 years with the potential to authorize construction up to 5 years after the
effective date of the SSDP, if construction application are submitted, permits are issued
and foundation inspection are completed.
Staff Comment: Given the project cannot move to construction until the EPA issues a
ROD and a NRD Settlement is determined, two years may not be sufficient to complete
the project and obtain all necessary permits. Therefore, staff recommends that the
SSDP expirotion date be consistent with the Master Plan expirotion date. Staff
recommends that there shall be no extensions authorized to the SSDP beyond the 5
years, unless the project complies with the updated Shoreline Master Program, adopted
in 2011.
1. The subject site is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Comprehensive Plan designation
and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation provided the applicant
complies with all conditions of approval, see FOF 22.
2. The subject site is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning designation and complies
with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 23.
3. The proposed development complies with the Design District C Standards provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 24.
4. The proposed development complies with the Critical Areas Regulations provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 25.
5. The proposed development complies with the Master Site Plan Review Criteria provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 26.
6. The proposed Binding Site Plan complies with the subdivision regulations as established by City Code
and state law provided all City Code, advisory notes and conditions are complied with, see FOF 27.
7. Safe walking routes to the school bus stop will be evaluated at lot specific site plan review. The Renton
School District has indicated they can accommodate the anticipated number of students, see FOF 28.
8. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development in all City
Codes and conditions of approval are complied with, see FOF 28.
9. The proposed development complies with the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline
Management Act standards, see FOF 29.
10. An expiration date shall be set by the Hearing Examiner for the Master Site Plan, see FOF 26.
11. Key features, which are integral to this project include a 100 foot shoreline setback, pUblic trail, building
height modulation, setbacks from the north and south property lines, and view corridors.
I J. RECOMMENDATION:
Master Site Plan and Binding Site Plan:
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 40 of 45
Staff recommends approval of the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative (692 Residential Units, 9,000 SF
of restaurant, and 20,025 SF of retail) Master Plan and Binding Site Plan, File No. LUA09-151, with an
expiration date 5 years for approval, as depicted in Exhibit 7, subject to the following conditions:
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit:
Staff recommends approval ofthe Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative (692 Residential Units, 9,000 SF
of restaurant, and 20,025 SF of retail) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, File No. LUA09-151, with an
expiration date of S years with no extensions authorized to the permit beyond the 5 years, unless the project
complies with the updated Shoreline Master Program, adopted in 2011, 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.
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.
HEX RfPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 41 of 45
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
• HS -traffic calming measures
• H8 -fire access road
• H10 -bicycle lane
• Hll-H1S -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 Care
Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
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 access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Sea hawks 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.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
· ,. '
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 42 of45
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 Sea hawk'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. East 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.
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 (Sea hawks 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
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
, .
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner RecDmmendation
LUA09-1S1
Page 43 of 45
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,
32. Any extension to the project approved beyond January 1, 2022 or building and construction permits
submitted that would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022 shall be subject to the updated
stormwater manual, in effect at the time,
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.
40, All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the timing
identified above per condition of approval 12.
41, A public promenade along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to
Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the
buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This promenade shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
art, water features, etc. Design of the promenades 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.
43, An easement shall be secured from King County or other future property owners of the rail-road right-
of-way to provided vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-
way, The easement shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently
with the binding site plan,
HEX REPORT 09-151,docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
· . ~ .
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Page 44 of 45
44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to induvidual 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.
III. 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)
and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD and NRD Settlement
issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline
assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not
necessary as required in Mitigation Measure ClO.
V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify
compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G11 for 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 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 F13 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.
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 45 of 45
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 lO 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 6lO, G3, G2, GlO, Gll
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. A transportation study shall be completed to analyze the need for a center turn lane in Road
A. Depending upon the outcome of this study, Road A street designs shall be amended
accordingly and 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.
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 lO 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. lithe EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the
project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and
amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A public promenade 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.
XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TOM) 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 TOM and shared parking agreements shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Public Works
Department, Transportation Division.
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
Project Name:
Quendall Terminals
Date of Hearing
April 19, 2016
Staff Contact
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, EXHIBITS
Project Number:
LUA09-151 ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
Project Contact/Applicant
Campbell Mathewson,
Century Pacific, L. P., 1201
Third Ave, suite 1680,
Seattle, WA 98101
Project location
SW X Section 29,
Township 24 N, Range 5
E. Parcel 2924059002.
South of the Seahawks
Training Facility
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exhibit 10:
Exhibit 11:
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15:
Exhibit 16:
Exhibit 17:
Exhibit 18:
Staff report to the Hearing Examiner, which can be found at the following link:
http:// rentonwa .gov Ib us i nessl d efa u It. aspx ?id-3 2800
Environmental Review Documents -Draft EIS, Addendum to the Draft EIS, FEIS
and Mitigation Document, which can be found at the following link:
http://re n tonwa .gov Ib usi nessl d efa u It. aspx ?id-3 2800
Environmental Review Committee Signature Sheets
Neighborhood Detail Map
Binding Site Plan
Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal and e-mail chains
following request.
Site Plan (black and white and color)
Parking Plan (black and white and color)
Area Outline of Spaces
Elevations
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Conceptual Storm Drainage and Grading Plan
Roadway Sections
Conceptual Utility Plan
EA Letter addressing EPA and public involvement in the process
Advisory Notes/Plan Review Comments
Concurrence Memo
Additional Lanes Required
-----~dRenton ®
DEPARTMENT OF COMr.. IITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -------.. Renton ®
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) AND MITIGATION
DOCUMENT
Notice is hearby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and Mitigation Document for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee on Monday, August 31,2015, and is available for public review. Copies are
available for review at the Renton Main Library, located at 100 Mill Avenue South, and the Renton Highlands
Branch Library, located at 2902 NE 12th Street, and at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site: (www.rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The EIS evaluates potential impacts resulting
from a mixed-use development project, including four Alternatives, of which considers no action. The
Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of restaurant and
692 residential units.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Final Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $35 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus
tax and postage (if mailed).
PUBLIC REVIEW: The impacts described in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are the basis for
the mitigation measures established in the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document is designated by
the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal.
EXHIBIT 3
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STAT
PAGE2of2
IT AND MITIGATION DOCUMENT
APPEAL INFORMATION: Upon issuance of the FEIS and Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period
commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E., the adequacy of the Final EIS and the
Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be
submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. September 24,2015; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $250.00.
Appeals must be addressed to Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady
Way, Renton, WA 98055.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
erry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services Department
September 4, 2015
August 31, 2015
~/5//r5c~--'---
DatE! r Mark Peterson, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
8 :J/-i5 ~Ce::0~~J~ ....... ===t:5L
Date C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
."/?( I,r:
Date
DEPARTMENT OF COM~ IITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM (EIS ADDENDUM)
Notice is hearby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum (EIS Addendum) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental
Review Committee on Monday, October 15, 2012, and is available for public review and comment. Copies are
available for review at the Renton Main Library, located at 100 Mill Avenue South, and the Renton Highlands
Branch Library, located at 2902 NE 12th Street, and at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site: (www.rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(s}:
PROJEa PROPONENT:
PROJEa NAME:
LUA09-1s1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L. P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJEa: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The EIS Addendum to the Draft Enviornmental
Impact Satment (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Preferred
(')Iternative. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a mixed-use
'. development. The Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of
restaurant and 692 residential units. For those assumptions that have been modified under the Preferred
Alternative, the updated analysis is included in the provided EIS Addendum. These elements include, Critical
Areas, Aesthetics/View, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Cultural Resources and Relationship to plans
and Policies.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus
tax and postage (if mailed).
I
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABllITY!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ENDUM
PAGE 2 of 2
/ ~UBLIC REVIEW: Written public comment on the DE IS will be accepted for a 3D-day review period ending at
I ;00 p.m. Monday, November 19, 2012. Written Comments should be addressed to; Vanessa Dolbee, Senior
Planner, Planning Division, 6th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES;
Gregg Zi er ,A ministrator
Public Works Department
,.
Terry Higashiyama, Administrat
Community Services Departm
I)
October 19, 2012
October 15, 2012
LD ltd 201 1.-'---------'------'>..Lc:--:I1'---=-__
Date' r Mark Peterson, Ad inistrator
Fire & Emergency Services
j()/t-;;/;?\ c:; .£ \jv-'XI
Dale 7 C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
DEPARTMENT OF COM .•. _NIl Y
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
Notice is hearby given that the City of Renton has issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for Quendall Terminals mixed use development on December 10, 2010 pursuant to WAC 197-11-
510 and RMC 4-9-070, and is available for public review. Copies are available for review at the Renton
Main Library,the Renton Highlands Branch Library, and Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th
floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98055, and on the City of Renton website
(www. rentonwa .gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L. P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Quendall Terminals mix use development DEIS considers
potential development concepts for the redevelopment of a 21.46 acre Superfund site located along
the shoreline of Lake Washington. The DEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed
development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the DEIS: Alternative 1, which consists of
800 residential units, 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet
of restaurant; Alternative 2, which consist of a less dense alternative where the office component is
eliminated and residential units are reduced to 708 units; and Alternative 3, a no action alternative.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the 1" Floor ef Renton City Hall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per,CD, plus
tax and postage (if mailed).
ERe Signature Sht Issuam:e of DEIS.ooc
ERe ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/ /'
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STAT T '.
PAGE 2 of 2
PUBLIC REVIEW: Written public comment on the DE IS will be accepted for a 3D-day review period ending at
", :00 p.m. Monday, January 10, 2011. Written Comments should be addressed to: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior
Planner, Planning Division, 6th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. A public
hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 4,2011, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 7th floor Renton
City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WAc
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
_' .Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
( fommunity Services Department
"~" '
ERG Signature Sht Issuance of DEIS.doc
December 10, 2010
December 6,2010
_.~JmI
Mark Peterson, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
Date
,2...[1" ! Va
Date Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
LAKE WASHINGTON
N
+
.:
~ /
tel »DI O<"f c ...... ·r
--""
I\~(
JPROJECT SITEJ
2D.3AC
r
C'-
+--!RIPLEY LN NJ
11-4051
)1-4051 .'
,.
"
IBARBEE MILL ENTRANCEi-----. ... -1N 43RD STI
IN 42ND PLI
" ~ z
... ,.
$"4'"'If-....1LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NI
$' ~~
,i'
]'... GRAPHIC SCALE:
0<=' ===;;;;;
EXHIBIT 4
~"oo ft
NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP
QUENDALL TERMINALS
n
! ,
~ , ,
n , ~ a c ~ 2 z
~ ~ ~ > 1 c !i! a
§ ~ '" w '" a l ~ • a '1 0 ;; ~ g. ~ < a u' '" Z
o 0 " ~ Il~ " ~ n a
" ~~ r;t a w • ~Io
p !I~ ~ n
" a z w s.~
;
• w
I
3
~
! •
~
I~
i
"""""
~
iii
( DI' P'JZT )
1 lDah _ 100 f\.
fI ,.
S'II 1/4 5[CTloo 29.
T2 .... ,45E
GOVT LOT ~
~# ~ ..
TAX ACCT. NO.
~-
CllDlllAAY _ ..... 101
W_(DH .. )
AT 18.8" El.£VAlIOH
oovr LOT 5
.. ,--,~ .. ..-"""" .. -,
" M34'41'04"'W """ " M."
U Ne.5'40'5I)"W "en' ~ ",,"
U Jl38'48'~"w aw ~ ",,00'
L4 NM'4II'MI"W ,~'" " ",00'
u N88'48'SfI"W 7&40' " 'MT
lIS ~'10"t 11.83' " M,oo'
L7 N5111)3'.w"W ll.Cl~' ~ M,oo'
La H8O'02"OrE 18.1116' '" ".00'
." .,;;~tr; /.. , '~ "ris ~" 1./1
/1';'
~" ,""".
M'!I6'12'
~T'"
U21':ze"
17'17'40" .. ""'"
105'24'",,"
S'57'5J"
"""" •. ". "',.
~,'
~' , ...
"'''
~" ,.'
J , /
, ,
, ,
o O;H POWl:RUNE EASNENT • ..... OOG
EASIDIl Y '-IAR<.;iN Of PROPERTY'",
~C. '-10. 55fi21W6
@ 60' ROAD'IIAl' '" ulLIn (ASNENT,
REC. NO, 960210(1)89
I 'it" '1/ ---j'
'eo I~~ / /
Ii /';( /' ~I
R?<,?'" !;'''r'''' ..!. I ®I.~/I ,/ /
,
/
/
/
,,?,---SC:t%;. I' /1'101[: PARKINO BElOW ALL B\.IllDltlCS, I
'li ~/ .... ' ...... ~'It€ I / COURl'tAROS AND 00 0Ea< PARKING ' C.O.R. flBO --+"""'Ji~~~:-~~~;r;:;~T.:i;;~~;::;::;~~~~~~~~~~~'~~P~'~W~'TE~""~I"~io~~~·~~~2~'~~)'T ..... ,' I / (Sf BOlli Sf) I ) • '.;%~' -L--VAC N "11< Sf ' ."' ... ....: .... ..: .... ...:c. '" . ---: ..... 14~.t. -_~_ --____ R!C~:z.!0~7___ _ _ I ~ J2.~ / U.S. DOT PERMIT 96J.31' --+-- ----- -
NW I/~ SECTION 32.
T24N.4~
GOI'T LOT I PLAT OJ' 8AREEE IotIU
1'Ol. 2'16, P,;;S. 2~-J9, FlEe. NO.
20080208000182
N28'""-5'04"E NIJMBER g2746S,o, ,--
16.10' M.P. 6.23 I / ( .. or SHoWN IN
/ CURRENT TITlE
• REPORT)
I
BUS H-. "R"'O"'E O"'&::-OH"'IT"'C"H"I N;;;G"'S-, ""I N=C,
CIVIL ENGINEERS &: L6.NO SURVEYORS
200v "'NOR A>'l:NV£ EAST
~f,TI:£~:wtSHl""'TCJ<
12M) J2J_4U4
'-800-9J1j-05D8
FAX, (.2<'l6) J2J...71~
BOUNDARY INFORMATION
BINDING SITE PLAN -QUENDALL TERMINALS
CENTURY PACIFIC L.P.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE Of WASHINGTON
DRAWN BY LMK/lRS DATE: 01/11/16 JOB 1# 2009050.04
CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" 100'lsHEET 2 OF 5
~o
<f
\
•
~t~ '?ii~
~:>Q,
'\:~
~
\ G(p)O(P)
\ C"~P)
-
~N
<:>
"" ""'" lID
m
.x:x
10"DrP \l(PJ
LEGE~D «
" """" "" ~
I!I.OWOfF VALlIE "" """~ ~
UGHT POlE
-¢
CEN'IER OF CHI\NNEl ,
""""" '" ..... "'" .....
""""'-""" •
0" OJ "
• '" '/IV", .'"
SW , /4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
EI..EClIIICAL VAllLT B -~-ro 'lDD'I101€ DUCT
"""""-""""''''''''' 0," '" .......,~-• ~"""" .. """'" ~ ~ """" "'-' N 1ELEPHONE VN.A.T
FtIIJMJ ~ RCD NflJ eN" ----..0 PO'«R POlE WI UQIT --~ ~ TtlPiElEVAfICII """ .~ ") PMfIUI UlIJTY lOCATKt+ ~ ~~~ ""~, ") IIECOIID UTl.JTY LOCA'IIOH -~.-.
GUVAL"" $~ SNIITMY 5£JCR a..£ANQUT • .m"" $ SAIITARY S£'IIE:R 'M~ I ..... SH£ET 3-lI'SHEET 4 ...... U ........ SHEET 5 -@ SAHlTAR'1' SE'IIER ItWfHOI..E .. '/Uo'IER VAULT ... ~ .... 'IER VALVE
QUY ANOIOR '" ,_ .....
IN'iEJlT EI.£>IATION -@ STOIUIIlIUtII _CLE DATE 01' TOf'IlGftN'HIC IW'ANG
fIEl..IloWORK: .l!NE,:tDOCo SHIT
.= f'~""~ ~ ~'" ~~~
'.~ ~" .. ~<') \i~\l)
~;;<\ I , • ~t""e I , \""::": : (-(i"b(\ ~
... "tj, 't ~
Q,~.~ T .~,
rE.25.87D
<h~", , ___ _ 1>~~ \ I, ____ 1_ t "'~.,:.. \ -_.., 'to .'{.~ Ii} I _ --_ _ !$I 61 I t,,., -, , ~ -~ , ,. DIP ~P) $ I 1'-<>;'~
I 1 1n~'b
\ , , ~e,~ ~ \ , : m. ~.f.". \' _, '\~ ~\, 1, ~
'. I ~ ~, -;'.t.~ \ I i! \~ 't ~
1\ iJ
\ :3-$
\ -
\
\
\
~') \
12"ss(R) 1~"b
BNRR RIGHT Of WAY
\ ' ~F:mo----- ----- -----,----- ---.;;--- ----,----------- ----- ------
SEM:R(R) ~ V , W-"TER 0" fljp W(fI)
w(fI) ..... RKE~ ltl(pj E-'lit.
o
~
~\
. .."~q,, .5 __ _
~
\
, -'
>
E
"" , ~ ---I 6· 04P w(R) _ ___ _ G(P) _ __~ "\Go ofr\ U:T __ _ _ LNCE ----\---..
------~----~~-~-~-,
oj>< (&T
",,-~> v~ %»
\~
~
C-"lV(P)
6"1'10;:
1(""211.79
,
\
~ 't-~..>'0 ' " t.'<> _____ \ ~%:. ~
\~
~'! ,
----->:> ~'!
-----~
EXISTING UTlUTlES
n .... , T
"".j
0/1-1 (&1
-)
BINDING SITE PLAN -QUENDALL TERMINALS
CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P.
•
~
~ _ ~ ,. ':' ___ f ':" / I CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
( IN J'a! )
llDah_20 ft.
BUSH-.'R~o~[nD-&"-H~I~TC~H~I~N~G<S.-"INMC~.
CIVIL ENGINEERS &: LAND SURVEYORS
200\1 .,..NO!< AVE"~ EAST
SE~TllL. _NGTON
~8\~Z-M'J
,~~-~M:~
fl\Xl (21)6) l23_)'M
DRAWN BY UAK/lRS DATE: 01/11/16 JOB # 2009050.04
CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" 20' I SHEET 3 Of 5
~
~
~
'"
SW 174 SECTION 29. T24N, R5E, W.M.
___ ------'-I) l--l...--I ___ _
T ,--"
;;
~
'I' ,
"" ,
TO{P)
INLH
T(-2ti.87~
• ~~\ ~~~ "',pq.,;,~ "'.'e "'<{"'q, .,
.~
!'lECffllC
P>WEL =.
,
WATtR
SPIGOT
" •
GIPl Q
•
12"SS(~)
~
IINRR RIGHT OF WAY
T1)(P)
'"'' , O{>, .. 'I' ,
6' ~p W(R) :5
lZ·SS(~)
" s
ro
,
v
TD(P)
___ L _______ _
"
~
~
~
'"
0/11 £4.T INLET T£-~L28 LNCE WASHIfQ1QN .. \0. ~.
__ _ ___ _ (FlJI..L or OJRT) ----------------------------------------- -------------------
" -"
"'J
=-(~1t-".l.<% l]~( '''J
• "e,
II>IU:T lE-J9.gJ (10"W~1lCAl 11') 1:1
/
ko-_.J r iii
(IJI n:n)
I JDDIa .. 20 ft.
Ofii (.leI
"" .', "
SHEET 3 SHErT 4 SHEET 5
SHm LAYOUT
~ BUS H·-. -;R"O"'E"'O-t.:::-7H"'IT"'C"'H"'1 N"G"'S,.... ""I N"'C"".
CIVIL ENGINEERS .& LAND SURVEYORS
200i YIHOfl ~v[~UE EAST
SEATl\.E. W,o,sHI .... 'OH
gD1D.2-3~U
li~~m.:~~~ r1J(, (2[M!) 32J-113~
EXISTING UTILITIES
BINDING SITE PLAN -QUENDALL TERMINALS
CENTURY PACIFIC. L.P.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
DRAWN 8Y U~K/TRS DATE: 01/'1/16 J08112009050.04
CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" 20' I SHEET 4 OF 5
~
!!! a ...
•
, 0'" '
SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
"
J SHEET J SHEET 4 SHEET 5
~ SHEET LAYOUT
, f·DO •
§
T • D ,\! • ,,""J q~ DO D~ "'>..
'" ~ -. .,..
, "\ .. \ 0/11 E J .\-~"\ i-1 ,,' ., ~'J , '<\\ '~, ~~
Q, ~-.:,.'<fp
"..",'~
, ~
12" D1P'l/(Pl
"
&
BNRR RIGHT OF WAY
flO IoIARt<EII 'V
m(Pj
• q~ii~
Q,\<o'?
o~
\ .~ ~.. ". r·o ~?b~'" ~ "Q.4"r..~ <">
~ ...
'\ "
~ 1j
m(p)
"rIO t,4/t,RKffi
(-----
0,"' • '"<'J -----~ ~
..... ......-,.. -.\/1). * "J .. a OA<' , --> rm - ----
-----0------
O;l-!T X -----
"'J
,
~,'V ~ G{P) ~ c.:,,, -
____ 't;L~ ~ o~"i.
«e)
0/1< ElleT
<-,-> 0/11 (6:T
Of>< , ,
/ ~
EXISTING UTILITIES
BINDING SITE PLAN -QUENDAll TERMINALS
CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P.
ko .. .J ; iii CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON I BUSH·.~RVO~[~O-"&-UHI~T~CH~I~N~G·S-."IN~C~.
DRAWN BY LMK!TRS DATE: 01/11/16 JOB # 2009050.04
\ '" J'Df l I IalJA _ 20 rt.
CIVIL ENGINEERS Ie LAND SURVEYORS
200\1 111_ ,oYE"UE E.t.5r
SI:A nu, II'.'.SI<INGTON
g8102-J~IJ
,~~-tll:~
FAX, (206) 32J~1\," CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" 20' I SHEET 5 OF 5
HILLIS CLARK MAR & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue. Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
CITY OF RENTON
FEB 1 82016
Fax: (206) 623-7789 d,'O?
RE;CEIVt:D 'f I.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (1t11. Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P. !IN Idlre Nc/
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
In re:
QUENDALL TER.MINALS FEIS AND
Project No. LUA09-151
MITIGATION DOCUMENT, SEPA APPEAL JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
I. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto that the above-
entitled cause, having been fully settled and compromised, may be dismissed with prejudice
through entry of the subjoined Order of Dismissal, with each party to bear its ov.n costs,
DATED this ~y of February, 2016.
HILLIS C ARK MARTIN & P,ETERSON P .S.
By t 1t( , -
Amlt D. Ranade, WS #34878
Ann M. Gygi. WSBA #19912
Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
~OUTI DGIVESBACK
-*'~ y~~~~~~---------------ts12. ~ rf"CS~
II. ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MA TIER came before the Renton Hearing Examiner on the foregoing
Stipulation of the parties. Based on the foregoing Stipulation, the Renton Hearing Examiner
JOlNT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING HIl.US CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P,S.
APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE -J 1221 Second Avenue. Su~e 500
I Seattle. WA 98101-2925
Telephone. (206) 623·1745
Fax: (206) 62:H789
EXHIBIT 6
hereby ORDERS, ! JDGES, and DECREES that the appe, -Quendall Tenninals Project
LUA09-l51 and all claims alleged by the parties are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, and each party Iwill bear its own costs.
-..... ~
DATED thisC:::?-da y of '?~O
Presented by:
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
By /hut /I{ -~ ..
Ami! D. Ranade, WSA#34878
Ann M. Gygi, WSBA #19912
Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
SOUTH END GIVES BACK
~~
~
ND 19958.0034853-2560-7726vl
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING
APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE -2
,2016.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue, Su •• 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Staff,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday. February 22. 2016 9:59 PM
brad nicholson
ann.gygi@hcmp.com; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; Jason Seth; Vanessa Dolbee;
Cynthia Moya; Larry Warren
Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
Follow up
Flagged
This will be the last addition to the email string regarding the PElS appeal. As requested before, please have
five copies ready for the hearing should anyone need to see these emails when I disclose these ex parte contacts
with Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. Nicholson,
I would normally not further complicate the record of this case by further communications with you, but it
appears that there is some major misunderstanding or miscommunication going on and I want to take one last
attempt at rectifying it. I wish I could just talk to you about this, but as the decision maker my ability to
communicate with you is very limited due to the reasons identified in my first email to you. Ultimately,
however, this will have to be our last communication regarding your appeal unless you plan on making some
motion that you entered into the stipulated dismissal order due to some form of fraud or misrepresentation. Any
other further information you want me to consider should be sent exclusively to the planning staff as comment
on the application.
As I identified in my first email to you, I don't become involved in an appeal until it's time to consider whether a
pre hearing conference or email exchange is in order. This usually occurs four to six weeks prior to the
scheduled appeal date. In this case you would likely have received an email from me to all appeal parties
inquiring whether the parties wanted to resolve some prehearing procedural issues or otherwise desired a
prehearing order outlining hearing procedures. A request for such a prehearing order is usually initiated by one
of the appeal parties, but I will often initiate that inquiry on my own if no one beats me to it.
I will also address any proposed orders or prehearing motions when they come in. Beyond this, planning and
city clerk staff are responsible for processing an appeal. The role of City staff and myself does not change
because you've persuaded staff to send me your notice of appeal earlier than the completion of the staff
report. I'm not sure what type of response you were looking for from your appeal statement. If you just wanted
an acknowledgement that your appeal had been filed, then staff would be responsible for that. If they don't
issue some sort of acknowledgment as a matter of course, I'm sure they would provide you with something upon
request. If you had any questions about how the appeal would be processed or scheduled, all you had to do was
ask staff. If you disagreed with how staff was handling some prehearing procedural issue regarding your
. I
appeal, you were free to either file a motion with myself ahead of time or to raise the issue at the hearing. If you
had made a legally compelling argument that consolidation should not have occured during your appeal hearing,
I would not have had any problem segregating out your appeal (although for future reference, the SEPA rules
requiring consolidation are fairly clear and I've yet to corne across any argument to the contrary).
If you are upset because I didn ad your appeal months prior to the ap. 1 hearing, there is no reason to
be. There's nothing I could have done with any knowledge I would have gained from reading your appeal
months in advance. Reading appeal statements too far in advance (especially those exceeding the more typical
10 pages and under) can be a tremendous waste of time since the appeal can easily be narrowed or even
withdrawn over time and also because I will have to re-read everything once the hearing date is
close. Excluding any prehearing motions or orders that may be presented to me, I only need to know about the
details of your appeal in time for the hearing on your appeal. For the stipulated motion to dismiss, I just needed
documentation establishing what hearing parties should be included in the order, and I got that information
when you pointed out that your notice of appeal had been emailed to me months earlier. If you had not agreed
to have your appeal dismissed, I would have read your entire notice of appeal prior to the hearing and I would
have gone through it with a fine toothed comb after the hearing as I prepared my decision. It's entirely possible
that you would not have liked the result of my decision on your appeal, but I can assure you that you would not
have been able to sincerely assert that your issues had not been thoroughly reviewed and addressed.
Once the hearing on Quendall is over and the appeal period has expired I will be happy to discuss this with you
further (assuming the discussion doesn't relate to some other pending appeal or application). Also, if it wasn't
clear to staff before, it is appropriate for staff to recommend to the parties of an appeal that they request some
sort of prehearing conference or email exchange from me if the appeal parties have procedural questions about
the conduct of a hearing. For appeal parties represented by attorneys (which has usually been the case), there
isn't much confusion about how to participate. For unrepresented citizens, however, I'm sure there's room for
improvement as to how to make hearing participants comfortable with the process. Land use appeals in Renton
are rare, especially when they involve unrepresented parties.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:48 PM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com>wrote:
your Honor,
Well I want to apologize but well it took 5 months to get a response? the appeal notice i.e "The facts are
dispositive" while it took 24 hours to respond to the PRP's
I am just wondering do you need to have the EPA sign off on the case too? It could be Cami Grandinetti.
Respectfull y
Brad Nicholson
From: LWarren@Rentonwa.gov
To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com; brad827@hotmail.com; CMoya@Rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov;
JSeth@Rentonwa.gov; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Subject: RE: Renton -Quendall Homes (LU A-09-151)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 201616:38:55 +0000
Mr. Olbrechts, the city has no objection to the stipulated order. If you have any questions, please let me know.
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.comj
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:44 AM
To: brad nicholson; Cynthia Moya; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com;
2
ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (lUA-09-151)
All Appellants,
The proposed stipulated order is missing one of the parties to the appeal. As outlined in RMC 4-8-11 0(E)(7),
the City is a party to the appeal. I will sign the stipulated order if I get email confirmation from the City that it
has no objection to the stipulated order.
Please note Mr. Nicholson has sent me another email, included in this email string, that was not cc'd to the other
parties to the appeal. As before, I request that staff include this updated email string as one of their hearing
exhibits. They should also have fIve copies of this email string available at the hearing so that I can disclose the
ex parte communications with Mr. Nicholson and give the opportunity for the public to review and respond to
those communications. In response to Mr. Nicholson's second email, as noted in my last email to him, I
received a copy of his notice of appeal (all 200+ pages) as an email attachment from the City Clerk's Office last
September. Other than a response from staff as to whether they have an objection to the stipulated order, I ask
that I receive no further communications from the parties on the appeal regarding the appeal. For the reasons
outlined in my last email toMr. Nichols. it is important that pre-hearing ex parte communications be limited as
much as possible.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 PM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your Honor,
I can recall with crystal clarity. 5 weeks after filing the appeal, I called the City Clerk and requested information
about why I received no acknowledgement of its receipt or correspondence whatsoever. It would appear that I
have been involved in as many appeals in Renton as you have and in the past, the normal process has been to
give a short explanation of what is going on. At first the Clerk told me that he had posted it on the web and that
I would need to talk to Staff about it. I had complained to him that I had spent considerable time and had
addressed the appeal to you and not to staff. My comment letter was addressed to staff but my appeal notice
along with $250.00 was addressed to you according to staff instructions. The Clerk then assured me in no
uncertain terms that the appeal document went directly to you and that you had a copy of it in your possession. I
complained to him that I paid the fee for the appeal to go to you and not to staff. Thus I am surprised that you
would indicate thnt you have no documents. I am also surprised that yqu did not get it and it was never in your
possession. I am just saying that I had also been quite disturbed that staff had been the ones to decide on the
appeal consolidation even though I think you are correct in presuming that it may have been generally known to
be the case. But I had not understood that they had jurisdiction to decide issues of Law in a pending appeal.
Respectfully
3
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 06:07:S1 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-IS I)
From: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
To: brad827@hotmail.com; CMoya@rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@rentonwa.gov; LWarren@rentonwa.gov;
JSeth@rentonwa.gov; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Staff,
Plcase include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendall Homes application.
Me. Nicholson,
Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I will likely send out a signed order tomorrow once I've
had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal.
From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or
should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of
involvement in your case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to
know as little about your project as possible until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing
exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions [ am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff,
the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your case outside the hearing
process. Because of these legal requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is
strictly limited to the testimony presented during the project hearing and the exhibits admitted into
evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the
opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited to knowing it's big, controversial and involves a
superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if
anything big is coming up, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as
opposed to applications) someltimes involve a little more advance information due to the necessity to sometimes
hold prehearing conferences. Prehearing conferences are prehearing meetings or email exchanges with appeal
hearing participants designed to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a more efficient
appeal hearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for
testimony, requiring the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and setting deadlines for prehearing motions
and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehearing conference, I will typically ask for a copy of
4
AB -1616
SUBJECT/TITLE:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPARTMENT:
STAFF CONTACT:
EXT.:
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required:
Amount Budgeted:
Total Project Budget:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
-----..."",,-cRen ton e
City Council Regular Meeting -07 Mar 2016
$ N/A
$ N/A
$ N/A
Proposed Annexation -Bradley 10% Notice of Intention to Commence
Annexation Proceedings
Council Concur
Community & Economic Development
Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
6576
Transfer Amendment:
Revenue Generated:
City Share Total Project:
$N/A
$ N/A
$N/A
The petitioner submitted this petition to the City Clerk on January 25, 2016. The proposed 17.7-acre abuts the
City at the eastern portion of the current City limits. State law requires a public meeting with the proponents
within 60-days of their submittal to consider their request.
EXHIBITS:
A. Issue Paper
B. Fiscal Impact Analysis
C. Map
D. 10% Petition
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Set March 21, 2016 for a public meeting to consider the 10% Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation
Proceedings petition for the proposed Bradley Annexation.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
DATE: February 2.9, 2.016
TO: Randy Corman, Council President
City Councilmembers
VIA: Denis Law, Mayor
FROM: Chip Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias, x6576
SUBJECT: Proposed Bradley Annexation -10% Notice of Intent Petition
ISSUE:
The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to annex an 17.7-acre area using
the direct petition method; the proposed annexation is called Bradley. State law
requires that the Council hold a public meeting with the annexation proponents within
60 days of receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition. The purpose of the meeting is for
Council to decide whether to accept or reject the proposal and whether to require the
simultaneous adoption of City zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if the
proposed annexation is successful.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council
accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. If Council concurs, the Administration
recommends that it take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.12.0):
• Accept the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition; and
• Authorize the circulation of a 60% Direct Petition of Annex for the 17.7-acre
area; and
• Require that property owners within the proposed annexation area accept City
of Renton zoning that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use
designation.
BACKGROUND:
1. Location: The proposed 17.7-acre Bradley Annexation is bordered by the existing
City limits at its north. The area is located in the East Renton Plateau Community
Planning area. It is bordered to the south parcel lines located near Southeast
146th Place (if extended), by parcel lines near 157th Place Southeast to the east,
Proposed Bradley Annexation 10% Notice of Intent
Page 2 of 5
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
parcel lines in proximity to Southeast 142,d Place to the north, and by 154th Place
Southeast to the west.
2. Assessed value: The 2015 assessed valuation of the subject annexation site is
$9,322,600.
3. Natural features: The area that is a mixture of built single family residential and
vacant land. The area has some protected slopes (greater than 40%) that run
along the areas western boundary at 154 Place Southeast. Several parcels are
encumbered with these slopes. Other portions of the area are generally
topographically level. There are no streams or wetlands that are currently
mapped in the area.
4. Existing land uses: There are 33 single-family residences and vacant land.
5. Existing zoning: Existing King County zoning is R-4. This area was prezoned by the
City of Renton as part of the East Renton Plateau pre-zoning. City of Renton
Ordinance #5254 prezoned the area with R-4 zoning; this zoning will become
effective upon annexation.
6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
annexation site as Residential Low Density (RLD).
7. School District: The Bradley Annexation area is in the Renton School District.
8. Public services: All responding City of Renton departments and divisions noted
that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services
and systems and presents no foreseeable problems. Specific comments follow:
Water Utility. The subject site is located within Water District No. 90's water
service area by agreement under the coordinated water system plan. A
certificate of water availability from District 90 will be required prior to the
issuance of development permits within the subject area, following
annexation to the City. It is expected that developer extensions of District
No. 90's water mains will be required to provide service for fire protection
and domestic use within the annexation area. The proposed area will not
generate need for additional City employees because it is within Water
District No. 90.
Wastewater Utility. The area is within the Wastewater Divisions service area
and has interceptors installed in 156th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 144th
Street. Staff noted that the infrastructure is already in place to provide
service to the area.
Parks. The Community Services department indicated that the annexation
represents a logical extension of the services provided by their department.
Staff noted that the area is currently underserved with Renton parks and
Proposed Bradley Annexation 10% Notice of Intent
Page 3 of 5
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
trails. It was also noted that area residents would expect to be served by
adjacent King County parkland that is not fully developed nor planned for
development. The City would need to enter into a Cooperative Agreement
with King County in order to develop the park.
Police. The Police Department did not indicate any concerns regarding this
proposed annexation. It is estimated that the area will generate an additional
31 calls for service annually.
Fire. Renton Fire and Emergency Services currently provide fire and
emergency services to the area under a contract with District #2S. The tax
revenue District #25 collects for the properties would no longer be paid to
the City by the District. The Fire Department suggested that the boundary be
expanded to include the four parcels that are immediately south of
Southeast 142 nd Place. Staff did not indicate any concerns regarding this
proposed annexation.
Surface Water. The area is located in the Cedar River drainage basin which
has been noted to have erosion, water quality, slope stabilization, and
habitat problems due to urbanization. Any future development will be
required to comply with the City's Surface Water Design Manual and the
Flow Control Duration Matching Forested Site Conditions will be be applied.
Staff noted that stormwater infrastructure is in place in Southeast 1441h
Street and 156th Avenue Southeast, however other streets drain via sheet
flow or shallow ditch, with much of the ditch line piped or filled. Some of
these may need cleaning. Staff would like King County to perform
maintenance to infrastructure. The annexation represents a logical extension
of their services.
Transportation Systems. The Transportation Systems staff has no concerns
regarding the proposed annexation. Staff indicated that additional
Transportation Systems staff would not be required and that the annexation
represents a logical extension of services. Staff indicated that if 156th Avenue
Southeast were to be improved in the future to meet current City standards,
dedication of right-of-way may be required. Southeast 143,d, Southeast 1441h
Place, and 156th Southeast south of Southeast 144th have adequate existing
right-of-way widths to construct street sections to meet current City
standards. Staff does not believe that the roadway widths and thicknesses
meet current Renton standards and there are no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks
in the area. There are two light poles and, in conjunction with King County,
the City has plans to install a traffic signal at the intersection of 1561h Avenue
Southeast and Southeast 142nd Place. Energy costs associated with existing
and new street lighting, existing and new traffic control signage, and
Proposed Bradley Annexation 10% Notice of Intent
Page 4 ofS
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
pavement markings may be incurred by the City. Staff indicated that the City
would assume ownership and responsibility of all existing streets in the area.
Building. The Building section did not indicate any concerns regarding the
proposed annexation.
Planning. The Planning section did not indicate any concerns regarding the
proposed annexation.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION:
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
Renton's Comprehensive Plan annexation poliCies support this proposed
annexation. The subject site is within the City's Potential Annexation Area and is
subject to development pressure that might benefit from City development
regulations. Policy l-S states that the City should "support annexation where
infrastructure and services allow for urban densities and it would consolidate
service providers and/or facilitate the efficient delivery of services."
2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Objectives:
(from RCW 36.93.1S0)
a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities;
The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger
community.
b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water,
highways, and land contours;
The subject site is bounded on its northern portion by existing City limits
and uses streets or parcel lines for the other boundaries.
c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas;
Water and sewer service boundaries will not change as a result of this
annexation. The Bradley Annexation Area is in the Renton School District.
The school district boundaries will not change, the area will remain in the
Renton School District. Renton will take over police service for the 17.7-
acres upon annexation; the King County Sheriff's Department currently
provides police protection to the area. Renton Fire and Emergency
Services currently provide service under contract to Fire District #25
which serves the area. Pursuant to state law, there will be no change in
the garbage service provider for at least seven years.
d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries;
This annexation does not have irregular boundaries.
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
Proposed Bradley Annexation 10% Notice of Intent
Page 5 of 5
e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of smoll cities and
encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess of ten thousand
population in heovily populated urban areas;
Not applicable. No incorporations are proposed in this area.
f Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts;
Not applicable. There are no inactive special purpose districts here.
g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries;
Not applicable.
h. Incorporation as cities or towns or onnexation to cities or towns of
unincorporated areas which are urban in character;
King County has designated this area for urban development because of
its location within the Urban Growth Boundary. The County has also
indicated that it wants to divest itself from providing urban services to
these unincorporated urban areas by turning them over to cities as
quickly as possible. Because the subject annexation site is within Renton's
PAA and not in an area under consideration for incorporation, annexation
is appropriate at this time.
i. Protection of agriculturol and rurollands which are designated for long
term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan
adopted by the county legislative authority.
Not applicable. No portions of the proposed annexation are rural or
designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County or
Renton Comprehensive Plans.
3. A fiscal analysis for the proposed annexation is attached. The fiscal impact
analysis that is used for annexations considers costs on a per capita basis. The
fiscal analysis indicates that the proposed annexation would have an initial net
negative fiscal impact of $542 to the operating budget per year. Over a 10-year
period and with additional construction of single family homes on the existing
vacant lots, it is estimated that the fiscal impact would be negative $26 per year
for the operating budget. For the capital and enterprise funds the annexation
represents a balance of positive $8,033 currently and in ten years will be
$12,556.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed Bradley Annexation is consistent with relevant County and City
annexation policies, as well as Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. The
staff that reviewed the proposed annexation for each department did not identify any
major impediments to the provision of City services to the area or indicate that they feel
the annexation is untimely.
ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS
Housing Units Population
Current 33 92
Year 10 51 143
Assumption. 2.B Persons per single family household
Operating Fund Revenues
Existing Vear 10 2011 Rate
Regular levy $11,251.81 $19,018.28 2.83207
Assumption: $3,973,000,00 Base year taxable value of area
State Shared Revenues
Liquor tax
Liquor Board profits
Fuel Tax
Art St Fuel Tax
Criminal justice
I
Miscellaneous Revenues
Sales Tax, 0
Utility tax
Fines & forfeits
Permit
Plan Review
Franchise Fees
Business Licences
I
Assumptions. "''''ftl 20%
5.0%
2.5%
Total
Total
Per Capita Existing Voar10
$4.61 $425.96 $658.31
$7.44 $687.46 $1,062.43
$12.73 $1,176.25 $1,817.84
$6.79 $627.40 $969.61
$2.19 $202.36 $312.73
$33.76 $3,119.42 $4,820.93
Per Capita Existing Voar 10
$19.84 $1,833.22 $3,538.22
$76.39 $7,058.80 $13,623.92
$13.96 $1,289.90 $1,993.49
$15.35 $283.73 $438.49
$9.24 $170.80 $263.97
$13.86 $1,280.66 $2,471.76
n/a nla nla
$148.65 $11,917.12 $22,329.85
Portion of per capita revenue anticipated from permits and plan review
Annual population/housing unit growth rate based on capacity for new housing in area
Annual inflation
Existing
Year 10
)::.
~ -~ :s:
=It
~
Page 1 of 3c") -..;.
Operating Fund Costs ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS
Per Capita
Driver Per Capita Existing Year 10
Executive
Communications {Print Shop} Population $1.57 $145.07 $300.28
Hearing Examiner New Development $1.67 $153.90 $318.56
City Attorney population $17.77 $1,641.95 $3,398.74
Court Services Population $15.34 $1,417.42 $2,933.98
Community and Ecan Dev
Ecan Dev Commercial SqFt No commercial Sq Ft in area
Planning Population $8.03 $148.39 $307.17
Dey. Services Population $23.21 $428.92 $887.84
Community Services
Human Services Population $5.69 $525.76 $1,088.29
Special Events/Neigh. Population $2.41 $222.68 $460.94
Parks Planning, Nat Res. Population $1.92 $177.41 $367.23
I Total $77.61 $4,861.49 $10,063.03
Per Acre/MHe/Call for Service
Per Acrel
Driver Mile/Cail Existing Vear 10
Community Services
Parks Park Acreage $2,497.03 $0.00 $0.00
PBPW
Street Maint Feet of Roadway $2.23 $4,237.00 $5,674.94
Transportation Systems Feet of Roadwav $0.30 $562.09 $1,068.64
Police
Patrol. Ops., Investlg., and Jail Calls for Service $268.10 $6,387.82 $13,222.44
ValleyComm Calls for Service $26.50 $822.03 $1,701.56
Fire
Emergency Response Change in Contract $7,879.52 $10,157.63
I Total nfa $19,888.46 $31,825.~
Per FTE
Driver Existing Year 10
Community Services.
Facilities FrE's $1,070.18 $2,215.21
Finance & IS
15 FrE's $589.70 $1,220.65
HR
Admin FTE's. $141.20 $292.28
Risk Reduction FTE's $279.79 $579.15
I Total $2,080.87 $4,307.30
Assumptions: Fire service provided under contract with FD#25
3.3% Annual increase in costs
o Acres of parks In area
20% Portion of per capita costs anticipated from permits and plan review
1,900 Existing linear feet of roadway
1,900 Year 10 Imear feet of roadway
Total Costs
Existing
Year 10
$26,830.82
$46,195.53
Net Operating Fiscal Impact
Existing -$542.46
Year 10 ·$26.48
:b ; -~ :s:
=It
Q) •
Page 2 of~
----
ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS
Capital and Enterprise Funds
Real Estate Excise Tax
Per capita Existing Year 10
Revenue $24.64 $455.35 $878.85
Public Works -Surface Water
Per Housing Unit Existing Year 10
Rate Revenue $124.44 $4,10652 $5,128.48
Maintenance and Utility Costs -$25.30 -$835.06 -$1,042.88
I Ba/ance $99.14 $3,271.46 $4,085.60
Public Works· Waste Water
Per Housing Unit Existing Year 10
Rate Revenue $286.56 $9,456.48 $18,251.58
Wastewater Maint. and Utility Costs -$156.06 -$5,150.02 -$10,660.28
I BaJance $130.50 n/a $7,591.31
Public Works· Water
Per Housing Unit Existing Year 10
ater Maint. and Utilityl Served by Water District n90
Assumptions; 20% Portion of Real Estate Excise Tax revenue anticipated from permits and plan review
3.3% Annual increase in costs
33 Existing Housing Units
51
5.0%
2.5%
Year 10 Housing Units
Annual population/housing unit growth rate based on capacity for new housing in area
Annual inflation
Existing
Year 10
Existing
Year 10
Total Revenues
$14,018.35
$24,258.91
Total Costs
-$5,985.08
-$11,703.15
Capital & Enterprise Balance
Existing $8,033.26
Year 10 $12,555.76
):.
I -ilt :s::
:f:t:
!=h
Page3~
~
r------l~
g;
<:(
1-=--:-:-::--:--::-:-,£ SE 142nd Sf ;J;
C. E. "Ch/pH Vincent
Admini5.trator
.....
-----~-Ifenton ®
Community & E('onomi(
Development
I
6
N
Date: 12/16/2015
f-------'l~
r--1e:~----J L...----
Bradley Annexation
Vicinity Map
L~1 Proposed Annexation Boundary
'-"1City Limits
DParcels
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
UNDER RCW 3SA.14.120
[Direct Petition Method)
(10% PETITION -BRADLEY ANNEXA TlON)
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RENTON
City Hall, c/o City Clerk
lOSS South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
,
AGENlfINfENJC#6. c)
JAN 2 I) 2016
RECEIVED
CiTy CLERK'S OFFICE
The undersigned are property owners in the proposed annexation area who represent
not less than ten percent [10%) of the area's estimated assessed value who desire to
annex to the City of Renton.
We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence
annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 3SA.14.120, of all or any part of the area
described below.
The territory proposed to be annexed Is wi'thln King County, Washington, and is contiguous to
the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of
this petition.
The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this
request for a public meeting with the undersigned.
1. At such meeting. the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or
geographically modify the proposed annexation;
2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a
proposed zoning regulation; and
3, The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of a proportional
share of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the
signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one
Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which
cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention,
Bradley Annexation PBt tion
1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bradley Annexation
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who
knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking to annex when he or she is
not the Owner of record of property within the annexation area, or signs a petition when he or she is
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, sholl be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition.
(Names of petitioners should be In Identical/arm as the name that appears on record In the title to
the real estate.,
Signature and
Date Printed Name of Owner of
Signed Record of Property
Mall! ng Address
of Owner of Property
Tax Lot Legal No. Property's
Description Assessed Value
(lor. Blodc,PIlt. AsImor's NC!, In Annexation
or 01"") Area
Itsas I.q:; TN A~ f.. 2..">2. 30 ~ -).. V'iS) tJot)
X'Cr .... rOIV 4)Afg~ '1 OD I
'.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Bradley Annexation AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, ar who
knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking to annex when he or she is
not the owner of record of property within the annexation area, or signs a petition when he or she is
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing ofthis petition.
(Names of petitioners should be In Ident/cal form as the name that appears on record in the title to
the real estate.)
139750 -
0100
----I~
~
<:(
1---::'-::'-'-:-:::-""7"-::-::-,:5 SE 142nd Sf ;g
'co
Co ~
§
i
~ a..
" '" §
~
....
0 250 SOD ~""""========~'F~I
C. E, WChlp" Vlnunt
Administrator
1:3,000
Adrluna AbfUlfIlJtdch
GIS Analyst
--~-Renton e
Community & Economic
Development
D,
N
Date: 1211612015
SE 143rd Sf
:;ns:;::< :~::?::~
" .. ' ~>-,;<,<j,2~~ -,,"' .. >-~'-",>-'¥ ',-
~
f--..--f---la:
~--j------,~
It)
/·'</<l~--~,~----t----i""
Bradley Annexation
Vicinity Map
[,:1 Proposed Annexation Boundary
.:.... '1City Limits
o Parcels
c)
AGENDA ITEM #6. c)
BRADLEY ANNEXATION
Legal Description
Beginning at a point on the limits of the City of Renton as annexed under City of Renton Ordinance No.
5398, said point being at the Intersection of the northwesterly right of way margin of SE 142'· PI and the
westerly right of way margin of 156th Ave SE, In the Southwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23
North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington;
Thence southerly along said westerly margin and said limits, crossing said SE 142'd PI, to the intersection
with the westerly extension of the North line of Lot 10 of Carolwood as recorded in Volume 111 of Plats,
pages 99 & laO, records of King County;
Thence easterly along said extension and North line and said limit line, crossing 156lh Ave SE, to the
Northeast corner of said Lot 10, in the Southeast quarter of said Section 14;
Thence southerly, leaving said limit line, along the East line of said Lot 10 to the Southeast corner
thereof, said corner also being on the northerly right of way margin of SE 143'· St;
Thence easterly along said margin to the intersection with the northerly extension of East line of Lot 1 of
Carolwood No.2, as recorded in Volume 114 of Plats, page 74, records of said County;
Thence southerly along said northerly extension and said East line to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1;
Thence easterly along the south line of said plat to the East line of the westerly 680 feet of said
Southeast quarter;
Thence southerly along said East line to the intersection with the northerly right of way margin of SE
144th St· ,
Thence westerly along said northerly margin to the intersection with the northerly extension of the East
line of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of
Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.;
Thence southerly along said extension and said East line, crOSSing said SE 144" St, to an intersection
with the northwest corner of lot 9 of Brlarwood West, as recorded In Volume 93 of Plats, Pages 91 & 92,
records of said County, said intersection also being a point on the "NEW LOT LINE" courses of King
County Lot Line Adjustment No. g90718, recorded under Rec. No. 9010241356, records of said County;
Thence easterly, southerly and westerly along said various "NEW lOT LINE" courses, terminating at the
easterly margin of said 156" Ave SE;
Thence northerly along said easterly margin to the south line of said West half;
Page 10f2 (0354)
AGENDA ITEM #6. c).
Thence westerly along said south line, crossing said 156'" Ave SE, to the southwest corner of said West
half, said Southwest comer also being the Southeast corner of the North half of the Northeast quarter of
the Northwest quarter of said Section 23;
Thence westerly along said south line to the intersection with the northeasterly right of way margin of
154"' PI SE;
Thence generally northwesterly along the various courses of said northeasterly margin, to the
intersection with the north line of said Northwest quarter;
Thence continuing northwesterly along the northwesterly extension of 156'· Ave SE, crossing SE 144'· St,
to an intersection with the northerly margin of SE 144'" 5t in said Southwest quarter of Section 14;
Thence easterly along said northerly margin, crossing the unimproved right of way for 154'" Ave SE, to
the southwest corner of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat #379074 under recording number 7910040704,
records of said County;
Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 1 to the northwest corner of said Lot 1;
Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 1 to the West line of the east 150 feet of lot 7 of Cedar
River Five Acre Tracts as recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page S2, records of said County;
Thence northerly along said West line to the intersection with the southeasterly margin of SE 142" PI;
Thence northwesterly, crossing 5E 142" PI, at a perpendicular to the centerline of said SE 142'd PI, to
the Intersection with the northwesterly margin of said SE 142"d PI;
Thence northeasterly and northerly along said northwesterly margin to the point of beginning.
Page 2 of 2 (0354)
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON p.s.
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, W A 9810 1-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
CITY OF RENTON
FEB I 82016
Fax: (206) 623-7789 tJ :09
R!;CEIVED "( I. M
CITY ClERK"S OFFICE ,'·'1 Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
In re:
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
JI~ Itllre ,~cI
Project No. LUA09-151
QUENDALL TERMINALS FEIS AND
MITIGATION DOCUMENT, SEPA APPEAL JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
I. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto that the above-
entitled cause, having been fully settled and compromised, may be dismissed with prejudice
through entry of the subjoined Order of Dismissal, \kith each party to bear its own costs.
DATED this 1S!1!ay of February, 2016.
::L ... LI-::,S &;:+.C,:.A;.c.R""K;::~::-:c,;r:-T"'iINi-;!&«ifPE-tT-i. E~~ .. SOo;NoP_.S_. __ .;~ :~
AmltD. Ranade, ~4878 '1fy ~ ~
AnnM.Gygi, WSBA#19912 rrc.s~
Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
II. ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MA TIER came before the Renton Hearing Examiner on the foregoing
Stipulation of the parties. Based on the foregoing Stipulation, the Renton Hearing Examiner
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING
APPF.AL WITH PREJUDICE -I
HILLIS CURK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue. Sutte 500
Seat1je. WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
· .
hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES that the appeal of Quendall Tenninals Project
LUA09·151 and all claims alleged by the parties are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, and each party rill bear its own costs . .... '-'-
DATED this 22 day of ?~ ,2016.
CJ=5:j?~
Presented by:
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
By /hut /I( . ~.
Amit D. Ranade, WSA34878
Ann M. Gygi, WSBA # 19912
Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
SOUTH END GIVES BACK
~
~
ND: I99S8.oo348S3·2560-1726vl
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING
APPEAL WITH PR£JUDICE -2
HILLIS CLARK MARTI'" & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue. Su~e 500
Seattle. WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
j
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Staff,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sunday, February 21, 2016 6:08 AM
brad nicholson; Cynthia Moya; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth;
cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-1S1J
Please include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendall Homes application.
Mr. Nicholson,
Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I will likely send out a signed order tomorrow once I've
had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal.
From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or
should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of
involvement in your case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to
know as little about your project as possible until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing
exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions I am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff,
the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your case outside the hearing
process. Because of these legal requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is
strictly limited to the testimony presented during the project hearing and the exhibits admitted into
evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the
opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited to knowing it's big, controversial and involves a
superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if
anything big is coming up, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as
opposed to applications) sometimes involve a little more advance information due to the necessity to sometimes
hold prehearing conferences. Prehearing conferences are prehearing meetings or email exchanges with appeal
hearing participants designed to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a more efficient
appeal hearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for
testimony, requiring the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and setting deadlines for prehearing motions
and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehearing conference, I will typically ask for a copy of
the notice of appeal four to six weeks in advance of a scheduled appeal hearing to determine whether a
prehearing conference would be useful.
As best as I can recall, Renton has only had a couple land use appeal hearings in the last five years that I've
worked with the city. Renton is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently
regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staffreport is
complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be
included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed. However, it's not going to attract my notice
until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a prehearing conference. From your
email response yesterday I was able to find an email from the City Clerk's office from last September that
contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that
the stipulated order includes all necessary parties.
1
'{.uur email also asserts that I've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law
requires an appeal of FEIS adequacy to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I
would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previously discussed, the
circumstances under which staff can talk to me about a case are very limited outside the hearing process. I don't
recall making any comments to staff regarding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten
about it.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, brad nicholson <l)II1CL~n(g;hotmail.co11l> wrote:
Your Honor,
You may be looking for "Quendall Homes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall
Terminals" EIS decision which you decided to consolidate with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago.
Vanessa Dolbee informed me that is was because of "State Law" You may have forgotten about it but the
appeal documents were sent directly to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an
appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving the Master Plan for around
700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take
your actions?
Respectfully,
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
From: 01 brcchtslaw@£11lail.com
To: C:\!lQY'L(g'r~,m(l n w a. ;'ov
CC: VDolbcc (d· rcnt()lma~Q,:; l,'N,:Lrren (g' rcntonwa. ~()V; J Seth (a. rentonwa,£()v;
"mathewson@centurvpacificlp,com; hrad827 Gi' hotmail.com; ilJ1J1..gy,gi~)J.lC[l1p,£()nl
Please confirm that all parties to the SEPA appeal have signed the stipulated order to dismiss. I have no
documentation on the appeal, so I have no knowledge of what parties are involved.
On Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <C\1ova@relll()ll\\',1,g()~> wrote:
Mr. Olbrechts,
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendall Terminals FEIS
& Mitigation Document, SEPA Appeal (File #LUA-09-151), The parties have asked that you sign the attached
document as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at 425-430-7314.
2
Thank yuu.
Cindy :\1oya. Records Management Specialist
City of Renton· Administrative Services/City Clerk Division
425··BO·6513
.-tr~. i"'"'
----.il-'flrr>fi ', •... ' ____ ... J_'"
3
:Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
All Appellants,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday, February 22, 2016 7:44 AM
brad nicholson; Cynthia Moya; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth;
cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-1S1J
The proposed stipulated order is missing one of the parties to the appeal. As outlined in RMC 4-8-11 0(E)(7),
the City is a party to the appeal. I will sign the stipulated order if I get email confirmation from the City that it
has no objection to the stipulated order.
Please note Mr. Nicholson has sent me another email, included in this email string, that was not cc'd to the other
parties to the appeal. As before, I request that staff include this updated email string as one of their hearing
exhibits. They should also have five copies of this email string available at the hearing so that I can disclose the
ex parte communications with Mr. Nicholson and give the opportunity for the public to review and respond to
those communications. In response to Mr. Nicholson's second email, as noted in my last email to him, I
received a copy of his notice of appeal (all 200+ pages) as an email attachment from the City Clerk's Office last
September. Other than a response from staff as to whether they have an objection to the stipulated order, I ask
that I receive no further communications from the parties on the appeal regarding the appeal. For the reasons
outlined in my last email toMr. Nichols, it is important that pre-hearing ex parte communications be limited as
much as possible.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 PM, brad nicholson <brad827 (ci'holrnail.com> wrote:
Your Honor,
I can recall with crystal clarity. 5 weeks after filing the appeal, I called the City Clerk and requested information
about why I received no acknowledgement of its receipt or correspondence whatsoever. It would appear that I
have been involved in as many appeals in Renton as you have and in the past, the normal process has been to
give a short explanation of what is going on. At first the Clerk told me that he had posted it on the web and that
I would need to talk to Staff about it. I had complained to him that I had spent considerable time and had
addressed the appeal to you and not to staff. My comment letter was addressed to staff but my appeal notice
along with $250.00 was addressed to you according to staff instructions. The Clerk then assured me in no
uncertain terms that the appeal document went directly to you and that you had a copy of it in your possession. I
complained to him that I paid the fee for the appeal to go to you and not to staff. Thus I am surprised that you
would indicate that you have no documents. I am also surprised that you did not get it and it was never in your
possession. I am just saying that I had also been quite disturbed that staff had been the ones to decide on the
appeal consolidation even though I think you are correct in presuming that it may have been generally known to
be the case. But I had not understood that they had jurisdiction to decide issues of Law in a pending appeal.
Respectfully
Brad Nicholson
1
Date~ Sun, 21 Feb 2016 06:07:51 -vuOO
'Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151J
From: r)!brcL'llts]a\\" (ji: ':!m~Li l.cum
To: br,ldK:2 7 (J h( It! 11ai I.n) rJ 1; C:VI ( )V~l (~I Il,'11 [( )11 \\-d. i2U \'; \' Du I hee ({I rc n tl "!Il \\',1 ~ ~f)_~~; t \\i alTC 11 «f ft'ntu n \\_ <-l~_(_~_\_~
!)_(.lh_G={)\~_t1L(~n\~A~g~)\".; (}J,E,L,tl.J.C\\',,:-on ~-~'CI1tUr) p~tt' i fit.,·lp .. Q~_'.r:E; _~_t!.1)J._gygi (d' he nll1.c0ll1
Staff,
Please include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendall Homes application,
Mr. Nicholson,
Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I will likely send out a signed order tomorrow once I've
had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal.
From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or
should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of
involvement in your case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to
know as little about your project as possible until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing
exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions I am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff,
the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your case outside the hearing
process. Because of these legal requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is
strictly limited to the testimony presented during the project hearing and the exhibits admitted into
evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the
opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited to knowing it's big, controversial and involves a
superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if
anything big is coming up, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as
opposed to applications) sometimes involve a little more advance information due to the necessity to sometimes
hold prehearing conferences. Prehearing conferences are prehearing meetings or email exchanges with appeal
hearing participants designed to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a more efficient
appeal hearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for
testimony, requiring the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and setting deadlines for prehearing motions
and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehearing conference, I will typically ask for a copy of
the notice of appeal four to six weeks in advance of a scheduled appeal hearing to determine whether a
prehearing conference would be useful.
As best as I can recall, Renton has only had a couple land use appeal hearings in the last five years that I've
worked with the city. Renton is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently
regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staff report is
complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be
included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed. However, it's not going to attract my notice
until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a prehearing conference. From your
email response yesterday I was able to find an email from the City Clerk's office from last September that
contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that
the stipulated order includes all necessary parties.
Your email also asserts that I've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law
requires an appeal of FEIS adequacy to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I
would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previously discussed, the
2
circuinstances under which staff Cau talk to me about a case are very limite<.. ~utside the hearing process. J don't
'recall making any comments to staff regarding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten
about it.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, brad nicholson <bradK~7I!3hgtmaiL,'('lD> wrote:
Your Honor,
You may be looking for "Quendal! Homes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall
Terminals" EIS decision which you decided to consolidate with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago.
Vanessa Dolbee informed me that is was because of "State Law" You may have forgotten about it but the
appeal documents were sent directl y to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an
appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving the Master Plan for around
700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take
your actions?
Respectful! y,
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
From: nlhrcchblaw 0.1 zmail.colll
To: CMovu@rcntoT1wa.gov
CC: VDolhee@rentonwa.gov; LW illTC1LG3.J£Ill.\1Q.\'!U&()'!; J Seth@rclltoll"a.gOY;
,m~Jlw.v\:s.Cl..n_I!3j:£nt.lJl!12~s:i fielp,com; bradS27 0' hotmai I.com; ann.gygi (a' hcmp.c()m
Please confirm that all parties to the SEPA appeal have signed the stipulated order to dismiss. I have no
documentation on the appeal, so I have no knowledge of what parties are involved.
On Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <CMova«i'rcntonwa.~O\> wrote:
Mr. Olbrechts,
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendall Terminals FEIS
& Mitigation Document, SEPA Appeal (File #LU A-09-151). The parties have asked that you sign the attached
document as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at 425-430-7314.
Thank YOl!,
Cindy Moya. Record, \1anagemenl Specialist
City of Renton· Administrative Seryicc,/City Clerk Division
~.!J1Q.Y~L~: r~Jl1o 11 wJ:!~(~~
425-·BO-6513
~r-rr---'-' --c,
---!'..~!1!!J!l f,;
3
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Staff,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday, February 22, 2016 9:59 PM
brad nicholson
ann.gygi@hcmp.com; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; Jason Seth; Vanessa Dolbee;
Cynthia Moya; Larry Warren
Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-1S1)
This will be the last addition to the email string regarding the FEIS appeal. As requested before, please have
five copies ready for the hearing should anyone need to see these emails when I disclose these ex parte contacts
with Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. Nicholson,
I would normally not further complicate the record of this case by further communications with you, but it
appears that there is some major misunderstanding or miscommunication going on and I want to take one last
attempt at rectifying it. I wish I could just talk to you about this, but as the decision maker my ability to
communicate with you is very limited due to the reasons identified in my first email to you. Ultimately,
however, this will have to be our last communication regarding your appeal unless you plan on making some
motion that you entered into the stipulated dismissal order due to some form of fraud or misrepresentation. Any
other further information you want me to consider should be sent exclusively to the planning staff as comment
on the application.
As I identified in my first email to you, I don't become involved in an appeal until it's time to consider whether a
prehearing conference or email exchange is in order. This usually occurs four to six weeks prior to the
scheduled appeal date. In this case you would likely have received an email from me to all appeal parties
inquiring whether the parties wanted to resolve some prehearing procedural issues or otherwise desired a
prehearing order outlining hearing procedures. A request for such a prehearing order is usually initiated by one
of the appeal parties, but I will often initiate that inquiry on my own if no one beats me to it.
I will also address any proposed orders or prehearing motions when they come in. Beyond this, planning and
city clerk staff are responsible for processing an appeal. The role of City staff and myself does not change
because you've persuaded staff to send me your notice of appeal earlier than the completion of the staff
report. I'm not sure what type of response you were looking for from your appeal statement. If you just wanted
an acknowledgement that your appeal had been filed, then staff would be responsible for that. If they don't
issue some sort of acknowledgment as a matter of course, I'm sure they would provide you with something upon
request. If you had any questions about how the appeal would be processed or scheduled, all you had to do was
ask staff. If you disagreed with how staff was handling some prehearing procedural issue regarding your
appeal, you were free to either file a motion with myself ahead of time or to raise the issue at the hearing. If you
had made a legally compelling argument that consolidation should not have occured during your appeal hearing,
I would not have had any problem segregating out your appeal (although for future reference, the SEPA rules
requiring consolidation are fairly clear and I've yet to come across any argument to the contrary).
If you are upset because I didn't read your appeal months prior to the appeal hearing, there is no reason to
be. There's nothing I could have done with any knowledge I would have gained from reading your appeal
months in advance. Reading appeal statements too far in advance (especially those exceeding the more typical
1
IO pages and under) can be a tremendous waste of time since the appeal can ~dsily be narrowed or even
withdrawn over time and also because I will have to re-read everything once the hearing date is
close. Excluding any prehearing motions or orders that may be presented to me, I only need to know about the
details of your appeal in time for the hearing on your appeal. For the stipulated motion to dismiss, I just needed
documentation establishing what hearing parties should be included in the order, and I got that information
when you pointed out that your notice of appeal had been emailed to me months earlier. If you had not agreed
to have your appeal dismissed, I would have read your entire notice of appeal prior to the hearing and I would
have gone through it with a fine toothed comb after the hearing as I prepared my decision. It's entirely possible
that you would not have liked the result of my decision on your appeal, but I can assure you that you would not
have been able to sincerely assert that your issues had not been thoroughly reviewed and addressed.
Once the hearing on Quendall is over and the appeal period has expired I will be happy to discuss this with you
further (assuming the discussion doesn't relate to some other pending appeal or application). Also, if it wasn't
clear to staff before, it is appropriate for staff to recommend to the parties of an appeal that they request some
sort of prehearing conference or email exchange from me if the appeal parties have procedural questions about
the conduct of a hearing. For appeal parties represented by attorneys (which has usually been the case), there
isn't much confusion about how to participate. For unrepresented citizens, however, I'm sure there's room for
improvement as to how to make hearing participants comfortable with the process. Land use appeals in Renton
are rare, especially when they involve unrepresented parties.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:48 PM, brad nicholson <hGI(I.~ .. cZ«J'hotfllail.u)111> wrote:
your Honor,
Well I want to apologize but well it took 5 months to get a response? the appeal notice i.e "The facts are
dispositive" while it took 24 hours to respond to the PRP's
I amjust wondering do you need to have the EPA sign off on the case too? It could be Cami Grandinetti.
Respectfully
Brad Nicholson
From: LWarren@Rentonwa.gov
To: ()ll'rgl:lllsl,,~((i' ~l1lail.cunl; brad8='7 «i hot l11ai I.COlll; CMoya@Rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov;
JSeth@Rentonwa.gov; Clllal hewS( llJ (Qccnl Lll"VPAc:i(icl[l.,c.0m; ann. ,!y~i (a' hc Illp.C( )(11
Subject: RE: Renton -Quendall Homes (LU A-09-151)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:38:55 +0000
Mr. Olbrechts, the city has no objection to the stipulated order. If you have any questions, please let me know.
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmaiLconl]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 20167:44 AM
To: brad nicholson; Cynthia Moya; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth; cmathewson(cDcenturypacificlp.com;
ann.qygi(iihcmp,(om
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
2
All Appellants,
The proposed stipulated order is missing one of the parties to the appeal. As outlined in RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(7),
the City is a party to the appeaL I will sign the stipulated order if I get email confirmation from the City that it
has no objection to the stipulated order.
Please note Mr. Nicholson has sent me another email, included in this email string, that was not cc'd to the other
parties to the appeaL As before, I request that staff include this updated email string as one of their hearing
exhibits, They should also have five copies of this email string available at the hearing so that I can disclose the
ex parte communications with Mr. Nicholson and give the opportunity for the public to review and respond to
those communications. In response to Mr. Nicholson's second email, as noted in my last email to him, I
received a copy of his notice of appeal (all 200+ pages) as an email attachment from the City Clerk's Office last
September. Other than a response from staff as to whether they have an objection to the stipulated order, I ask
that I recei ve no further communications from the parties on the appeal regarding the appeaL For the reasons
outlined in my last email toMr. Nichols, it is important that pre-hearing ex parte communications be limited as
much as possible.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 PM, brad nicholson <hr'!cii:l.2.10.'.hQ1 .. maiL.l"c)[1l> wrote:
Your Honor,
I can recall with crystal clarity. 5 weeks after filing the appeal, I called the City Clerk and requested information
about why I recei ved no acknowledgement of its receipt or correspondence whatsoever. It would appear that I
have been involved in as many appeals in Renton as you have and in the past, the normal process has been to
give a short explanation of what is going on. At first the Clerk told me that he had posted it on the web and that
I would need to talk to Staff about it. I had complained to him that I had spent considerable time and had
addressed the appeal to you and not to staff. My comment letter was addressed to staff but my appeal notice
along with $250.00 was addressed to you according to staff instructions. The Clerk then assured me in no
uncertain terms that the appeal document went directly to you and that you had a copy of it in your possession. I
complained to him that I paid the fee for the appeal to go to you and not to staff. Thus I am surprised that you
would indicate that you have no documents. I am also surprised that you did not get it and it was never in your
possession. I am just saying that I had also been quite disturbed that staff had been the ones to decide on the
appeal consolidation even though I think you are correct in presuming that it may have been generally known to
be the case. But I had not understood that they had jurisdiction to decide issues of Law in a pending appeal.
Respectfully
Brad Nicholson
3
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 201606:07:51 -voOO
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-1S1)
From: cdhrl',-']lt"L:\\ U glluiLlTlln
To: l~Idd~~} ((I' lls.2.Ull:li l~~~~~LD; _L~J~:lLr....!i::1.!!~.~.n~~~; Yl1_l1b_";_~ __ ('}J~}lt_l,}n \\"'l.gO\'; L \\:;EE,--'JL(i r l\:!E; )llW~U;~~~;
J)~tiJ __ CiCI~-:.!l [\_lJJ~~~_;_~~g~_)_~~; ~L(FLLht:\Y_~~}J1_~C! I..~c_n t LI r Y P~J'; i t'il' 1 E:~:\)I u; i.\I~ n.:': \' ~i (!! l1C Ill.U.:.l.:~ llli
Staff,
Please include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendall Homes application.
Mr. Nicholson,
Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I will likely send out a signed order tomorrow once I've
had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal.
From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or
should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of
involvement in your case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to
know as little about your project as possible until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing
exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions I am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff,
the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your case outside the hearing
process. Because of these legal requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is
strictly limited to the testimony presented during the project hearing and the exhibits admitted into
evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the
opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited to knowing it's big, controversial and involves a
superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if
anything big is coming up, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as
opposed to applications) sometimes involve a little more advance information due to the necessity to sometimes
hold prehearing conferences. Prehearing conferences are prehearing meetings or email exchanges with appeal
hearing participants designed to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a more efficient
appeal hearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for
testimony, requiring the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and setting deadlines for prehearing motions
and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehearing conference, I will typically ask for a copy of
the notice of appeal four to six weeks in advance of a scheduled appeal hearing to determine whether a
pre hearing conference would be useful.
4
As best as I can recall, Renton has vnly had a couple land use appeal hearin"" in the last five years that I've
worked with the city, Renton is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently
regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staff report is
complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be
included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed. However, it's not going to attract my notice
until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a prehearing conference. From your
email response yesterday I was able to find an email from the City Clerk's office from last September that
contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that
the stipulated order includes all necessary parties.
Your email also asserts that I've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law
requires an appeal of FEIS adequacy to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I
would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previously discussed, the
circumstances under which staff can talk to me about a case are very limited outside the hearing process. I don't
recall making any comments to staff regarding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten
about it.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, brad nicholson <bracl~27Gihotrnail.l'()rn> wrote:
Your Honor,
You may be looking for "Quendall Homes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall
Terminals" EIS decision which you decided to consolidate with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago.
Vanessa Dolbee informed me that is was because of "State Law" You may have forgotten about it but the
appeal documents were sent directly to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an
appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving the Master Plan for around
700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take
your actions?
Respectfully,
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LV A-09-\5\)
From: oltncchlsiawC(" zllIail.colll
To: eM(1)" (it renton"", ~ov
CC: ylJ!QJl1.,~.~u~!/ .r~_lJ~.9.n \~: ~1 ~.Q.'y_; _~ \YJn·~.ni?·_ rCJll9J}_\\·_;J·gQ_~::; J .. S._cJ _~}_~g\X~.n ~ ~~Jl.''0::~! ~ gQ.\',;
cnl<.nllCW\{1n titccntul"\" pacificlp.cQ!n; br,_tQ_~_~lJifJl(lll1~li l~~~~nl; nntl.~vl!i 0' hc[n12~c~)nl
5
Please confirm that all parties to th" "EPA appeal have signed the stipulate~ urder to dismiss. I have no
documentation on the appeal, so I have no knowledge of what parties are involved.
On Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <Cl\II)~,,(al\'ntoll\\:d.2_()\> wrote:
Mr. Olbrechts,
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendall Terminals FEIS
& Mitigation Document, SEPA Appeal (File #LUA-09-1Sl). The parties have asked that you sign the attached
document as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at ,P5-,BO-73I.!.
Thank YOl!o
Cindy Moya. RCL'ords Managemcnt Specialist
City of Rcnton -Administrativc Services/City Clerk Division
~~nE?,Y.~_L(ci' 1"(:11 ton \Va. gOY
-P 5--UO-65 13
6
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Larry Warren
Monday, February 22, 2016 8:39 AM
'Phil Olbrechts'; brad nicholson; Cynthia Maya; Vanessa Dolbee; Jason Seth;
cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; ann.gygi@hcmp.com
RE: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
Mr. Olbrechts, the city has no objection to the stipulated ordeLlfyou have any questions, please let me know.
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:44 AM
To: brad nicholson; Cynthia Maya; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com;
ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-1S1)
All Appellants,
The proposed stipulated order is missing one of the parties to the appeal. As outlined in RMC 4-8-IIO(E)(7),
the City is a party to the appeal. I will sign the stipulated order if I get email confirmation from the City that it
has no objection to the stipulated order.
Please note Mr. Nicholson has sent me another email, included in this email string, that was not cc'd to the other
parties to the appeal. As before, I request that staff include this updated email string as one of their hearing
exhibits. They should also have five copies of this email string available at the hearing so that I can disclose the
ex parte communications with Mr. Nicholson and give the opportunity for the public to review and respond to
those communications. In response to Mr. Nicholson's second email, as noted in my last email to him, I
received a copy of his notice of appeal (all 200+ pages) as an email attachment from the City Clerk's Office last
September. Other than a response from staff as to whether they have an objection to the stipulated order, I ask
that I receive no further communications from the parties on the appeal regarding the appeal. For the reasons
outlined in my last email toMr.Nichols.itis important that pre-hearing ex parte communications be limited as
much as possible.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 PM, brad nicholson <hrad827 Co' hotmail.co11l> wrote:
Your Honor,
I can recall with crystal clarity. 5 weeks after filing the appeal, I called the City Clerk and requested information
about why I received no acknowledgement of its receipt or correspondence whatsoever. It would appear that I
have been involved in as many appeals in Renton as you have and in the past, the normal process has been to
give a short explanation of what is going on. At first the Clerk told me that he had posted it on the web and that
I would need to talk to Staff about it. I had complained to him that I had spent considerable time and had
addressed the appeal to you and not to staff. My comment letter was addressed to staff but my appeal notice
along with $250.00 was addressed to you according to staff instructions. The Clerk then assured me in no
uncertain terms that the appeal document went directly to you and that you had a copy of it in your possession. I
complained to him that I paid the fee for the appeal to go to you and not to staff. Thus I am surprised that you
would indicate that you have no documents. I am also surprised that you did not get it and it was never in your
possession. I am just saying that I had also been quite disturbed that staff had been the ones to decide on the
appeal consolidation even though I think you are correct in presuming that it may have been generally known to
1
be the case. But I had not understo~_ that they had jurisdiction to decide iss_"s of Law in a pending appeal.
Respectrully
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 06:07:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
From: 01 hrechhl'l\\ Co ~Illai i.eOli'
To: l)rmj~n(ii'h()tll1ai I.com; Cvl oya (d' renton wa.g(w; V Dol bee (if ren tOt1\\:l.gQ_v; h-\\'<lI'Ll~n(grClllonwa,g.ov;
J Seth 0: rC!1tonwa.Qo\; e mathcws()n(g2.~"nILlryJllicific Ip.com; ann. Qy~i «..I' hcmp.com
Staff,
Please include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendall Homes application.
Mr. Nicholson,
Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I willlikel y send out a signed order tomorrow once I've
had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal.
From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or
should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of
involvement in your case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to
know as little about your project as possible until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing
exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions I am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff,
the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your case outside the hearing
process. Because of these legal requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is
strictly limited to the testimony presented during the project hearing and the exhibits admitted into
evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the
opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited to knowing it's big, controversial and involves a
superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if
anything big is coming up, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as
opposed to applications) sometimes involve a little more advance information due to the necessity to sometimes
hold prehearing conferences. Pre hearing conferences are pre hearing meetings or email exchanges with appeal
hearing participants designed to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a more efficient
appeal hearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for
testimony, requiring the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and setting deadlines for prehearing motions
and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehearing conference, I will typically ask for a copy of
the notice of appeal four to six weeks in advance of a scheduled appeal hearing to determine whether a
prehearing conference would be useful.
As best as I can recall, Renton has only had a couple land use appeal hearings in the last five years that I've
worked with the city. Renton is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently
regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staff report is
complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be
included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed. However, it's not going to attract my notice
until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a prehearing conference. From your
2
email response yesterday I was ab ___ 0 find an email from the City Clerk's o ___ ce from last September that
contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that
the stipulated order includes all necessary parties.
Your email also asserts that I've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law
requires an appeal of FEIS adequacy to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I
would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previously discussed, the
circumstances under which staff can talk to me about a case are very limited outside the hearing process. I don't
recall making any comments to staff regarding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten
about it.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, brad nicholson <bradiP7 GillOtrnai I.com> wrote:
Your Honor,
You may be looking for "Quendall Homes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall
Terminals" EIS decision which you decided to consolidate with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago.
Vanessa Dolbee informed me that is was because of "State Law" You may have forgotten about it but the
appeal documents were sent directly to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an
appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving the Master Plan for around
700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take
your actions?
Respectfully,
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
From: (,Ibrcchtslaw ClI' \!l1laj I.com
To: Cj\1ov.~t~{Lrcntollwa.go\'
CC: VDolbcc 01 rcntonwa.!lov~ L \Varrct1 0" rcntonwa. 2.ov; J Seth (r!\ rcnt()I1Vv'(1. gO\';
cmat he\.\' ,-;on @centurvpaciriclp.com; brad8)7 (fi\ h()trn~i I.CO!ll; anll.£vQi eft hemp.com
Please confirm that all parties to the SEPA appeal have signed the stipulated order to dismiss. I have no
documentation on the appeal, so I have no knowledge of what parties are involved.
On Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <C~l\lVaWn:ntonwa.,,(,,> wrote:
Mr. Olbrechts,
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendall Terminals FEIS
& Mitigation Document, SEPA Appeal (File #LU A-09-l51). The parties have asked that you sign the attached
document as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at 425-430-7314.
Thank YOLi.
3
Cind) \]Dya. Rc,-'()rd~ Vl;lI1tlgcmClll dPcci~lli,t
Cily "r Rem()n . Ac\mil1"lrCLli\ c Scnice,;City Clerk Di\i,i(l11
L'ilh)\a(p rCnll)ll\\ ~l.~n\
-I25--BO-65J.1
4
Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mr. Olbrechts,
Cynthia Moya
Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:35 PM
Phil Olbrechts
Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth; 'cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com';
brad827@hotmaiLcom; 'ann,gygi@hcmp.com'
Renton -Quendal! H,0ff1es (LUA-09-151) "~"
Joint Stipulation -Q~all-:rerminals.pdf ./
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendal! Terminals FE IS &
Mitigation Document, SEPA Appeal (File #LUA-09-151). The parties have asked that you sign the attached document as
soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to cal! Vanessa at 425-430-7314.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton -Administrative Services/City Clerk Division
[maya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
_r...-r:" r,
-!~!'!!!Jl! '('J
1
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P .S.
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, W A 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
In re:
Project No. LUA09-151
QUENDALL TERMINALS FEIS AND
MITIGATION DOCUMENT, SEPA APPEAL JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
I. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto that the above-
entitled cause, having been fully settled and compromised, may be dismissed with prejudice
through entry of the subjoined Order of Dismissal, with each party to bear its own costs.
DATED this lZ!~~y of February, 2016.
HILLIS q,ARK MARTIN & £ETERSON P .S.
By /b"o, /if· /~t'L
Amit D. Ranade, WSB #34878
Ann M. Gygi, WSBA #19912
Attorneys for Applicant
~GIVESBACK y~
s Pres t'4?~ri"
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P. ~ OW HSON
II. ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER came before the Renton Hearing Examiner on the foregoing
Stipulation of the parties. Based on the foregoing Stipulation, the Renton Hearing Examiner
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING
APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE -I
HILLIS CLARK MARTI'" & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES that the appeal of Quendall Terminals Project
LUA09-151 and all claims alleged by the parties are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, and each party will bear its own costs.
DATED this __ day of __________ ., 2016.
Presented by:
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
/1 j
..-" .C By IhvVl t l -./ . .{J5(1
Amit D. Ranade, WSBA #34878
Ann M. Gygi, WSBA # 19912
Attorneys for Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
SOUTH END GIVES BACK
4~~
~
ND: 19958.003 4853-2560-7726vl
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING
APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE -2
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle. WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
the notice of appeal four to six, :ks in advance of a scheduled appeal
prehearing conference would be useful.
ing to determine whether a
As best as I can recall, Renton has only had a couple land use appeal hearings in the last five years that I've
worked with the city. Renton is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently
regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staff report is
complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be
included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed. However, it's not going to attract my notice
until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a prehearing conference. From your
email response yesterday I was able to find an email from the City Clerk's office from last September that
contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that
the stipulated order includes all necessary parties.
Your email also asserts that I've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law
requires an appeal of FEIS adequacy to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I
would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previously discussed, the
circumstances under which staff can talk to me about a case are very limited outside the hearing process. I don't
recall making any comments to staff regarding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten
about it.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your Honor,
You may be looking for "Quendall Homes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall
Terminals" EIS decision which you decided to consolidate with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago.
Vanessa Dolbee informed me that is was because of "State Law" You may have forgotten about it but the
appeal documents were sent directly to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an
appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving the Master Plan for around
700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take
your actions?
Respectfully,
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
From: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
5
To: CMoya@rentonwa.gov
CC: VDolbee@rentonwa.gov; L Warren@rcntonwa.gov; J Seth@rentonwa.gov;
cmathewson@eenturypacificlp.eom; brad827@hotmail.com; ann.gygi@hemp.eom
Please confirm that all parties to the SEPA appeal have signed the stipulated order to dismiss. I have no
documentation on the appeal, so I have no knowledge of what parties are involved.
On Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <CMoya@rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Mr. Olbrechts,
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendall Terminals FEIS
& Mitigation Document, SEPA Appeal (File #LUA-09-151). The parties have asked that you sign the attached
document as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at 425-430-7314.
Thank YOl!o
Cindy Moya, Records ;v!anagement Specialist
City of Renton -Administrative Services/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
~,-:;::---~ ~!'~'Ir( ri < • ..'...'.: ... .:.~;,uJ.!. •
6
c
~
g:~
" ,':,
~O~
APPROXIMo\TEL Y 1-8 ,l,CRE OF IKPOOR .o.NPlOR
OIITPOO~.lR~ FOR ACTlV£ RECltEAllDNSHALl
I'E Pf1EU)PIDON THEPUlZAlp,0110 DECI\S
DURING F1tw.DESlGNDEVELOI'MENT
SITE& BUILDING SUMMARY
aUILDlNQ~:roo9IiIC
~TElONING,CQfI
OCCIJPANC'~M&R-2
INSTRuer'O/HYPE, I & v ... · SPRINKL<R[[)
101M a"'OONS WElQHT: 1II STORIOS OR 12S'
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AREA
sw 1 RESlDEI'IllAL (~flOORS I< 71 UNHS) ~ 7B.100tt
SW 2 R);SIl>EI'ffiAl (5 flOOfUlI< "" UN"') -&B.0D00t
!Ill 3 RESIPEfITlAL(4 flOORSI<04UNlS) _1D,4DOot
5w 4 RES'OEHTl,,"-(3 ROORS "012 1,INrtS) _11,iODsl
NY< 1 RESIOENTW. (5 fUIOIIS I. 11 UNITSI .. 018,20001
_ 2 RESIDENll""-(~ ROORS I. 51; UNITSI-&1.soo.r
SE 1 RESIDENTl"'l{5 ROOllS I. n UN1:!i) _11.iDOot
SE~ RESlD9lTW.{4 nOOllSI.72UN1:!ij _19,2DCho1'
"'" ~ RESIOENTlAl (S FI.OOItS 1.52 UM!1S) _ TII,1DOoI
"'" l RESIDENTlAl{4 FI.ODRS 110 n UNI1l» _ T'3,zoo.!
TOT ..... IIU1lllON'" AUAS ~ 731,DODst
WT"'" RESTAURA>IT ARE.O -9.1XIOoI
TOT,,"-RETAILAIlE.O-,o.\IZ$of
TOTAL PARKING AREA
sw LOWER PAllIU .... L.EVB. -U5.18OII'
IoIW LOWER PAllIUM~ lEVEl. -41.80001
SE LOWER P ..... ~I .... LEVEl. _ 1l.4.8700t
ME LOWEll P ..... IUN~ LEVU _7S.49Oot
lOT ... LLOW<:R PAilKIMo;;l.EYEl. ..... EA!J _351'-'
TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA -1,123,3655f
STlUI(:ruRAl AtsID(Nl1,,"-toLRTYAilDS" 1J.1,8OOs1
5T1IUCn"!Il, OPEN PAilIUNG DECKS _ 84,000.1
TOTAL AREA -1.,324,9655f
tANDAREAS
QR0S5 5rn MEo\, _ ~2S.376s1
""'TURAI. P\l8ll~ PrEN BPACtS,
NATURAL ~REAS ,,"-ONa SHORB..I!<E T1!AIl-140.;lllW
_RELINE fiRE ...... E;lPEDESll!IANTRAll n,na.!
!SIJI TOT,,"--1$O.3OW
OTHER 1\J!EA5:
5T1I[ET I.~B.. _ t.:Z2. 77201 (EJC~l~DE.5~OEWAU<S& ...... Os.cAl'Ej
I.ANDSGAI'EP OOURllMDS_l17.6000(
"D~Alo.s
SIP~.lI.K5INPIJ9.LJC A O.W._lB,81X1a1
SID~.lI.K5 Nll'N PIlI!lICII.oW. -1l4,DOOo1
r ... v[[) PAIIKING I\J!EA!J,
DECK PARMINij A./IQ -1<4,"""-' ('NCLUDES "'D~.lI.K5
... -, ... "" ~ ~
(o)? "C-
4Ke W4 Sf,'/,'\'Grq\,
9: ...
J"'"Y -"<i, ..
~ '\ ~
~
\ )
__ "@.,,, .,J .-'
<' ""V1.!0..,
~ t;,.
"c-"« (0)6°<,: '0 ~ ~ ...
~ ;;>t.
"'?"
)
" BI~E LO~E
SlJIIf ... CEPAilIUNG ..... EA-8 •• 000 &'-"'_D "\t lAN':~~~~SCDECI<S-... O-LEGEND ~AS ~ j/
STREETlE\'El.LAHDSCAPE_153DOo1 kINe "T ~ OR"",Hle SC-"..C O1HERLAHOSCAPE.lR[A5_33'49~ OHWM 0 W' eo' '1" ,",,~m"",~""rr"".n~ '"~,,~. ~ tv ElL h ~,~, .. ,'. ,,-. /"
SUB TOTAL AREA-738.02'" ,oo,,~,~~ ~ '\ 0 \ """':
BUILDING GROUND COVER ~ 1.87 3505f WffiAN --........., c:-
TOTAL AREA .. 925,3765f D I'DGE
POST DEVELOPMENT ACREAGES
BUILT AREA (IMPERVIOUS AREA)
BUILDINQ AREAS ..
BUILDING AREAS -181,no.r
PARKING DECK AREAS .. 5t,ooo.f
PARKING DECK LANDSCAPE AREAS -25,DOOsI'
COURTYARD PlAZAS-U1,600s1
COURTYARD MISC, DECMS -4,026.1
TOTAL BUIlDING AREAS -392,916sf
PAYEO AREAS (R.O.W., ROADS, PEDESTlIIMjBIKE PATHS)"
STREET 'A', 'II',,·CO AREAS -99,25Os1
STREETS'O''' 'E" AREAS_ 23,S2:bf
SIDEWALK AREA" SO,BOOst
TOTAl. PAVED AREAS -183,572J1'
SURFACE PARKING AREAS .. 89,000:11
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS .. 866,648&f
PERVIOUS AREA
DESIGNATED NATURAL/OPEN 5PI>.CE AREA .. 140,33811
UNPAVED FIRE LANE/PEDESTlIIAN TRAIL _19,91Osf
STREET LEVEL LANDSCAPED AREAS .. 1.5,300sf
OTHER LANDSCAPED AREAS .. 33,495'"
LOT 7 SATELLITE PROPERTY" 5O,1255f
TOTAl PERVIOUS AREAS· 269,B28sf
UNIT SUMMARY
5W RESIDENTIAl. TOTAl. UNITS -261
NW RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS -121
5E RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS" 154
NE RESIDENTIAl. TOTAl. UNrTS"154-
TOTAL UNITS .. 692
DECK PARKING:
SE QUADRANT -130 DECK PARKINC STALLS
NE QUADRANT -39 DECK PARKING STAllS
TOTAL DECK PARKING -189 STALLS
LEGEND
[EJ DUMPSTER I RECYCLE BIN
0J unLITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
!:l!!lI EXIT STAIR
~ LOBBY AREA
[
1 __________ .
I¥<~ifr"~~".............
------~ ..
... ~ ~<:;. .~""~R"
QUENDALL TERMINALS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
EXHIBIT 7
(j)
--.J «
Z
~ -z ~
::2 2 =l
n:::: ~ ,5
WI':::;::: I-~ u
"" "" ~~
-' :Z >-
---.J S2 2 « L /
o ~"d
Z w
=:J a
-, . ::
-,
: i : ~
PO.O
LEGEND
OHWM
SO' WETLAND SETBACi'i
100' DHWN S£TBACi'i
WETLAND EDGE
•. ~i " I~
"'-,~ · .. .-:"" "' . . " ... " " ...
<4k.,. '" ~SItIJ\lGrON
~ ,,---.--.-=--~.,.-,
~-==:::::::"~~~C ~~'~ ~~:.~ ~ ;.~~.~' r:'I~~: @~l.
~ :.... .. 011· ~,~e ef I : ..", ~
')( •••• 't i,,: •• ;~-~' "'-." U .::_' : •••• "~-li_, ~ •• 1. ~ ••• flit. e~ " I' • ~ -'w;" 1$
I;, ''-I~ i If! "' ... I-~-~ .'" :'.i! i:~ ~ . to,. I~ ~ ! c:\ ~,
.Ii :: .. : j;; -:"~ •. < II, II' .;;; .:"': ;0 ,f,;e! .. . • ,-", .. • '~ ~ ~_, ,," I -,~ "19-
I:;:; ; •••• I~"".; • e._: a 0 I~:;';,' : •• -: i~~~!! ~ ",-,' -.t. 'e"," " "~fj ",.:".. ~"' !i G§.: ~,~~ .. ~?i!. "'-;~~""'(fa. b.JC ... .. f» • .i> .~ ",. '~' ., : ."u·.·.e ,"' •. ,_ .~.H ill A ..• .-:w __ .. t.t ..•.• . ...
-·"ti':L __ ._e""l!' Ell 'W • If: .,.¥t' e ",' ;..~.. ",.';' ~e , ~."
... :. '[ &\:.-.. , ,I ,: I "EE :': ..':~' , ,.:: "[ ,., l~ ".!? l":: -.,.. .' .'.-," III ~.. :. :~ 31·
", '.'. ' .••• " .. 0 0, •• '1
C ~eI'% : ~~ ~ ~.~ it ~ ::,,":: ~~ I~ ~ ~. t-:-:: -:
~t:~~ ::., ~?/:~ it ~i : : )l I ,_~; '\
.>'. :.~.I. 'J. II·, e • • "',,' •.... ~I: .. 11. '< .J • • • ., '?~l''(f} ".' .. ~ ..... ;.~ .. (i(iji.~-.'.? .'1. '.fI. -..:~ '~"'''''''*''''''''~''''''''''''''''~~~@~'f\","''''''"''~''''~ ,.$ ••
J i,~ ~,. ~_.~~_
------------------,//'
C'
/ f .,..
~
••
UNIT SUMMARY
SW RESlOENTI.It.L TOTAL UNITS· 2S7
NW RESIDENnAl TOTAl UNITS -127
SE RESIOENnAl TOTAL UNITS. 154
NE RESIDENTIAL TOTAL. UNITS ~ 154
TOTAl UNITS • 692
DECK PARMING:
SE QUADRA",. ~ 130 DECI'i P-'RKING STAlLS
HE QUADfIANT -39 D'ECI( f>AA1I.ING SU.LlS
TOTAl Dl:CK PARKING ~ 16'9 STAlLS
LEGEND
DUMPSTER / RECYCLE BIN
l!..I!l UTlLtTY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
~ EXIT STAIR
~ 1068YAREA
~OT7---·-----·-
50,725sl "
QUENDALL TERMINALS
\ I.' \1: PREFERRED~ ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
~
<C
Z
:::!: a:: w
~
...J
...J
C5
Z
W
::::I o
" co
W" ~
~
" w w
~
Q.
, "
z· " " 0:::: 'hor'
i" PO.C
'"
LEGEND
OHWM
SO' WETLANO SETBACK
:100' DHWN SETBACK
WETLAND EDGE
~
~
"0-.,.
/ •
~ ~~ • 'Y" .. ,,~
~~ .
%
%. <O~
t
,
{4k,[ W. ~SJ(II\IGl"ON
~ '\
c ~9, ~ ~.
9: "'C-"'(;: ~ 0
'\ 1;~ ,,~~ ~ ~ . ~;t.. ~ • 'l> 0-
0 , -
"'-' . ,.,-<" (,'.
,~.
.'
.t .t
-' ~.
\.
\
: :1<7 ~ .... s :
.. .. .. .. ..
«1M"£!> r;.oPoQ: P"""'C
,"
..
:
]'13 C'f<5
-~.~ ,:"
..
..
"ft"
IlL
"'0Al~ :
2"Il'''''E
.. .. ..
.i
C""I'F!(P G>ilACf P_INf.
..
.. ..
..
.
11
'I'U"
:
,
~~ ..
• t
',I\.,
. II., • 24' ORIIE: ... • I . .
Ii •• ' ,_ ./ " /
',.
..
,~(!>
, .
..
D····. "",
•
:
,,*~
. ..
: ... '
J; ...
"
:
:
-,-"'~
"" 700 CA"S
'1'1.1
.,:; -<l
l;.' .t .t ,. It
CO)O(D CAAA;;( """""""
..
... .,' U ,--• 2O'0RI\Il J t· ,:
~/f
( . . , J \_<__ .' r; _... .;. ""
. ----._/ ( .. ~ "
"
\
~ ~ <j, ';'i
"0-
/
PARKING SUMMARY
p.:!. COVERED GARAGE PARKING:
SW QlJAOR4NT _ 3017 PARIUHG STAlLS
NW QUADRANT ~ 95 PARKING STAlLS
SE QUADRANT. 31B PARtiING STAllS
HE QUADRANT ~ 206 PARMI(> STAlLS
TOTAL P_i. PARKING. 9Ei6 ST ..... LS
SURFACE PARKING:
sw QlJAOAANT ~ 151 SURFACE PARKING STAlLS
SE QUADRANT -42 SURF ... CE PARKING ST,..,LS
HW QUADRANT -38 SURFACE PARKING STAllS
TOTAL SlJRFM:[ P"'I'IMIM>· ~31 STALLS
DECK PARKING SHOWN ON SHEET PO.O:
Sf QUADRANT .. 130 DECK PARKI~ STALLS
NE QUADRANT .. .39 DECK PARKING STALLS
TOTAL OECK PARKING" 169 SfMLS
RESTAURANT (9.000 sf) REQUIRED PARKING -36
RETAIL (2D .. 22S.!) RH)UIRED PARIIING .. til
692 RESIDENnAl UNITS R(QUIREO PARIlING -1..211
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED -1.328 SfAlLS
TOTAL PARKING SHOWN .. 1.3&6 STMLS
LEGEND
~., : DUMPSTER I RECYCLE BIN
UTILITY AND ELECTRiCAL SPACE
EXIT STAiR
LOBBY AREA
\
\
QUENDALL TERMINALS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP EXHIBIT 8
. .:, .
UJ
--.J «
Z
::;'"
Q::
W
f--
--.J
--.J « o z
W
=:J o
>-' .' "' o· w' ~ . ~ : w-'" -w' 8: •
I j
~.
ld ~ ~:l '-,:
~:
y' (r· ~
;{: ,,, ... ,
I
Q.
P1.0
LEGEND
OHWM
50' WETLAND SETBACK
:1.00' OHWN SETBACK
WETlAND EDGE
... -~ ... .", ~....: ~ ~ .,,,
l.4Ke W..qSItIt',
'~Grol\l
)
0-.., \",
~ ~ }y
~ .
'10 )
~
'0 "'V~ ",.,. ~(.. "~ I)l..,.~ ..z.. 0., ~ ~ ~ .... L ~ \ ~ "0-J 0 / I
I
~~~~L.~~m"" ~ " "" L _ _ H • -_ ______ i
/.".,,' --.: I I :, ;:1. I -r---l -\1l"",~~",t;. -
"
(XI>I ","'w, ..
6' el~E , .... E
r .m"'~' / 60" T 60' 'f
BL \10 'SC"cE: , •• 60
'C::
{
l_
"0 "" -?
~
PARKING SUMMARY
P-i COVERED GARAGE PARKING:
SW QUADRANT" 347 P"'FlK!~G STALLS
tlW QUADRANT" 86 PARKING STALLS
SE QUADRANT" 318 PARKING STAu.5
NE QUADRANT .. 20EI PARKING STAUS
TOTAL P·1 PARKING .. 988STALLS
SURFACE PARKING:
SW QUADRANT _151 SURFACE PARKING STAlLS
SEQUADRANT-4~ SURFACE PARKING STAllS
~ QUADRANT-3~ S_URFACE PARKING STAllS
TOTAL SURFACE PARKING .. 23.1 STALLS
DECK PARKING SHOWN ON SHEET PO.O:
SE QUADHANT-13D DECK PARKING STALLS
N£ QUADRANT" 39 DECK PARKING STALLS
TOTAL DECK PARKI~G -169 STALLS
RESTAURANT/9,DDDsr) REQUIRED PARKING -36
RETAIL /2O,225"f) REQUIRED PARKING _ 81
692 RESIDENTIAL UNITS REQUIRED PARKING -1,211
TOTAL PARKINc:. REQUIRED -1,328 STAlL.$
TOTAL PARKING SHOWN -1,386 STALLS
LEGEND
~ DUMPSTER I RECYCLE BIN
~ UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
!"'!lI EXIT STAIR
~ LOSBYAREA
PROPI:RTY u,E
LOT 7
50.725~f --~---".~""'~~--
P"~'~
QUENDALL TERMINALS -PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
UJ
--.J «
Z -"-
L§=:j
cr:::: S' -W~ ~ ~~ G
" ;:c --.J .,
--.J t5 (Y « ~ CO Z ~
O~ ~
Z
W
:::::> a
P1.D
8UILDING COVER TOTAL AREA = 187,.350sl
COURTYARD TOT/I,~ AREA -1'7.6DDsl
SUR~ACE PKG A"I.FA = 1l9.000sf
Or-. JeCK -'KG Af~EA = 59.00Usf
Or-. :lEeK _5 AR(A = 2S.000sf
S-R~ETS . A.". '8' & 'C A'<EA = 99.2S0sf
SIDEWALK TOTAL AREA .. 60,aOOsl
r-.ATL..RAL LANDSCAPE AREA = 140,338"1
LOT 7 SATEII TF PROP'"RTY = 50,72581
S-REfT LEVEL LANDSCAPE AReA - 1 ~.JDOsf
L..M-'AVm FI~E LANE &: PED. WALK AR:A -19.970"1
-~ S-REETS C &: E A~EA = 23 522~f
~AC< OTrER LANDSCAP-AREA -33495,1
, OH ~~ TOTAL SITE AREA TO HIGH WATER LINE ~25.376Sf ~ ~-~~o~ ""'--
, ~ ~ "'--------~~ ,~~'"E"_'W',"" J: ~ ,~~--~~~~'" / g ~ __ / ____ ~1~~~_~~ -L-,
, -
! ! ~ j ~-
i i i
~ ; ;
I , ,
i !
~ ~
STRFF~' &: 'C' = 59.250s1
=~=
! ,
i
; , , ,
i
;
I
~
i
;
I
! •
i
;
I
!
~
~ t
"
i
;
i
~
'0' 01<"" 'I.·~Al:K
,00" o,."t.I Sl:11I.<.CK
,-
SlRU:1 'A' AfiEA = ~O.OOO$f ~
ON JECK LS AR:A -25.000,f
EXHIBIT 9
~-~ lOT 7 _______ 50.725sf
---------------
L,
\
J
"U]
~ ,,<t:
Z -~ 2 Z ~ o ~
~ ~ n::: ~ " W~ ~ c ~
f-'" u -< "" ~ cc
~ z >-~o ~ « ~ ~ o ~ t5 z
W
:=J a
, ,
~ iii
PLO
QUENDALL TERMINALS PREFERRED ALTERNATE
Exterior DeSign Goals:
I ,,':Id,-.• ""'" .)",,1 J.'",!" ;' '''d'E'~
"~roo "I, 'n~" ""H'~ ", ';1> ''1'" 1,"T1~ ~I,''''''''''
"'\'I '-_,\c.,.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LP
Rel.,1 ~"d R"Sla",ant Space Fealy' ....
_'l,w,oI, ",,'ni'" n ,",h .,-. .1",-, '.,'.1 \ "'!C,I,,",",lp """'_'J"I ",,·,'c'" ,"'h
"'i,'''" '9 i" , .. ,""".,,, .,'""
I~ -.... ,," '" (f ~'., ,.,0-] Q','~' lor ,~, "h", r'ld"'"
• bl,,,l<-'-"'l"-', ,It" ''1111.''"
51",,,, 1 ""''''!I ,,0 p-.• I
",k"",\< h, """ ""~."d """",,., ,,, "d ",' ~,"" I,
,.« "'\, ""ill ,1'"-"",-,, n,,," ''I r",,,, "",00'
• 1'1 ,." I ''I '~Id'''r~,ta,,'''''' ,I ",,"", ," •• ", .,_ .• i·I~'. "",.-' ""'d",,,'1''' ,,'''''',
P .. w',,'rl<'i.""W'<I' "'-I,ll.,,) ',,,10 :!"'i.""'" I'." .l"~
Re~_nll.1 Fino," f&,a'"r<!s
It~ ,"," .,~. ",tI",~ ,,,,,, ,"," ,,,,,",' r,,, "d,· ','" n, "",t.lI,,'"''·''' \ ,,,11 ,,,,, ,,-,
,\~,j. "",' ,!I. hi"",,,,,, , •. '.' t. "1~~"''''",n'' ",,,,,.1<,, ,~
He','",,',,' ~,.'" ",vil.'."0'-,.,,~. '"'' ", I -,." ,ke ... ',
""'1",1"",,'0"1,_' ,'I",,,,,,,,·_t)"/''''~'''~I''rw(_'
AlWln""'!",:."I' ' ,wL1'"v"",,ly
• ",-" 'T(',I.,r.,1 ,-,-.. ,oj» ,'I," ',-n,':"',,"V
s"()o·,· ""-''''''''--1'''1." I ",hi'" 'i !I'''~''~'I V"
"'",onit>c~
,",I
H'"'' ,~,,'r-~ vrr)~, ,_, r","" < r ,',"n'., "-""" ",.d',c
",,"",,"et '.>II",-,,,'",··-"~r'
,,' !.,',<I"_,,, "I:~ "~"r'""'" "~".,,
"'h
• \'/, d,."''' ,,,,'0 .'I~'L
-',-
BUILDING NW'l. BUILDING NW 1
PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON
,--------~~---~------~---.-~.~--.--~--~~-~~-------------, , . ,
, ,
, :
-' "-' ,,.:.
BUILDING NW 2 BUILDING NW 1
Sf! 0"",,111. [l[ .... no~
BUILDING SW 1 BUILDING SW 2
OVERALL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON
Pulc":ul 'C' "><)1:.,,,,, ., ••• w 1" "'''~''''''''''j ",,0 illc,-n .. ;101 ... "-, .. ,,,
BuilDing'"
"--" '"
~',-,
E.le-fior Finish
o .. <" .. ,~"'
,''-"
,,, 'T)
"
, ,.
"""
", "
BUILDING SW 3
--~,
EXHIBIT 10
-'I'
L, .. ,,"," "".""
"",,1.
'",,""',
''''''!'''','
,.
":,.",, "",
'1>:, lr.,,"
-11::'
BUILDING SW 4
~ « z
::iE a::
LLJ
I-
..J
..J « o z
LLJ
::::l
0'
< ~
S~
~ ..
::~
2>
..
~~
,~-
c P3.0
QUENDALL TERMINALS -PREFERRED ALTERNATE
E~t'lrior DeSigl1 Goals
F' '.",", '"'''''''''''''' I l," < "',F ~''''.'' ( ",l.,-.,,',
BUILDING NW 1
-"",",,<1','
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LP
Rel.,1 oM Re.'.v'~n! Sp.~, F~.,v'.~
""" """'11)":"""""h,,,, ,',,, """"'01.,-1"" ,;'"0"",,,·,,,",,1' ",,,, ,.",
,'1', .-,' ", •. ,,,.",,,,""'-.• '
.'1,
'.1i(
'",1,'.,1.00'." , ,t"_d'. .. ,,,!· ".0" ~IC:"I >,'~e,,'
F.',:Jc~."'il I.' "I";"-"c'-,-l"
"'''/en '",I,.'"
". ""11''''1 ''''.'
~,."., "'<""
:,1,[·,,'-.10: r, ." '"·,1(·,, .• 1,,' d",' ",' d< "" -I"" "'",
-,y. ,/G·,I ,',.),'",1,
PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION
r-------------------------------------------------------~ SEE PARTrA:.. ELEVATION
'::"~.c: I <I ·r ~
! b:t:d
l
. I 1:--:--:--:-1 ~
".-:-----:-::::-::--'
TI-I~,j
: I itnP-d •
R.si<l.nll.1 floor>; F~.h"~'
""'j"'.,,,.,,, ,,-.j •. ,",,1 ",te'.
IvI·j,llv',,1 ,,',",)t' '" , J., -'t' ,-" ,~~;.," J,.,.
'-"".'''oJ'L . '''~') "'.,'r""," ... ,""',1"",,,),
"""'1"0"",,"'11"-'"'''1'''''
Am~ntl:e,~ ,', "":,:,;::;' :11~:;~\~'~";:.:: ":-,;~,/~. ;~"::'/.~,:'· :'\~':'~ :~':_",~ .,. :'t.'~':,'~:'( ,;,;,""1
""'""0' c'l1''':."",,, "I' C." .
P·,I,·r',H, I·,. ",,·F .... ,. "'." ·.,,1', ;~""" ~ "": <'.d _""''"' ,e,'" ~" ,"~"I,
....J.i! cw-
~,~~~~~:~~·::~:I~,l~ . :::,I:~' '-;I;':C;::~~~';~·":;:',,J, '~,;" ~;,~~;~,:,:, ~ ""."".,0, ,." '.0 ,f' '" -,n"
~'k~";;' ,I,,, .. , '" '-"']""\'cl; J>t-f w' . ,,,,I,,"., ",Il''','''''' _ "':~.' '" ,,",uO·:·j
---, .".'<'"'"'''' ~." . ,';
Exterior F.oish:
D.~<"pl''''''
'>I""J
:;.>'" ~ ""'0 'h,"
,_.' H"e')
...... " ..
O~,., "[I.,,
r~" " .. , ." ,'",-,
; ["',,",,'
",> ••• ~, '" ",-p'",,,", .. ,,,,,,,'
t-'""
"'ow"al'F,nl~h
",,:·,,-,··,,1. ", .. ".,
(;r·'r·" 'mt·",,,,,,, .. o .,~" "" "'''''H'''''o'
'"",,cj Ii'_"" u"·,r",",'""'dl,,
.".,,,,-,.,,,-, .. , 10. """"i
• en" ,,'I,· "'C', ,,, >
~,d< """,., .>10 '.<1'0
,w, .. ,', .. "
fl', •• ,_-,,,· •. ,."",,""i"
,,~,,-,'f',,""'"""'" 1"''''''''11
C"h~" P., ·,,1,' .. · .• , ... ,,', ",·,TAIl
.mu
["",G ,,',.-r"""'~'.<.:I,,, .•. ;c .. "1
T)" ~-. <;,', ,n', TeD
["!:1':: o:::ct::c
'f~~~nJi ;=:= !,~:~I i:: ru.I.U
\ u,,; • A II~ "'jHlt!!f~lfF~r:X~(:
--~
{-',>
.,,'''"I'-'~
:]-:~ ·~t\~~ ~-~!: :~ ~~~---·-'~-'·c'~ -~-,
t~~i1G'~~·.~:"':[ts~.~~y~.·[$~,-~;[:·~ ~~~~~~~;L~, T;
I;
-ron -JJlI t:II::J:
_ mpr}1f.y4::v =' ,,-,~l ~tl( '.',:,)
,.£.
-------------------------------------------------------~
BUILDING NW 1 BUILDING NE 1
SOUTH ELEVATION
~ « z
~ c:: w
I-
...J
...J « o z w
;:)
a
-::j ~
2 ~
Q. •
~
L:::: ~
Q.
Q.
(P ."
L < c· .,
P3,1
~
" ~ ~'" ."
I ,
l~
~'
012)
~ 'L • ."",
'1>
'" '1;
~
"<.t.,. "'~
,",SIiII\lGrO
N
\ ~
, ,
.1 i
~-" I
-:--~
0,;
'\
'?-: \
~
" "'P~~r:.'
~" "c::: Ql~.o"
C?, \t' 'i-~
~ ... <;)OIL {9~ •
<!>. " "0 ,
•
----'::-.:.;:---,/..-' -~-----:--'. ' --
~=--" ,.W<· ~""~
~" Il t.
"
1 Il.JL..J
(
"
-=-
,~
MAl:;; <';TP.~t: I J)};~I"I<
QUENDALL TERMINALS -PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP EXHIBIT 11
;~lUj
<
"I
~: i
II:;,
;1
I:
'LJ . ~ ,I ,h •• 1
i
III! i t:~
I il
!
i
~ o
~
n
~_--L.--l~ ~
~
CO n -<5 z
m x :::c
OJ
--I
:1:\
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-->
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
> •• ~
• i
I
1 ,
I
I
!
• ,
•
,. -'-'----.-
P01EMIVL RET~ II'..u
= EIf\4ROffIENTIL REI«Dlo\.1ION NIl Yl11GA.lIC* Il' lI£ I'IQ'(JlY M.l a£
CONDIXTID f'RI!Jt 10 OC>UtJ'IOl. lit' ElM'I(Nj(Nil.l. PJIOlEC1KII
Mnl(;y (£P~lIS 1l£ l£AI) IICOCT f~ /U SI'IE 1IOIDIA1ION NIl
1oIl11G.1111ON ACllOI'IS '1HCH ..w: ll) BE PERFORIED AT 11£ 1J.(II1IU
1[RIoIIIIIIlSSlI[UNDIJiSl.ftmlCl
2. Tl£ ~CT Sff[ ItClJ.W 1I'PR0000A1D.Y 1.23 FEET IX SHIl!ElH
/LIljG lJ.I([ IWIKTOIi. A lllO-fOOr ",TII ""NaM V8o\C1(
(MEIS.mI flICIIlH[ (JI(lNIIT IIQI .... 1OI11N!Kj lIN) PNtIilllS
IolatG l\£ !ilDIlK. A !fdEI.K IIESIllIt\lIOII PlNIIS IIEIIG
(](SlGH£[l NIl IPF'RO'o£I) I.KO EPA Dll[ClICJI
1 £)IISTItG 'll:1lJIC)S NfJ 1XItCEPTUN.. lIIElUIII IllEA1lCJIj'RESrutA1ION
IR£AS ~ WoIE MOT RECEI\UI filA!.. EPA IVD Io"!'ROVIII..
I£II)IJKIoIAliU.1lNG RQ[J" ~AII CCNiECIICMS NIl PfttG IlAY lIE .......
5. FlllIIl.E UlUlY CCHlC1lCllS 9WJ. 1£ \ISEIl I£IlIlN SlIIUCllml
fRUlINGS /,II) llISmlCMED srI!: N!€AS 10 ..zr 11£ 1119( (.f
DMiACI: TO lI1lUlES Olf: 10 [FFER[MlJ.\L SE11l.DEHT.
lAKE W'(s-HINGTON _', ~
-·;f .
I.~ , 50' ()fMI SE1B~
LEGEND:
=~ ......
(SEE IIOlE J)
_l:,
CQlCEPJJN.. IIE1I.Ml C11L11IOII/RESroII.I,lOI
(nllOlESj
kpff '''''''-.-'-_.W_!IIIIM ---
!W' 00III.sm.t.Q(
-'-r~--, .... \
"""'"
~.', .. ""-~,,
" . j
-T -t
. I
/
•• •
•• ,_.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LAND USE, SHOREUNE .t WSTER PlAN PERMIT APPUCATION
CONCEPTUAL STORW DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN C301
• ¥
i ~
I
!
L
i
I
I
!
• ,
•
~
! •
!
I
~
" I " ,,'
""'''/ ....." "'" ""''''' ""'''''
1.:1! /~6·WIB(TlI'I
"
,
.J
• ,
11'l..vt: ,,'
"
'--~Lij£
l " " ~, , ~ ""=0;:;J
ID ~ .T). ,/;/ .. " /.:/ /v;/., /
STREET A -TYP~~ .• R?ADWAY SECTION CD
~ 74' ~
15' 10' It ROW It 10' IS' ~
SID£lIAU(i\NIlSCAPf PNICIIG LJN: IAI£ PAIIIIII!; !* SIIlIlIIIlJl :!D[WU(~ ;
....... ''''' ; 1; ~
•
~
~
1-,~ 1 ~ ____ 1~__ 11 1L l ____ H." !:~ ~
II'SllPMJ(
'·D
" .-
~!IIl£WiI!lJ( EXIDIDS 'JtI IIQ.W/IM,y
[[Q: HR£..:J tl+-SlIIITI
STREET B -TYP~~ .. R?ADWAY SECTION ED ._ ...... "",
~
~
,!", L ,,' , 11'~
! WE "'" .-; Ii '-1'!mj ('JW) ~ i ''''-J2' '-D n n ,--------
TO JIOMIIW.Y
£00[ 'M£R[ NO CIKllIlET
STREET C -TY'!t~ !.9ADWAY SECTION CD ..... "" .... ,"',
EXHIBIT 13
!
I
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
l,....u-~---~l-'.&.L -..... ---LAND USI:, SHOREUNE .t WASTER PLAN PERMIT APPUCATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS
C302
r
i
f
1
I
I
j
"
~
i
~m,"
<
I I.MIlSCAP[ LNIE + I..N£ SIIl£WM.I( LJ,IIl'5CM'[ L. . ·1---". 1.-.. ". --i-L l l-
i /'·","(~I i ~ 11 ~ ~ i /"'< <./. ',.-/,', NOt' !~
STREET D -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIV
SCALE: r ~ 4'
< o
VAR!£S 37.6'-417'
10' '" If V/rII£S 506' 9.2'
SlUml Lȣ LANE lM:ISCAI'E I """"" /,. "'" ("" 1 i
A 2% -~ "
STREET E -TYPIC~~R~~ATE DRIVE SECTIONED
I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. ~ .... g1 ~ 81 I)Jl M) mESS ~ OUEHDALL TERMlMALS SHm
;:,) CI£tm) 8~ ~ I\l~ lIT ... WIll N/' kpff '''''"___ 4J5D IJIl WASttlliJalIIIIIUYAID. IIIIlUII, 'II\SfIIIIi:IOI WTJ 1.1....... ""'~ arw: 11'.1 IIIJ _ ........ ' ~ 7(,IIf-
, '" ~:.~ 1~~l5SI ==-""~_""':J,p,, LAND USE, SHOREUNE l WASTER PlAN PERMIT APPUCAOON C303 ~ 12 5 R£'>m IUIln:C;Aro: j;:[Wl£llDlfS . S c .... L E; '~g ROADWAY SECTIONS
1i NO. DATE llY CHO APPR ~EYlSI~ JOB No .. 1500050 1IS 10001£0
I
1
!
1
i ,
!
• "
I
I
\
~ ;
WATER NQTES;
AlL WEll NICJ Fl£LOC,t,1ED FH H'IOR4NlS SllIIU..
BE f'£R ~ STIoII)NIl PVH BI02
AlL I'IU'OSID II'~IER W.IJNS IJI[ LOCAIED .. 0I!t
MJ2(JP!I:BSUII:Z()£.
FlDBI Ull.JIY CIlM:CTKlIS SIIAll IE USED
EUIIUN ~IRUCJl.ftD WlJIINCS N()
lJISTRUCMED sm: AA£AS TO IoIHMZE 11£ RI~
~ DI.\IAI;{ TO UrulU DUE TO DfmVfllAl '","",,'
LEGEND:
~ ...... -~.OOIIIPftV,III£ItII.lHD1I:JI8,I,
• Fft OOCVA
• ACC£SS DIXII AIIliI WT!JD(
• FOe IJII!I.I..DIKl F!.CI
... FRH'lUltIlllT
" VILI(
~=-~ UlIJtf OOCI fWIK
(alii, !:AS, P01If.lt)
IFf·.I:l.~1 f1IHD Fl(XI/ (L[YA1I'JI
ro
EDGI Il'.!QJ)III (1'11')
kpff ,.,~-.-_WA ... ' -----
=-:::-~.;;...~ ~ __ \V-,,,,,
--~=--~. "",-,,,,.
EXHIBIT 14
.". ...
~/
• • -. ,. ,-..,~.
NOT rOR CONSTRUCTION
LAND USE, SHOREUNE .t MASTER PLAN PERWIT APPUCATION
CONCEPTUAL UTIUTY PLAN
C400
• I
1
!
I
t
I
!
• "
-.~~ .. ~ --< {l~;~f;;,> o:JIElIIM1' ~ mER)Wl( \!MlIl
~.I8.t?_
~-'c'·--'>~_l ;'11-1 -1'--iI f-l'--~. 1--l -: __ ;-_.~ :_._~
-__ LAKE -WASHINGTON
!iD'_~
\y/
\
'\ _________ ~ .... ___ L_~_
WATER NOTES-
.ou 10' IJ(I R[l.OCI;JID FlRr ~1tJIA!Hl litllll
~ PEl! ro;: ST.oJ(lAA(I F'lNi811l:!.
2. N.lf'RtlP(GJ)WJ,lDlI.IIIS,wLOCAlUI __
TI£ :l2<l f'R£WJR[ ZM
J. fUlIILE UllJTY C'CIKC1Uf!i SH.IU EE \15m
BfT'fIEENSlR\JCl\.Rll8lJlllN;S1Hl
t.NS~~!ilIE/oIVoSro-mM_
(T OAIIAQ: TO U'U1lE5 [It( ro lIfFIRENlIAI.
S(TlWOl
LIGEND:
~5EJMtI1IODII'
~ .1)(t.I1'II'O',r.lJt:RloIllIf'tIA
.111£ IXIC'W'A
• o\CIBS DCUt flIQI OOlSlDE • me (IIllIl.[IIjG f,l,C[
II. FRHlIlIIMr ...
FlII.NOiS£ UlliN oo::r 8NjI(
(calli, -as. PO'O)
IfF.J1,~1 FJISIED ftIl(JI n£'IAro.
"
16
I
I
~---,
- -.-
-:---~ -:.:., ~~'";:-,
'?
~-t
'~. ....::..~
-\, ~ "
,>A
kpff ~,~--,~ _ ... ----
'-~-1
/
•• •
I~_ fill.
NOT fOR CONSTRUCTION
LAND USE, SHOREUNE it WASTER PlAN PERWIT APf>UCATION
CONCEPTUAl UTiUTY PLAN C401
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
2200 Sildh Avenue, Suite 707
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 452-5350
Fax: (206) 443-7646
www.eaest.com
January 12, 2016
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
City of Renton Department of Community
& Economic Development, Planning Division
10555 Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
RE: Quendall Terminal EIS Appeal
Dear Vanessa:
Per your request, EA has prepared the following summary of the opportunities that the City of
Renton provided for involvement by the general public and U.S. EPA in the SEPA process for the
Quendall Terminals project. The attached table summarizes the public's and EPA's involvement
in the SEPA process, including the following information:
• Step in SEPA Process: e.g., DEIS, EIS Addendum, FEIS and EIS Appeal;
• Required: whether or not the step is required by SEPA;
• Provided: whether or not the step was provided for the Quendall Terminals EIS;
• Date(s): the dates on which the step was accomplished for the Quendall Terminals EIS;
• Duration: the duration of the step for the Quendall Terminals EIS, including whether it
was extended beyond the duration required by SEPA; and
• Comments: comments on public/EPA involvement (e.g., the number of comment letters
and emails received on the QuendaliTerminals EISScoping, DEIS and EIS Addendum,
and the way in which EPA's comments were incorporated into the EIS).
As shown by the attached table, the City went above and beyond the SEPA requirements to
involve the public in the Quendall Terminals EIS process, including: extending the EIS Public
Scoping period (from the required 21 days to 70 days); holding a Public Scoping meeting to
provide additional opportunity for public comment (which is not required); extending the DEIS
public scoping period (from the required 30 days to 60 days); holding a DEIS public hearing to
provide additional opportunity for public comment (which is not required); and taking and
responding to public comments on the EIS Addendum (which is not required).
The attached table also demonstrates that the City provided expanded opportunities for I
participation by EPA in the Quendall Terminals SEPA process and incorporated their input into
the EIS, including: attending three meetings with EPA and the applicant to define the baseline
assumptions for site cleanup/remediation that were used in the Draft EIS; and responding to
EXHIBIT 15
1
comments in two letters from EPA on the DE IS that ultimately resulted in new baseline
cleanup/remediation assumptions that were used in the EIS Addendum (e.g., a new Preferred
Alternative with an expanded setback from the Lake Washington shoreli ne was developed and
analyzed in the Addendum).
Please let me know if you have any questions on this summary.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Brunner, Senior Planner
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. PBC
2
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Step in SEPA Process
DEIS
• EIS Public Scoping Period
• Public Scoping Meeting
• DEIS Public Comment Period
• DEIS Public Hearing
EIS Addendum
• EIS Addendum Public Comment Period
FEIS
• FEIS
QUENDALL TERMINALS EIS
PUBLIC & U.S. EPA INVOLVEMENT
Required Provided Date(s)
Yes (21 days') Yes 2/19/10 -4/30/10
No Yes 4/27/10
Yes (30 days') Yes 12/10/10 -2/09/11
No Yes 1/04/11
No Yes 10/19/12 -11/19/12
Yes Yes 8131115
Duration
70 days (extended)
1 day
60 days (extended)
1 day
30 days
NIA
Comments
5 letterslemails
4 commentators
75 letters/emails
8 commentators
12 letters
• Responded to
comments on DEIS and on
EIS Addendum'
EIS Appeal
• EIS Public Appeal Period
U.S. EPA INVOLVEMENT
Step in SEPA Process
DEIS
• Pre·EIS Mtgs. Re Baseline Assumptions
• Comment Letters on DEIS
, Per WAC 197 -11-408(2)(i)
'Per WAC 197-11-455(6)
Yes (20 days') Yes
Required Provided
No Yes
No Yes
3 Taking and responding to comments on an EIS Addendum is not required by SEPA.
'Per RMC 4-8-110E.1.b
8/31115 -9/24/15 20 days
Date(s) Duration
3/1/10,4/22110,5/12110 1 day each
1/13/11,3/12112 NIA
1 appellant
Comments
-Baseline assumptions
used in DEIS were based
on input from EPA at Pre·
EIS meetings
-Baseline assumptions
used in EIS Addendum
were modified based on
comments on DEIS in
EPA's 3/12/12 letter'
5 1n their 3/12112IeUer, U.S. EPA indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general
outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), with an increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake (Lake Washington) edge. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the
EIS Addendum incorporated EPA's recommended shoreline setback.
3
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPL'f"'ANT
LUA09-151
Application Date: November 18, 2009
Name: Quendall Terminals
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use
Site Address: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425430-72981 mair@rentonwa.gov
Recommendations: 1 have completed a preliminary review for the above referenced master site plan for the mixed use development
which includes 692 residential units, 20,025 square feet of retail, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The following comments are
based on the application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant.
General utility comments
1. All buried utilities, public roads, and infrastructure serving the site development shall be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities
in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert and adjacent to the utility), along with an acceptable banier to
prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the
road or utility lines. (Mitigation Measure C29). This mitigation measure is applicable for both public and private utility lines.
2. The required horizontal and vertical separations as per City of Renton standards should be provided between the utility lines.
3. If the required minimum separation between utility lines need wider pavement width, then the street width should be changed
accord ingly.
4. Any existing utilities under the proposed buildings will be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easements will be
required to be relinquished or amended.
5. All mitigation measures of the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document shall be applicable on the project and should be provided by
the project.
6. An agreement with King county for access and frontage improvements over King County owned railroad right of way should be
provided to the City prior to site plan review application and construction permit application.
Water
The water utility main lines for this project will be public water lines. Minimum 15 feet wide easement should be provide to the City of
Renton for the public water main located in private streets.
There is an existing 10 inch diameter water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and an a inch water main extending into the
Quendall Terminals site.
1. The conceptual utility civil plans submitted should be revised to include the following:
Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12 inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as
Street A. The existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the new road. Please see the
attached water sketch.
Relocate the new 12 inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20 foot fire access road. The water main
must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. To comply with these
conditions, the buildings will need to be moved back further to the east to allow for the construction of the water main with the paved fire
access road.
Complete the water main loop within the fire access road along the west side of the project from Street B to Street E.
Minimum 15 feet wide easement is required for water main.
2. All water mains and related appurtenances installed within the site shall be in accordance with the requirements of the EPA's
approved plan for installation, operations, maintenance and monitOring plan of utilities.
3. Water mains shall be placed in clean fill materials, in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert of the water
line, along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the water mains from
contamination and to allow future maintenance of the water mains by the City.
4. A utility easement and maintenance agreement with the city of Renton will be required for the maintenance and future repair of the
water lines within the site. The property owners will be responsible for all costs related to the excavation, removal, and disposal of
EXHIBIT 16
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 1 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPL'f"'ANT
LUA09-151 ----~ ... Renton ()
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-72981 mair@rentonwa.gov
materials and for final restoration associated with the City's operation, maintenance and repair of the water lines within the site.
5. Civil plans for the water main improvements that are submitted with the utility construction permit should be prepared by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Washington. Please refer to City of Renton General Design and Construction Standards
for Water Main Extensions as shown in Appendix J of the City's 2012 Water System Plan.
6. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit.
Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project.
Sanitary Sewer
The sewer utility main lines for this project will be public sewer lines. Minimum 15 feet wide easement should be provide to the City of
Renton for the public sewer main located in private streets.
There is a 12 inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the QuendaU Terminals parcel.
1. The sewer report mentions that the sewer system was designed to convey the peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location
at a new manhole installed on an existing 12" diameter City of Renton sewer pipe.
2. Along with the utility construction permit plans, the developer is required to submit a revised sewer report that will reevaluate the
existing Baxter lift station. The lift station capacity will need to be increased to serve the needs of the Quendall Terminals project. The
sewer report submitted with the land use application showed an allowance of 1,100 gallons lacre/day for infiltration and inflow. The
allowance number should be increased to 1,500 gallon51 acre/day.
3. Sewer manhole should be located outside of the landscaped center island on Street B.
4. Any use in the buildings (kitchen, restaurant, etc. ) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease
interceptor.
5. If the project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer system.
6. Storm drainage system within the indoor parking area shall be connected to an oil water separator and directed to the sewer system.
7. All buildings should be served by individual side sewers at a minimum.
B. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit.
Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project.
9. The Baxter lift station sewer Special Assessment District (SAD) fee will be applicable on the project. The base rate of this SAD fee is
$166,421 with an interest of 5.3%. The rate as March 22, 2016 is $225,408.35 and will increase daily. This SDA fee rate will max out in
July 2019. The rate that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. The payment
will be due at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit.
Storm water
There is an existing 12 inch diameter stormwater line on North 42nd Place that ends near the west property line of the Quendall Terminals
parcel.
Since the intemal streets of the development are private, the storm water system for the development will 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 need to be recorded. The developerl property ownersl HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of all stormwater
systems constructed by the project.
1. A drainage plan and drainage report (TIR) based on the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual
should be submitted with the utility construction permit. 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
should follow the requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual. Storm water flow
control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report and the mitigation measures included in the final
mitigation document should be followed in the design and construction of the project.
2. City of Renton has the Westem Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit. Per the requirements of the Phase II permit, all
projects that have been approved prior to January 1 2017 and have not started construction by January 1, 2022 shall follow the new
Surface Water Drainage Manual. Therefore. if the project has not started construction by January 1, 2022. the requirements of the
Stormwater Manual that is current at that time will be applicable on the project.
3. The stormwater requirements (1 to10) included in the memorandum dated September 14, 2009 from Ronald Straka, Surface Water
utility Supervisor, included below along with the additional information (a) and (b) are applicable on this project. The memorandum is
Ran: April 12,2016 Page 2 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APP' '''ANT
LUA09-151 ----,..",..-... Renton 0
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-7298 I mair@rentonwa.gov
also included as an attachment.
a. Projects approved prior to January 1, 2017 and have not started construction by January 1 2022, shall be subject to the requirements
of the new Stormwater Manual that will be current at that time.
b. Projects that comply with the exceptions included in Section 1.2.8 of the 2009 Surface Water Manual may provide basic water quality
treatment instead of enhanced basic water quality treatment.
4. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit.
Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project.
Transportation
1. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, shall be provided along the west side of lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane
N (Seahawks Way) along the site. These sidewalks shall connect to sidewalks to the north and south. which connect to other pedestrian
facilities in the area. (Mitigation Measure G3.)
2. A crosswalk including pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the crosswalk shall be provided across Lake
Washington Boulevard in order to connect the proposed development to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. The
crosswalk shall be controlled by Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, if the City detennines that such lighting is warranted. (Mitigation
Measure G9.)
3. A traffic mitigationlimpact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed development at the time of building pennit issuance
and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways. (Mitigation
Measure H 1.)
4. TOM measures shall be implemented to reduce the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and
queuing impacts at study intersections. (Mitigation Measure H2.)
5. Infrastructure improvements within the site shall include full curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscape strips (where applicable) as
well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape strips, bike lanes, pavement width, and utilities) along the west side of
Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future
transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. (Mitigation Measure H3.)
S. If approved by EPA and any NRD settlement, a pedestrian trail shall be provided onsite through the minimum 100 foot shoreline
setback area that shall be accessible to the public and shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk
system. If EPA's ROO or any NRO settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westemmost buildings
onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; this trail shall connect to lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site
sidewalk system. (Mitigation Measure H4.)
7. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant shall install traffic
calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the
I 405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could
include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but not limited to chicanes.
serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and/or speed humps. Final design of traffic calming elements
shall be approved by the City. (Mitigation Measure H5.)
8. The parking supply under the Preferred Altemative shall meet the minimum off street parking requirements of the City of Renton.
(Mitigation Measure HS.)
9. Shared parking agreements between on site uses and implementation of TOM measures for proposed residential uses shall be
implemented to reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply. (Mitigation Measure H7.)
10. 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 and any NRD settlement, the
road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the minimum 100 foot
shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westemmost buildings onsite. and could be combined with the
trail. (Mitigation Measure HB.)
11. In order to promote a multi modal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall Tenninals site shall include site amenities
(i.e., planting strips, street lighting, etc.) ~nd access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1405/NE 44th Street
interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity
could include Bus Rapid Transit on I 405 planned by Sound Transit and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) with a
flyer stop at the 1405/NE 44th Street interchange). (Mitigation Measure H9.)
12. Staff recommends that a paved bicycle lane shall be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley lane (Seahawks Way)/lake
Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way)/Lake
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 3 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPL,r-'\NT
LUA09-151 ------~,...Renton (;)
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-7298 1 mair@renlonwa.gov
Washington Boulevard (Mitigation Measure H10.)
13. The developer should coordinate with WSDOT, King County, and the City of Renton to finalize the required lane, signal, and frontage
improvements on Lake Washington Blvd, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and Barbee Mill access. This co ordination and finalization of the
street improvements and ROW requirements should take place before the site plan and the building/utility permit application is submitted
to the City of Renton. All the street improvements included in the EIS, EIS Addendum, FEIS, and the mitigation document, to address the
impacts of the project should be provided. Please see the figure titled 'Additional lanes required to be provided to mitigate project
Impacts' for information regarding the additional tum lanes and additional through motor vehicular traffic lanes on Lake Washington Blvd.
Street improvements should be constructed by the developer. The required ROW dedications should be provided and or obtained by the
developer.
14. Private access at the Barbee Mill Access Frontage improvements including landscaped planter and sidewalk matching the existing
improvements on the west side of the access is required to be provided on the east side of the access.
15. Private access at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) 8 feet wide landscaped planter and 5 feet wide sidewalk is required to be
provided on either side of the access.
16. For the scenario with I 405 improvements :
a. Lake Washington Blvd bin Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and Ripley Lane N (Seahawks Way). The eastbound and westbound
thru lanes planned by WSDOT shall be extended beyond and thru the Barbee Mill access intersection. This shall result in 2 thru lanes in
each direction on Lake Washington Blvd from the 1405 interchange past the Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street).
b. Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street)/ Lake Washington Blvd. Traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection. At the Barbee Mill
Access (N 43rd Street) /Lake Washington Blvd intersection, the EB approach shall be widened to include a separate LEFT TURN only
lane.
17. For the scenario without 1405 improvements:
a. Traffic Signals. Traffic signals shall be installed at the intersections of the 1405 northbound and southbound ramp intersections, as
wett as at the intersection of Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard. The City witt consider moving the location of
this signal to the intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard as part of a future WSDOT improvement project to the NE 44th
Street interchange. Relocating the traffic signal to Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard could reduce/eliminate potential longer range
impacts of traffic queues on N 43rd Street between Lake Washington Boulevard and Road A, and with the existing rail crossing (should it
be re activated for rail service or converted to a trail corridor). An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the
determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either N 43rd Street or Ripley Lane. (Mitigation Measure H 13.)
b. Intersection #1 1405 Northbound Ramps/NE 44th Street. The southbound and northbound approaches shall be widened so that a
separate left turn lane and shared thru right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection
with the additional widening improvements shall be coordinated with WSDOT. (Mitigation Measure H14.)
c. Mitigation measure H15 should be corrected to mention the widening on the eastbound approach on the Barbee Mill access instead
of the previous typo that mentioned the westbound approach. [H15. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd
Street) and I 405 Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mitt access and the 1 405 southbound
ramps shall be constructed. Additional eastbound and westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created
by the traffic signals required at the southbound ramp and Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the
Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street}/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection the eastbound approach on the Barbee Mill Access shatt be
widened to include a separate left tum only lane and the northbound approach on Lake Washington Boulevard shalt be widened to include
a separate left tum only lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing
coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right of way), and adjacent private
development.]
d. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Milt Access (N 43rd Street) and I 405 Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization
improvements between the Barbee Mill access and the 1405 southbound ramps shaft be constructed. Additional eastbound and
westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the southbound ramp
and Barbee Mitt Access (N 43rd Street) along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington
Boulevard intersection the westbound approach on the Barbee Mitt Access shalt be widened to include a separate left turn only lane and
the northbound approach on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include a separate left tum only lane. Ultimately, the City of
Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange
design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right of way), and adjacent private development. (Mitigcition Measure H1S.)
18. All the mitigation measures of the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document shall be applicable on the project and should be provided
by the developer prior to temporary occupancy certificate is given for the first building in the site.
19. All the internal streets of Quendatl Terminals site shall be private streets.
20. The proposed cross section of the internal streets should be revised as per the attached drawings and as per the description
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 4 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
LUA09-151 --------.. Renton 0
PLAN· Planning Review· Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-72981 mair@rentonwa.gov
included below. If the street pavement width is not sufficient to accommodate the utility lines with the required separation as per the City of
Renton standards, then the street widths will have to be increased accordingly.
a. Street A can have two cross sections depending on the use of the building on the side of the street. The cross section elements
include
L Parking garage (residential use) near the street
10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage buifding
12 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
0.5 feet wide curb
6 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
0.5 feet wide curb
10 feet wide landscaping
ii. No parking garage (retail use) near the street
C 6 feet wide landscaping near the retail building
[ 12 feel wide sidewalk with tree grate ( 4'x8')
0.5 feet wide curb
6 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
o 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
Q 0.5 feet wide curb
10 feet wide landscaping
An on site circulation study is required to be provided with the site plan to determine if the proposed 12 feet wide center tum lane is
required. If the center turn lane is required, then the street width will have to changed accordingly. The width of landscaping near the
property line is also subject to change based on the site circulation study and/or the proposed use of the building adjacent to Street A.
b. Street B can have three cross sections depending on the use of the building on the side of the street. The cross section elements
include
i. No parking garage on either side of street B (retail use on both sides)
15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'xB')
0.5 feet wide curb
8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes)
B feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
0.5 feet wide curb
15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'xB')
ii. Parking garage (residential use) on one side of Street B
10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building
15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'xB')
0.5 feet wide curb
8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes)
B feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
0.5 feet wide curb
15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
iii. Parking garage (residential use) on both sides of Street B
10 feef wide landscaping near the parking garage building
15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'xB')
0.5 feet wide curb
8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes)
8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
Ran: April 12, 2016 PageS ota
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLI"ANT
LUA09-151
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use
Engineering Review Comments
0.5 feet wide curb
15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building
--------... Renton 0
Version 1 I
Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-7298 1 mair@rentonwa.gov
C. Street C can have three cross sections depending on the use of the building on either sides of the street. The cross section
elements include:
Parking garage (residential use) on both sides of Street C
10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage
6 feet wide sidewalk
0.5 feet wide curb
6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
0.5 feet wide curb
[ 6 feet wide sidewalk
10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage
ii Parking garage (residential use) on one side of Street C
10 feet wide landscaping near the garage
6 feet wide sidewalk on the side near the garage
0.5 feet wide curb
6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
[ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
~ 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
~ 0.5 feet wide curb
12 feet wide sidewalk on the side away from garage
[ 4 feet wide landscaping back of sidewalk on the side away from garage
iii No parking garage on any side of the street (retail use on both sides)
4 feet wide landscaping near the building
c 12 feet wide sidewalk
C 0.5 feet wide curb
6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
0.5 feet wide curb
12 feet wide sidewalk
4 feet wide landscaping back of sidewalk
d. Street D cross section elements include:
10 feet wide landscape setback
0.5 feet wide curb
20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
0.5 feet wide curb
6 feet wide sidewalk
5 feet wide landscaping between back of sidewalk and parking lot
e. Street E cross section elements include:
! 10 feet wide landscaping on the side near the parking garage
6 feet wide sidewalk
0.5 feet wide curb
20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
0.5 feet wide curb on the side near the property line
Ran: April 12,2016 Page 6 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPI IrANT
LUA09-151 --------?""Renton 0
PLAN· Planning Review· Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-7298 1 mair@rentonwa_90v
5 feet landscape setback from property line
If portions of Street E will have parking on both sides, then alternate street cross sections will be required for those portions of Street E.
21. If the required minimum separation between utility lines need wider pavement width, then the street width should be changed
accordingly_
22. Street lighting is required to be provided on all streets. The street lighting can follow the City of Renton's residential street lighting
requirements. Since the streets are private, the street lighting shall be privately owned and maintained by the developerl property owner!
HOA_
23. Parking garage entrances should be designed with consideration of sight distance.
24. The proposed project has passed the City of Renton's traffic concurrency test. A traffic concurrency report has been provided for the
project.
25. An easement with King county for access, and an agreement with King County for construction of frontage improvements over King
County owned railroad right of way should be provided to the City prior to site plan review application and construction permit application.
General Comments
1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans
shall confonn to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. When utility plans are complete, please submit four (4) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit
application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor.
3. All electrical, phone, and cable services and lines serving the proposed development must be underground. The construction of
these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton inspector prior to temporary certificate of occupancy.
Community Services Review Comments Contact: Leslie Betlach 1 425-43G-6619 I LBetlach@rentonwa_90v
Recommendations: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMENTS (from Community Services)
1. As per the Final EIS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect the crosswalk across
Lake Washington Blvd. as per Mitigation G 9 Condition.
2. As per the finat EtS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation Document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect the Trail connection
within the 100' shoreline setback south to the Barbe Mill Development as per G 11 Mitigation Condition.
Planning Review Comments Contact: Vanessa Dolbee 1425-430-73141 vdolbee@rentonwa_90v
Recommendations: 1. RMC section 44 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless
otherwise approved by the Development Services Division.
2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between
seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between
nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be pennitted on Sundays.
3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any
portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days.
Altemative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management
Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The
Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
4. A National Pennit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being Cleared.
5. This permit is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The pennitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Gui'delines (2007) and lor your U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pennit.
Building Review· Planning Comments Contact: Craig BumeIl1425-430-7290 I cbumell@rentonwa_90v
Recommendations: follow recommendations of the soils report
Ran: April 12,2016 Page 7 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APP' ,rANT
LUA09-151 ----......-,,,Renton 0
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I
Technical Services Comments Contact: Amanda Askren 1425-430-73691 aaskren@renlonwa.gov
Recommendations: For the preliminary binding site plan review:
Updated title report not provided. Submitted titre report for May 2009.
The dedication of land for street purposes on binding site plans requires approval by the City Council. Said dedication is achieved via a
recorded City of Renton Dedication Deed document (form is provided by the city). If the dedication is to be recorded with the binding site
plan, the dedication process needs to be timed in such a way that Gouncil approval and all other matters pertaining to the dedication have
been addressed and resolved, and said document is ready to record. The Deed of Dedication document includes both a legal description
exhibit and a map exhibit. The legal description exhibit should be prepared, stamped, dated and signed by the applicant's surveyor. The
surveyor should also prepare the map exhibit. The dedication process requires an updated title report, to be dated within the 45 days prior
to Council action on said dedication. Talk to the Project Manager if there are questions or further information is needed.
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 8 of 8
i
IHI t If
I
I
r;:
z c
<= '" !"
'" '" c
'" n~ "'c: ZZ n~
~A-
iE~
s~ -'" c:." ~~
r;:;l!
z'"
~
16 ." c: n • :::!
'" z:
(")
""" 0
0
z
'" -~ 0
'" n
0 z
'" -'" co n
'" '" z
o~>
!~Pi ~'li~ H ~ ~ ~! ~~§
Ni ~~~ ,I· i! ~~~ ~::;j:! ~:: ~I ~~~ ~ ~ I' ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~~~
!
, ~d
! ~:;:;:;:
J~~ '"' ::!::;I~
;;:~"i »,
~~;
~~g
~~~ " "" ~~~ 0"" ~~~ "," ~,.~
m ~~~ "~O ~ ;~~ ,
~~~ ,
~.~~ " ~
U" 0 !!I S
~
'0' ~ 9. "
"'~
)), II' : "~ !
, .1'
i ii'
, t"i , I' ,i,e< .! 'I' ,:
! ~'" i
i'll ; ,
if ;:\ :,,1 ",'
" I" '-I'
• III
,[ i
II" I, '
: ,If,
" 11,1 ii, ,il
!:'.' 'I
,', ri i ',i~,i
(I,
.... 'Z 1II11-'''''-l'\'_"'-">'_ r--:-:'~""':""::·:\":_:::":'~ __ I ___________ _
rTTT~--I
i
II!! Id
I
I
z
"l
iii
C>
~ t----',il
<= ~
i5 z
. .
I
,' ..
nnl~'~j~
~;~~~~t~~ ,n.,._ ili"" ";;". ~~~i~;~~~
!!I!IIII n~~~~-!~
'''j ~~~~!~~~
~1l~il'~ .. ~8
,
";'" i I ~~~~~,~l
o ~ { U! i~ :¥ ~~'; ~~ ,~ ~~~ ::g,f. '<1
Iii J! i
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: September 14, 2009 S[P 18 2009
TO: Arneta Henninger, Plan Reviewer
FROM: J? &J--Ronald J. Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor
QUENDALL TERMINALS STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT:
Please see my comments below regarding the drainage report and plans, dated August
27,2009, for Quendall Terminals.
1. The project shall be required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM) standards as a condition of SEPA.
2. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal ofthe civil
engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2009
King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to
satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2009
KCSWDM.
3. The proposed projects must submit an offsite analysis report that assesses
potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with
development ofthe project site and proposes appropriate mitigation of those
impacts.
4. The report must include a KCRTS printout of all land use input values for pre-and
post-developed impervious and pervious areas. The report should also include a
basin summary table for the existing condition and developed condition land
use. The basin summary table should identify the wetlands.
5. The wetland area needs to be included in the pre-and post-developed time
series analysis.
6. Since the project will result in more than 5,000 square feet of new imperviOUS
surface, the project must comply with section 1.2.3 ofthe 2009 KCSWDM Flow
Control. The direct discharge exemption may apply to the project if it meets all
of the following criteria:
a. The flowpath from the project site discharge point to the edge of the
100-year floodplain of the major receiving water will be no longer than a
quarter mile.
b. The conveyance system between the project site and the major receiving
water will extend to the ordinary high water mark, and will be comprised
Henninger!Quendali Ter
Page2of2
September 14, 2009
Stormwater Requirements
of manmade conveyance elements (pipes, ditches, etc.) and will be within
public right-of-way or a public or private drainage easement
c. The conveyance system will have adequate capacity per Core
Requirement #4, Conveyance System, for the entire contributing
drainage area, assuming build-out conditions to current zoning for the
equivalent area portion and existing conditions for the remaining area
d. The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion,
assuming the same basin conditions as assumed in Criteria (c) above.
NOTE: The major receiving waters do not include wetlands.
7. The engineer proposes to discharge runofffrom the north and west portions of
the site into the wetlands located at the north and west corners of the site. The
engineer needs to conduct an analysis of the wetland to determine the existing
hydrology, including the hydroperiod, and base the recharge on that analysis.
Typically, the wetland report would include a recommendation from the
biologist as to the proper recharge rate.
8. The proposed roadway improvements shall be taken into consideration when
calculating the post development site condition and sizing the water quality and
flow control facilities, if required.
9. The project will be required to provide enhanced water quality treatment per
section 1.2.8.1. Application of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu may be
waived for treatment of any runoff that is discharged entirely by pipe all the way
to the ordinary high water mark to the major receiving waters, listed on pages 1-
37 ofthe 2009 KCSWDM. Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment is required
for any discharges to the existing wetlands on site.
10. Does the project have an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or
more vehicles per square feet of gross building area, per section 1.2.8.1 of the
2009 KCSWDM? If yes, the project must provide oil control in addition to any
other water quality facility required.
If you have any questions contact Hebe Bernardo, Surface Water Utility Engineer
(x7264).
cc: lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Diractor
Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor
Chip Vincent, Planning Director
Neil Watts, De ..... elopment Services Director
h:\file sys\swp -surface water projects\swp 27-surface water projects (plan review)\quendalJ terminals\first review.doc\HBaw
J ' ,
'IIrtlB iJ 'v, 11" t)
t ~ I .' IF!
1. Introduction
Quendall Terminals is a proposed mixed-use development in Renton, Washington_ The development
inclu-des five stories of residential or office space above two levels of above-grade parking or retail and
restaurant space. The development project anticipates entitlement of the following:
Table 1-1: Proposed Development
Use Quantity/Area
Residential 800 Units
Office 245,000 Square Feet
Retail , 21,600 Square Feet
Restaurant i 9,000 Square Feet
Parking i 2,215 Spaces
Note: All areas shown are gross building areas (GBA).
The project site is located west of Interstate 405 near the northern city limits of Renton. The site is
bounded by the Seahawks Training Facility to the north, BNSF railroad tracks to the east, and the
Barbee Mill residential community to the south. Ripley Lane is located east of the BNSF railroad
tracks and Lake Washington Boulevard is located southeast of the project site. See Figure 1 in the
Appendix for the site location.
This report is intended to support City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan Approval.
The scope of this report is to address the sanitary sewer system for the proposed development.
-Design criteria will be outlined and a sewerage approach will be evaluated.
2. Pre developed Site Conditions
The existing site is vacant and is the former location of a log sorting and storage yard. The main site is
approximately 20.30 acres in size, and the parcel east of the main project site across Ripley Lane
North is approXimately 1.15 acres in size. An existing 12-inch sanitary sewer main runs from south to
north along the east side of the site within a 60·foot roadway and utility easement. The Invert
elevation of the existing sewer pipe is generally 10 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. The
existing Baxter Lift Station serves Quendall Terminals as well as the Seahawks Training Facility to the
north and Barbee \V1ill to the South. There are no other sewers located on the project,slte. An 84-inch ~ Metro sewer main Is located approximately 100 feet east of the site's east pro. perty line. See Figure 2
(~ In the Appendix for existing site conditions.
-~-1 v~~64A1Cttfr~~ ~JJ-;;jf;~
CenturyPaciflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
.
CenturyPacfflc, lP
Quel1dall Terminals
3. Developed Site Conditions
The proposed site improvements include a mixed-use development consisting of residential, office,
retail, and restaurant uses, as well as new public and private streets and parking. Sewer mains will be
constructed within the proposed public streets. Sewage from the buildings will discharge to the new
Sewer mains via side sewers. The new sewer mains will discharge to the existing 12-lnch sewer main
at the east side of the project site at a new manhole constructed over the existing main. No
improvements are planned for the 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley Lane. See Figures 3 and 4 in the
Appendix for proposed site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively.
4. Basis of Design
An on-site sanitary sewer system will collect and convey flows from Quendall Terminals. Adjacent sites
are already developed and served by separate sanitary sewer systems. This report has utilized
programmed project areas and Department of Ecology (DOE) criteria to establish projected sewer flows
without prOVisions for future growth or connections. See Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for proposed
site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively.
Gross building areas have been used for this report
An allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day (gpad) has been made for infiltration and inflow since the
proposed sanitary sewer system is expected to be below seasonal high groundwater elevations.
The 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley lane has not been included in the Infiltration calculation.
A peaking factor of 4.0 was included In the design flows. This factor should account for the dally and
seasonal fluctuations in waste generation. This factor should also mitigate the impact afthe varYing
flow generations for the different uses proposed with this project
The sanitary sewer system was designed to convey the estimated peak flows by gravity to the project
discharge location at a new manhole installed on an existing City of Renton sanitary sewer pipe. The
sewer capacities were established using Manning's Equation, with an "n" factor of 0.013. Sewer lines
have been designed using the minimum slope requirements ofthe Washington State DOE. The pipe
slopes used in the final design and future construction documents may be greater than the minimum
slope to accommodate potential settlement. depending on the recommendation of the geotechnical
engineer. ~W LwiC-~ ~J&-~? ? fi ;?~~{~
IJI .0---/. J\ .v.::. ~..,.., ~~f'tM.~-r -r; Z, 0 ~ ~'I~~~r~~ .
2
CenturyPaclflc, LP
Quendal1 Terminals
! \ ,1
iJ!IPm j
1 ? ~ ,.,
~ 'I J ....
EXISTING BAXTER LIFT STATION
The Baxter lift Station is an existing sewer lift station located at the northeast corner of the project site
within a sanitary sewer easement The lift station was designed in 2006 and was constructed in
2009. The lift station was designed for an overall peak flow of 594 gpm for the Sea hawks Training
Facility, Barbee Mill community, and the Quendall Terminals site. The lift station was designed and
constructed with the following assumptions for future development of the Quendall Terminals site:
Table 5-3' Lift Station Design Assumptions for Quendali Terminals (per FigUre 6)
Developable Acres 5 Tributary Area 5.0 Acres
Flow Rate 2,800 gpad
Number of Units 75 Tributary Area 3.0 Acres
Persons/Unit 2.4
Flow Rate 100 gpad
Average Sewerage Flow 22.2 gpm Design 1/1 Rate 1,500 gpad
Peakl ng Factor 4
Design Sewage Ftow 88.9 gpm Design 1/1 Flow 8.3 gpm
Total Design Flow 97.2gpm Total Design Flow Q peak hourly
The sewer lift station was designed for a flow of 97.2 gpm from the Quendall prOject siee. The
anticipated flow from the Quendall project site is 614 gpm. The s~wer lift station capacity will need to
be increased by approximately 517 gpm to 1,111 gpm to accommodate d-evelop-riieritOfthe Quendall
. Terminals site. Per discussion with the City of Renton Public Works, the existing I.ift station has the
ability to be modified to increase capacity by changing pump impellers and increasing the wet well
capacity.-{lee Figure 6 in the Appendix for Baxter Lift Station design details and Figure 7 for a record
of disc10n with the City. .
LUo..;0t~ &-I~ ---r ~~ t~ lu. -tv.u/~IZ-
~-'(~~~ ~ -10 ~p_A6t t:Ol.-Vt~
6V-r--~\V-f'7 ~ ~~~, ~ ~IZ@J,~ tZ:"",,;-~rta-.u-~~b.A ~1.-<--MM!?l5
~.-lo ~ ~~ h~· MA>tWw~ ~~ ~. ArI~ ~f)£.J ilLU I M=I
{)Jk~~ ~ ~. A-r"I~ ~~. ~t --1~ VtMAL~","""--~· t..U,~ ~df?~·~Ar.v~t~~ 16
4
• Other available options are installing larger pumps but Dave did not believe that would be necessary
as the existing pumps were specifically chosen to allow impeller mod ifications as they anticipated the
need for additional capacity in the future.
Fees:
• Quendall has recently been assessed a capacity charge of $166k for their "fair share" of the Baxter
Pump Station. This assessment was based on 111 gpm of capacity. I asked Dave if future
assessments would be required if the flows exceeded the 111 gpm. Dave indicated there would be NO
additional capacity charge assessments for the Quendall site only mechanical pump station upgrades
to increase the pump station i"~acity to~ ~eet o~r proposed site demand. . ~ p~
~1'~~U .. \l.v-~~ Ufb#-
9ot~t-~6~.p ... _______ "'---"'--_
--.~-
-,-.. ---.. --~.-
KPFF Consl..dting Engineers
--,----------
Page 2 Telephone Record November 17, 2009
Figure 7
KPFF Consulting Engineers November, 2009
BUILDING USE AND DISCHARGE POINT PER ffilBUTARY AREA UNIT FLOW AND PEAK FACTOR PER BUILDING USE
Trib. Area ID Resid. Offioo R.etall Rest. Discharge To U.e Unit Flow1 [GPD1 Peak Factor
[UNITSI [SF] [SF] [SF] Residential 175 [per unit21 4
NE Tflb. Area 0 117500 4800 0 Reach 3 Office 0.2 [per sq tt] 4
SETrib.Area 175 107500 4500 0 Reach 2 Relan 0.3 [per sq ft] 4
SW Trib. Area 1 360 0 0 0 Reach 2 Resta~ran~ 50 [per seal] 4
SW Trfb. Area 2 90 10000 6300 4500 Reacl'14
NWTrlb. Area 1 100 0 0 0 Reach 3 '"' (Hoo ,@aracre] 1 /~C>
NW Trlb. An<ta 2 75 10000 6000 4500 Reach 4 NOTES
To,," BOO 245000 21600 9000 Reach 1 l Unit flows include normal infiltration
Assumes 1.75 residents per unit
BUILDING USE PER REACH la Restaurant conversion: 1 seat = 22.7 square feet of restaurant
Reach 10 ReSid. Office Retail Rest. Rest. Infiltration due to high groundwater
[UNITS] [SF] [SF] [SF] [SEATs,] 1
Reach 1 BOO 245000 21BOO 9000 396
1
FLOW PER REACH
Reach 2 535 107500 4500 0 0 Reach ID Resid. Office Retail Rest. ,. Total
Reach 3 -100 117500 4800 0 0 [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM]
Reach 4 165 20000 __ ~O L-~ 396 _I ---ReaCh 1 38e 136 lB 55 I. 614
/~FlL~RA.m:."('~FLO_w.._5r0 . __ .~~.4 67;>' ~ Reach 2 260 60 4 0 4 328
Reach 3 49 65 4 0 4 122
Reac~~ BO 11 10 55 4 161
PIPE CALCULATIONS
Reach JD Upstrm. MH Downstrm. MH Length InnerDia Upstrm.IE OOWnstrm.. IE Slope n a .. Q", Q .. %Csp. Vu Origin of Flow
[FT] liN] [FT] [F1] [FTIFT] [eFS] [GPM] [GPM] [FPS]
REACH 1 REACH 2, REACH 3, REACH 4
SSMH #2 $SMHfl:1 3" 12 19.23 18.49 0.0022 0,013 1.68 754 614 81% 2.14
REACH 2 SE Tnb. Area, SWTrlb. Area 1
SSMH #39-2 SSMI-/#3S·1 27B 8 21.88 20.77 0.0040 0.013 0.77 344 328 95% 2.19
SSMH #38-1 SSMH#2 278 8 20.67 19.56 0.0040 ~~ D.77 344 328 95% 2.19
REACH 3 NE Trlb. Area, NW Tnb. Area 1
SSMH#3N SSMH#2 340 8 20.92 19.56 0.0040 0.013 D.77 344 122 35% 2.20
~
REACH 4 SW Trlb. Area 2, NW Trip, Area 2
SSMH#3W SSMH#2 271 8 20.64 19.56 0.0040 0.013 0.76 343 161 47% 2,19
Quendall Terminals Sewer Report Figure 5: Calculations
:"~--o=.-=---_ ,._-==-. ~ -_::...~~-----.=-o-c-==--._----~ .. ~ .. -._.
f
~
I
!
i
!
!
"
! ,
~
~Ol£NTII.l RETI.H~
\
--,-: ---t--
--'-,
---t---
~ --,----,-
--+--,
--~
C:::::J
,
il£ Will ROO"
N«l PI.AZ.f, ORAII
roTln. SEE
NOTES 2 a J
"""""'-Irr_.s.5!
--¥ *,l.;a, ,PU~L.u::...., ,~41\:rvA"'r&-::~~~ !#-___ illill.lo _ __ _ _,~ ___ --i2!-_~ __ /':--__ !L_'U ___ _
III ,"":POTDIllAl RETMING W..IU
(
~
~_ ~_ T __ y-.12!: ' . : / . PRIVATE
__ "--_---""--__ __: ~ ~..22...m'? ;/' _____ ,_.
" ,PRIVATE
, ACCESS _ --_ --_ I ...!'j--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--'~ ____________________ RIElJY~ ___ _
~
1 EN\Iif!CfOWOITAl AE/j([)I~'WI oIKl "TI(';.I.~ Il' TH£ f'R(fUTY 'MU.
BE C(tjO\.lClID PROl TO OC'oU(N)H 1K ~~TIrl
PHOun(JI Mll!Cy (EPA) IS M II.oll ~GBtCT ,(II Iil sm:
RUUlI~~ 00 WlllGA~ IICTiCJfS IIHCH NlE 1Q B£ PERroboIED
~TMMNOIJ..L~SIlEL.l«RruPI."RF\HJ
2 I.Wll(JIl.l Bl.IIlllN~ R!)(I' ()I!AII Cl)ft[Cll(JjS 00 PHtG YAY B£
'!f(](JiI/I'n
-~H~cr~ -......
J fltXl1U UllllYC(JINfCTOIS ~Iill£ \IS([l1'£TflflN STRUCMI£I) All TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED AS MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE QUENDALL TERMINALS
IlUUlfiGS OJIO v~lRUC1\HD sm: /oREAS 10 IINIoI!ZE TI£ Ill!/( tf
OI.llAGC: mUl1UTI£S DUE ro [flU!()IlW. SE1llDVIT MITIGATION DOCUMENT ARE APPLICABLE AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER.
~/
•• ~ aa
"-'-... ~
-10'-----__
~ "
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
kpff ,.,~-.-,~ .... , ... w.,,'"m ---LAND USE, SHOREUNE a: WASTER PlAIl PERWIT "nUCATION
CONCEPTUAl STORW DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN C300
"',~!l)"-__
t\
J','
I .. ,
. I ., ,
I
I ,"
, .
'.--' ' .. "',
, ":'
~~-tz"'i
i
! ,
1
I
J
!
I
!
; , , "'
. -1::1::1 WIDL L.\\lDSCAr'1:: IS ",I::ULi;',,~U
';u.~~r, '--J F-f;m.j-;lF Pj.Fh NG GARAGF,"
[[T ... ·.'IDL ~.\'mSCAPL '~'1E:r:;(ilfllD
< ;C/' "j '-f-.u"'-G" i-U. I ,~iL GS(
~
!
~
I
. I 1-..... ,'. """'" , " SlJ£1II1.l)[/
""""" TRFF r.FATF
" VlI,~t r":NS T~~ET ~ARKING ON ONE SllE .
.. -lri','.'11 I ht"
CO\'~LI:: I t ON :;1' c CIHCLLAIIOr-, STUD" TO
FI~D 01,-;-IF T -IE 12' CENTt:R 2 INAY U:~ 1
TI_'"N LA.'JE IS Fl~OUIRFfj CONDITION
10 GL: APPLICAGL~ AT TIME 8~ SITE PLAN
<
':J'TF1"VI-1 lANE t:i
&2" I
" --LME " :1 .. 1,,-, I' "''''' '
I '·n / l-6' CURB (TYP)
J~"-~-' .'. '"' I "'" ""::: "-\j
if C:fl( ";'~ SI'_elION r-ll-Mi<'.il:; AND WID] 1-10 ON
'eeL I 1\ \,\'1,--,_ 'v'AHY [IEf)ENDI~G ON THE USE: OF
:jiL>~" Of\ 1 'io: '-,IL',t:. C-Hit::::; rHEEl 8. IF THE
.L.\r _i-: Tuki\ I i\~,I-'~~ ?rOUlfll"i!
Ii' l,i,\'''.1 'r,!'f "1 WIDf L/,,\IDSGAPING ,';';
'I ,;fILe [I[T'N[[~j [f,~ SIDt_WMr:-A\lO THE
I::i ILI'II,,-, I!-iHE: bUILLil';" hAS r, 1-';\111\1\1(;
,--iN,j ,,,[),:,".C,,I·J r Te T"ie :, THee I
~
~
!
'··t: ~.x-::::,';;;~ ~~EC; ,:)N ELE:t,1ENTS AND WiDTHS ON
'IL:L: i 13 I/'/ILL \':NiY uE:f'EJ"J[)I:--.lC, ON T~E L..'SE OF-'
[·;i iii l.lf\,:';'_~ Oi\ t ~i'd-f--l Sli)f (JI--1'1 il: S THEf::T
" m.ili~
I'IITf-TREe Sf'A-e
'c!l
~
STREET A TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
SOR..E: I". f
~
o'~ '" ~-t pmlNG i ""
! ~ ,
/-"'~·IlJIi'8(Tlf'll~
I ../ ,~ "
" W<
I ,
rA\
\:../
\<1-S' ,,'
PI.RKN; IJR SlD'm ~~
WITII TflE::: GnATE
l:!' -.::---
"
,."
'--salm moos TO R\lJllW,lY
EDGE 'IKR[ NO ()I-STRUT
~
~
!
ADDIT ONf,L 1G f-c,,' WIUE:, L,,"IDSCN'ING IS
RE:JUIRFO RFTWF~N TH~ SID:::'I;'ALK ANU THI::
GUILOING Ir -;-HE BUILCI~JG "AS A PARKING
c;AriAGI:. J\,:uf,CSt, T TO T -It.: STR[eT
STREET B ' TYP~~ •• R,OADWAY SECTION CD , .... , "'"" '''''
~ §
0.5 rCeT WIDE CUIlB, 5 "EET WIDt: SIDI:WA,-K AND
10 FFFT WIOE' LANDSCAPING N[AR THE B:JILO;, .... ,G (IF THE
GROUNlJ FLOOR HAS PARKING GARAGE RESIDENTIAL
BUilDING,'
l
' ~" ! ,;,;1: I ,"" i l».t-6' IJ'
/ ~:,,"'" "",I ;, -" I ; "'""
~ ~: _ . __ .!'~~.m to 8' ___ '!:....~!I:~ !
I
O_51-1:E r WIDE CURB, I? FEFT WIDE SIDeWALK. AND 4 fEET
WIDE LAN[)SCAI-':NG NEAR THE' BUll DINl, i:F THERf: IS NO
t"I\RKING GARAGE IN THE GROUND flOOH -NEAR THE
RfTAl1 PORTION O~ THE GUllDING;
hi:. C. ',f<:> ,'~[,--; TIOi'i ELc~i[,NT~_; ,\NO \NIOTIIS ON
I IE C ',\', __ '/fll1'. DEPENJI,'J8 ON THE USc OF
"JI·'I(_',(. 0\1 ITrl1l' r~ ;i'.I)~_-01 1 ,-Il ~j 111c:~ 1.
!l.....
DATE " CliO 1"Pf>R
fllnD f'[II IlllG.l.1lON ft£ruftl4EHTS
RE\II~ON
• I ,."
U<A .. 8¥ ii§IiitiJ BY
TA.D WTJ
~.IJ'I'I!\MtlBI
WTJ WAY
om
NOli 16. 2009
JOB ~ '1500050
[II! llIJ IISIIlI
~UI.lOOfI>
1-o-124-j555
S C 1\ L E:
AS t-Iorro
2% ,-~
STREET C -TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION fc\
kpff
5C.\l[' " ~ 4'
"'''''h._.'" ... ...., ........... """ -----
\:../
~/, ~~
f
,.~
'--SlOC'JMlK EXIOOS TO RMlW~Y
un ItIIDI( NO (II-SlIIUr
pm.",-~ I'\JoM (lw)
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
QUEIIDill TERWlIWS
4l$O lAkE WASIIIIImIM 1OI.lIY~ IIOOQII, IAStHTOII
LAND USE, SHOREUNE '" MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPUCATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS
SHEET
C302
i
}
!
J
1
!
I
t
! , ,
"
U)' WIDe GURU
•
05' WIJE ~,lJR81'. F ',,:[)F SI[J~WAI.~
o
I • I Ill" 10' \I + '0 II' ~' ,-' "'''''''' --["" '. ,",,' '-..... ,' I SFTBACK I
I v ~ //S"IlftI(T'IP) I
___ ~ ,. n; 2': ,~
/ l' 'I
YA1~fX~
STREET -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION( D
5C,IU:-',' ~ ('
~ HoI: r WID!:: MINIMlIlJ
SPARAT'ON FClOIJ
I'M,,,,NG LOT
,
"LiNl'iS5PE
c 5 F[[T WID[ SUr1G &
o_~ FEET WID;;:: CJRB
& 3 FEFT WICE ~>lDEWALi<
IN ADD:TION TOTliE 10 ,E"T
WillI:: L!\'ll)SGAPI'lG
Mlf-;'M~M 5 Ho!::1 'fIILJi:: Sl: [I3,\cr; "R(}\1
PROPE'UY llNF
• ~
11' 11" VM£S_ 5.6' 9_lj
1_ 1_ i ~-I ,
"""
STREET E -TYPIC!~~~~~ATE DRIVE SECTIONED
ALTERNATE_SECTION SHO!-,LD ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PORTION OF STREET E WITH PARKING ON BQTH SIDES.
GENERAL NOTE: IF ADDITIONAL PAVED WIDTH IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM SEPARATA!ON BETWEEN UTILITY LINES, THE STREET WIDTH SHOULD BE INCREASED ACCORDINGLY.
NOT fOR CONSTRUCTION
--kpff ,~,,,--.-...... ~ ..... -'"
LAND USE, SHOREUNE .!: ~ASTER PLAN PERWIT APPUCATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS
C303
1
i
1
I
I
!
"
!
, ,
PQn:~TI.ll R[T.I8IG
" \
,
___ ~ STREET A ___ _
Y-__________ _
_-0.00
AT LOW POIITS (lW)
----. -,..,.---;--I:' ~
t 1° F'P01tNnA\. 1!fI~ Wli
(
~
--------I-"j----
-- - -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------I--.i»." ------
--------
NOTES,
EN""I)oIWENT.II. REK[lII,1l{fI oUI) l/I'I\G.O,~ tl' TIt: f'RI:AJITY-.J.
8( C()I[)I.)ClU) PRI(JI m OC\{lll'WOIT. III £NWI(NI)Ir~
PIIOtEC1Xll AOOtC1 (EPA) IS M ILOD AOO!CY fef! /rU sITr
ROIIDAlIOI'I 00 IIIll(;.1,n~ I.tllCtlS ..oi ~ TO II: P[J!I"(JWl)
1,1 TIl[ WOllolU _A15 SITE \HlER ~RrlHl.
2 1.OOI1I1lI1L MDWG I!OCf" DUll caH:ClICffS AAO PmJ UAY at: .,-
] fUlCJIlI uTUN CCfOIIECr06 9i/rU BE IJ5([l B[1lfiIj STRlICn.e:D
I!I..UMNCS I.N[I iJNSIRUCl\JRElJ 'ill\: olIIU.S lQWMlI lit: IiI9I tl'
D.l.WAGI: TO U1IlJTl:S O'J[ m 0FftRENTW. SHIUlViJ.
--~ _ ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ __ RI@~ --~SH~G~
~/ ~ • -...
•• •
'_.0011-
ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED AS MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE QUENDALL TERMINALS
MITIGATION DOCUMENT ARE APPLICABLE AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER, NOT fOR CONSTRUCTION
kpff ,.,~--,--.... """, -----"'" "" LAND USE, SHOREUNE k WASTER PLAN PERWIT APPUCAnON
CONCEPTUAL STORW DRAINAG[ AND GRADING PLAN C300
I
1
I
!
j
"
I
I , ,
•
~""~'~-., '"
,'.'~~t~ "~~ , :, -, '--~ ---~-" "'r::X',y.,.?, '1
",' -~ ... '" ~1 ('
.... -...... ~-"l ..... _'"
--'--........... , '~)---~-.£ - -~
-LAKE WAsHINGTON _.~-
_ (8IIIUaY _ .... rut-I'hIRK.lnr
Q.£Y<olU1
/'
\-'j,
~"~ ~-i-,,;7J.--" ;--:-. __
'.:.
r:.:" -
5Q'lJff8Il£JIACI( _ -:_\<-. ---'~-"'l'
! IOO'CII"SE1BIa~, ~,~,g;-f:??--2;',~ > . __ ,_
\OO1f"ll"'~ ._ ~ ~ , /"<" _~, _:, ~-~-tIS:Sf'.AlII*--..-<, __ ~!~~ "f\-.,
,---,
-~'c ~""",,~~,,
;6
. j
I r
I
I
I
-'-.... ---r.:.· .. I k.. SRHH.1UI-IIIIl '
ii' PRa£lI\,ItG7 -::
,~~ ~X-' ~.-:' ~ -"--. ""
~. -. ~ .,----:: .. --;. I '/ ' __ I~-----' t.:--~\',I' <': -_.~ '-". ,(l.IIUU._"
' ''''''-~ ~ '7--STt«lft1EltVAIU --_ .. I l;'Le°\;"/ 0,", ~DlS9MD ~: .''':~~::.'' ..~;= -7~c;*' " .• ':!:.1t7}:'
~~~~~~'
POlEHbL RET"-> w.w.--'
=
OfWt(N,I(NT/IlIlOl[l)l,l,IDI NIII UIlIGo\ll(tI (f" lIE PII(HJfIY -.t. 11£
W(lUCIID PIIIIlIlO Il£lUCI'IOT. 1M[ [NWl(NQlfAl PIIOl£ClUI
wncr (IJI~) tS 11£ 1.£11[1 AIDC~ FOIl Iil Sl£ RElIDI .... ,-1DI loiii)
MlIIG.I.IDI AC1l(»IS -..0; 11M[ 10 I( I'f»lRIIlI ~T M tMXlIU
l£-.s snt: IJIrID SI.f'EJII\II().
l lit: I'IIO.£Cl sm: IiCt.l.IXS 1i'f'RIl*I~lD.Y I,581 FEET CT SI4(JI[lJ£
ItI.aoIC t.»a: W~ A lQO-fOOT .lH RIP_ :i(1BAClI
(1OBi[I) FICIIll£ !JI:JIoWI, HIQt .... m MllRKl MIl PNI.IillI.S
AlC»lC K SHo:HI.JE. A HWIEl.N: R£S1lltI,lQ !\.NIlS iIOoIG
((S1Q£I) 1,11) APP1I()'I{lIIJUR EPA IROCl!aI.
3 EllIS .. 1I:1I..AIOS NIl CllIC8'IUIt. Iil[lI)HJ G!1£AlQ/A£S~111(J1
NVS !HO'/tI HAil[ !lOT RECEMII F1IN.. EPA 11£_ ~
.... AOO"11(JjN..1U.l:I'tCROO'DRIIJI~NIIP1PtI1:tu.YB£
""""' :. f1.EXlU U1liTY D:III(C1UfS gjllJ. 1£ USIII BI1WEEN SlIUCUIID
HUl.DItGS NlO IJIrISlRUCIUl£l) S11E IIAEAS ro .... ZE 11£ !lSI( Il'
~ 10 UlIH£S [U m DIFFUIEIIn.tI. SET1lEIID1T.
LEGEND:
DlSIIIG 'E1UfI)
(!IE MOlt: J)
L...l...l-:.. _--L..J.....1. .... ",'"
""""
CCM:EI'1IA1 'I£llNI) 1XA1ION!'RES'Iat~'JlON
(su: MOil i)
kpff , ....... -.-".,. -~-----_._.-.-
.Q!ID lAIC[ .... --.~ ........
.. ::;..~,~ ....
1irt_M.L ..-..
!fEW! • . 1 _ ..
"
~f!1 ,II
'I·j
""1 1:1,1
I·' I
ill:il: ~i' II
~/
.......
• • -. .. ,. _It.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LAHD USE. SHOREUNE &: MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPlICATION
COHCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN C301
i
t
1
!
I
I
~
! , ,
·c ;~lU WIDE LA~DSCAPE,~
f'~Olll,,~D I~ LOCIl,I I::Ll
I~" ~Rm<-~ CF
l'AnKII\{) C,A;;AGE
; "TFT WIDE LA).IOSCAPI:: ,:;
"~CI:'hF[) IF
U)CA'[:' 1'1 FW)t;-
U~ '{I:: fAil iJ:>i.
'.~IL'-(m~,TRcET '·AR.(I~G 0'< CN~ ,I"l,
-H~'." : A\I
,J)~ff'LFTf ON-SI" c ClHCULA' ION S I UI)Y TO
FIJ\O OU'" IF THF 1? C:FNTFR? \vA.Y I EFT
TC~N ~AN[ :S R'=OUIIi"u CONDITION
10:3" API-'LI:";I\:;L~ AI liMe 01-SlTl PLMl
< I -,MVI LA\I i:\
!
I
_L~ ____ " ___ ~ ___ " .:;; j,,-:. " 1----'0:.----' ~! I ~f ; l.AHE 6' 6' L\K -!HlIf,\l)(/ I
LJJIlSCAP[ I LNfI5CfIPE, LMOSCiIPE I
mc[ GnATE:. I IIAT(]l [I
/""' o4-li· OJRB (TrP)
':31 / ~ ~ 'IJ!P
::... '-;"'ill~)~'; ~AoCTI(:\ll:LEr.E'ns AND \NIDTHS ON
'H· : ,<,',ii' '-.ff'.llv UlYl:~ji)INC ON TI1E l,SE CF
,I. ~'i\.jC,S ::,t'J -"'E SI[E. C:-TH[ STRITT ,,," W Tilt
]\[' iU-'[\1 LANi:: IS ,~t:OUIHED
STREET A
"ASEMI::N! V,llllf<
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION fA\
'SCN,l: I" ~ 4' \:..J
:\[,[")11 C~.M 'c' cU.: I WIDl LAr~I)8C/lPIf\G 1$
rll:~, IlilFIJ dr, TwrF~ T"c S ':X',\I('LK ANI.:, 1HE
1',I)llim,G IT' Tile: flUILG,~J.~. H"S t, Ft,RKI',C,
.• \'--:,\CI:: ,\l)J~,C~Nl ~ 0 -Ill S TF·,C:[-:-
§ u r' ,-~'-'-!5". '" '" ,8'10' 1t -1t , ~ s: "," ,1~'
9D(1IIU,t1,lmc,',p(--- -PNOIG LAI£ lAi£ p.w.:Iii:"ijf"'~i ----suW.I<J(~"" I" ""liIlT,lEC:C.flAE I ; WI1H THl::l::GHflTE
~ /H""""" " 1 " ~ 1.:11 / t-2~ ~ 2!1 .1-211
-~
,-n
I He :~f-iOSS SECT,ON ELEMENTS AND WIDn,s or-..:
',;lR-TT 11 Will VA;;Y L)I:::I'ENlJINC ON THE USE OF
G(,L::'Ir.,'GS m,' E!T~jER SIDF: or' Tlj[ STFiE:c r
EASEMENT WlnT,-I ~su: .. 1tJ( [xlt)l)S TO ROADWAY
EDGE iIIIIER£ ItO ~-S1!lEET
STREET B -TYPJ~\ .• R?ADWAY SECTION ED '~""H'~"'"
~
~
~
ADDITiOi'iAl.·~ FF"-'-WI[)(, LANDSCAPIt\G 1:-;
R[QJIR[O OCTWEEN THE :O,lrJFWAI K At,rJ THF
BLJILlJl!\G u.-nlE 8UILG!NG I'~S A PAflKING
GARAGF A[UAC"NT Te '-II:: SlH!:::l:l
0,:;' FEET WIDE CURB. 6 FEET WIDE SIDF:WALK. AND
~ ,~ti ~~ .... 6 •......... IO't\, '"' , .. p~ --I -.-, j ~ I ~,,·"'",~TJ ~ 1:31 1/.., . _\~ ___ "-~ -"
I::ASEMENl WU);H
--"1[ CRO;;S SeC liON c:::..E:\.lE!'-JTS AND WIDTHS ON
:;)'~REET C W;ll VARY DFPFNDING ON I He USE: ClF
llUILU,NGS ON EITHEP. SIDE OF' TH;:: STR[I:T
STREET C -TY~\ •• R,OADWAY SECTION CD
kpff =':':;;:,"""10Dl --
\\'SIOCtMl);
E1:
~~.1tJ( HIDIDS IQ II(),Ii)WAt
EDOC 11m NO C'HlREIl
~ARKIHC. !l£ f'I.J,H {l"TP)
10 FEET WIDI::: LANDSCAPING NEAR THE BUILDING (IF THE
GROUND FLOOR HAS PJ\HKIN(; GARAGE -FlESIDENTIAL
§: BUilDING,
" ~5 FEET WIDE CURB, 12 FETf WIDE SIDEWALK. AND 4 FEET
fiDE LANDSCAPING NEAR THE BUIWING (IF THER!' IS NO
~F\KING GARAGE IN THE GROUND F. LOOR -NEAR THE
;ETAIL PORTION OF THE BlJlLDINGI
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LAND USE, SHOREUNE k MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPUCAnON
ROADWAY SECnONS C302
;
1
~ I
1
I
!
I
I , , ,
,
,~,~ CURR&f.
l':;' FECT WIDE CLRB SIDEWALK;; FEFT WICE MINIMUM
..: ~,EPARATiOr..: FRCM
[. ,",~j • ", r" rOO':' · ,LN«ISC.ft LI.HE + LAA( SU'II.o\IJ( L.AHDSD.i'[
SCTD"CK
I /6" ClHI (TW) I
~~ '/' :n: ~ I n I /. I' 'p=--l "~T0:10-/
CAS[MeNT woe-II
STREET 0 -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
SOH: I~
05f-1::El WIDI::CLHI:> &
C.5 Hoc I WIDI:: CUH2 M,NIMUM 5 F::FTWID~ SFT8J\CK !-HOM
,~ROP[RTY Llr>J~ .'; 6 FfET W:,)F S,DE1NI,LK
11\ AD:JITION"7"O -HE 1~ FFFT
'tilDE LANDSCA"I~,G
r" ~ ~--
rAnKING ! GARAGE
~"'IlS ltG~::~l L
'" ". -l W<
I/druol"~
~-ASEMEN I 'Nd I '"
" ". wns ~,i'-9t
W< """""
"-~s
STREET E -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
SCIl£ ,~
0' o
ALTERNATE SECTION SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PORTION OF_ ST.REET E WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
---kpff '"'~--,~ _ ....... "01 --LAND USE, SHOREUNE ! MASTER PlAN PERMIT APPUCATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS C303
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
March 28, 2016
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Traffic Concurrency Test -Quendall Terminals;
File No. LUA09-1S1
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 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of
40.95 units/acre), 20,025 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 proposed development would generate approximately 5,656 net new average weekday
daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 435
net new trips (104 inbound and 331 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project
would generate approximately 530 net new trips (340 inbound and 190 outbound). The
proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.0 as
follows:
EXHIBIT 17
Transportation Concurren
Page 2 of 3
March 30, 2016
sl -Quendall Terminals
Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria
Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan
Within allowed growth levels
Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees
Site specific street improvements to be completed by project
Traffic Concurrency Test Passes
Evaluation of Test Criteria
Pass
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: As shown on the attached citywide traffic
concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements
are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2016.
Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,
the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is
85,884 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 5,656 additional trips from
this project. A resulting 80,228 trips are remaining.
Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to
transportation impact fees at time of building permit for each new building.
Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to
complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the building prior to occupancy. Any
additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be
completed prior to final occupancy.
Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton
The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are
covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test
requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.0, which is listed for reference:
D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS:
1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be canducted by the Department for each
nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with
the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System
established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according
to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an
initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test.
Transportation Concurren
Page 3 of 3
March 30, 2016
5t -Quendall Terminals
2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity
permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of
the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the
decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits
required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to
the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and develapment project described in the
application and development permit.
3. Failure 0/ Test: if no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project
fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker
with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit
application.
The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65
of the Comprehensive Plan states the following:
Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels
included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation
Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of
Renton concurrency requirements.
Barbee Mill Access
NEW
~
NEW -"
QUENDALL
TERMINALS
+-"--NEW
Lake Washington Blvd
NEW-4
;::on'9)lclllorl UII La k8 Washington Blvd to be j:n<J.lizcd aftor" coordination with WSDor
RipleyLn
aka
Sea hawks Way
NEW
j
~NEW
N
!
ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICULAR LANES REQUIRED TO MITIGATE PROJECT IMPACTS
(Included in DE IS, EIS Addendum, FEIS, or Mitigation Document)
EXHIBIT 18
Denis Law
Mayor C r -~--""""~r
April 12, 2016
Parties of Record
Various
.....
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:00 am in
the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report
to the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available:
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the t h Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 5 Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff
report is $16.80, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change
if documents are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
Department of Comm ityand
Economic Development
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A public hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers
on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
Washington, on April 19, 2016 at 10:00 am to consider the following petitions:
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151
Location: 4503 Ripley Ln N. The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding
Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Environmental (SEPA)
Review for a mixed-use development. The site is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR and
located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.24-ac site would be divided
into 7 lots of which 4 would contain multi-story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the
development would consist of 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential
density of 40.95 dulac), 20,025 sf of retail and 9,000 sf of restaurant. The applicant
has proposed to dedicate 3.70 ac for public ROWand 0.65 ac of private streets,
which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking
would be provided for 1,366 vehicles. The site contains sensitive slopes, seismic
hazards, wetlands and 1,583 If of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site
has received a Superfund designation from the EPA and the property owners are
currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements include
remediation of existing contamination and associated wetland and shoreline
restoration as approved by the EPA. The subject land use applications are assuming
a clean site following an approved and implement Record of Decision from the EPA.
Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the City Clerk's Office, Seventh
Floor, City Hall, Renton. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public
Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing
Examiner at 425-430-6515.
Publication Date: April 08, 2016
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
February 3, 2016
Review Team
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager ~
LUA09-151 Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development
The Final EIS and associated mitigation document has been issued for the subject
project. The applicant has revised the project application materials as necessary to
comply with the mitigation document. Attached are all revised plan sheets along with
other documents that have not changed as a result of the EIS process. If you would like
to review any of the EIS documents please download the PDF from the following link on
the Renton Web Site: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Please review the attached plan sets and provide comments in Energov by February 17,
2016.
Thank you. , .
h:\ccd\pianning\current planning\projects\09-151. vaness8\master pJan_ssdp_hinding site plan process\routing memo 2-
J-16.docx
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 2{;OlO]
Vanessa Dolbee
Sonja J. Fesser
Quendall Terminals Binding Site Plan
Format and Legal Description Review
Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary binding site plan
submittal and have the following comments:
The dedication of land for street purposes on binding site plans requires approval
by the City Council. Said dedication is achieved via a recorded City of Renton
Dedication Deed document (form is provided by the city). Ifthe dedication is to be
recorded with the binding site plan, the dedication process needs to be timed in
such a way that Council approval and all other matters pertaining to the dedication
have been addressed and resolved, and said document is ready to record. The
Deed of Dedication document includes both a legal description exhibit and a map
exhibit. The legal description exhibit should be prepared, stamped, dated and
signed by the applicant's surveyor. The surveyor should also prepare the map
exhibit. The dedication process requires an updated title report, to be dated
within the 45 days prior to Council action on said dedication. Talk to the Project
Manager if there are questions or further information is needed.
,
Information needed for final binding site plan approval i~cludes the following:
Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-OX-XXX-
FBSP and LND-35-0018, respectively, on all the drawing sheets. The type size used for
the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action
number. Please note that the land use action number for the final binding site plan will
be different from the preliminary binding site plan and is unknown as of this date.
Provide bearings for all interior boundary lines.
Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots.
h:\file sys\Jnu -land subdivision & surveying records\Jnd-35 -binding site plans\OO 18\rv l00225.doc
Addressee Name
Page 2 of 3
Date of Memo
Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or
calculated, if any.
Note whether the adjoining properties are platted (give the plat name and lot numbers)
or "UNPLATIED". Tax account numbers are not needed.
Note.ill! easements, covenants and agreements of record on the final binding site plan
submittal.
The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots after approval of the preliminary
binding site plan. The addresses will need to be noted on the drawing.
Complete City of Renton Monument Cards, with reference points of all new right of way
monuments set as part of the binding site plan.
Remove the "OWNER", "APPLICANT", "LAND SURVEYOR" and "ENGINEER" blocks on the
final submittal (Sheet 1 of 5).
Note the bearings and distances for the northeasterly north line of LOT 2.
There appears to be a gap in the dimensions given along the south line of the binding
site plan (from the SE corner of the subject property easterly to the centerline of N. 42 nd
Place). Said gap is approximately 36.6' in length. Please review and revise as needed.
Provide a "LEGEND" for the binding site plan drawing, detailing the symbols used
therein.
The required City of Renton signature needed on the final binding site plan submittal is
the Administrator of the City of Renton Public Works Department.
Note appropriate King County approval blocks. The "KING COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION
CERTIFICATION" block should be removed from the submittal.
All vested owners of the subject binding site plan, at the time of recording, need to sign
the final submittal. The Land Use Permit Master Application, submitted to the city on
November 18, 2009, lists the property owners as Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter
& Co. First American Title Insurance Company Second Report, dated May 28, 2009,
states that the property is vested in Quendall Terminals (a joint venture between Puget
Timber, Inc. and Altino Properties, Inc.). The first submittal of the binding site plan
notes the owner as Century Pacific, L.P. An updated title report will be needed when
the binding site plan is ready for final approval-the city does not have a copy of the
December 14, 2009 report used as a basis for the current binding site plan submittal).
h:\filc sys\lnd -land subdivision & surveying records\lnd-35 -binding site plans\0018\rvl00225.doc
Addn.: sscc N arne
Page 3 of 3
Date of Memo
Include an acknowledgment block for the owner's signature.
Remove all references to the landscaping, all of the individual buildings, the building
footprint, percentage of lot coverage, impervious surfaces and total pavement.
Item No. 14 under "TITLE REPORT SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS" (Sheet 1 of 5) needs to be
corrected -both uppercase and lowercase letters are used indiscriminately throughout
said item.
Remove Item Nos. 15, 18, 19 and 21 from said Schedule B Exceptions block (Sheet 10f
5)
Note that if there are restrictive covenants, easements or agreements to others (City of
Renton, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat.
The plat drawing and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project
Manager as a package. The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) will be
referenced on the plat in the appropriate locations.
Clearly note who is to own and have maintenance interests in the access tracts (Tract D
and Tract F) on the final submittal. Include a maintenance agreement statement if
needed.
Some of the text included in the "VICINITY MAP" do not conform to. WAC 332-130-050
(B)(d)(iii).
It is assumed that only Sheets 1 and 2 of this submittal will be recorded as the binding
site plan.
Note bearings as radial or provide bearings to radius point.
Does the common lot line between Lots 1 and 6 extend to the Inner Harbor line, or is
the shore the boundary? If the latter, then label the waters as a track and provide a
Table of Courses for said track.
Fee Review Comments:
The Fee Review Sheet for this review of the preliminary binding site plan is provided for
your use and information.
h:\tile sys\lnd -land subuivision & surveying records,\lnd-35 -hinding site plans\0018\rvlO0225.doc
Vanessa Dolbee
From: Vanessa Dolbee
Sent:
To:
Thursday, March 17, 2016 7:31 AM
randy.m atheso n@rentonschools.us
Subject: City of Renton Notice of Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development & School
Information Request
Randy,
I am requesting school information regarding a large multi-family project proposed along Lake
Washington. The subject application was applied for in 2009 and I do not have documentation that the School
District replied in 2009. The project has undergone an EIS since the original application date and the FEIS was
recently issued. You can find the DEIS, Addendum to the DEIS, FEIS, and the Mitigation Document as the
following link: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Brief Project Description:
The applicant has requested Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval, and a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit for the construction of a mixed use development project located along Lake Washington
off of 1-405 Exit 7, just south of the Seahawks Training Facility. The site is approximately 21.5 acres and is
zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR). The Preferred Development Alternative is comprised of 21,600
square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant, and 692 residential units with 1,337 parking spaces. The
anticipated site population based on the Addendum to the DEIS is 1,108 residents.
If you would like additional information please let me know. Below is the typical school information request
form.
SCHOOL INFORMATION REQUEST
Subject: Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SM, SA-M, BSP
The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a
mixed use development located along Lake Washington just south of the Seahawks Training Facility.
Please see information above for further details.
In order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in
residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter
to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 or fax to
(425) 430-7300, by March 30, 2016
Elementary School:
Middle School:
High School:
Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the
proposed development? Yes No __ _
1
Any Comments: _____________________________ _
Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me
at (425) 430-6598.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
-------... Renton ®
2
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
Randy Matheson < randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>
Thursday, March 17,20167:44 AM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: RE: City of Renton Notice of Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development & School
Information Request
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Perfect. That worked in our system. Answers below in red.
Randy Matheson, Executive Director, Community Relations Renton School District I 300 SW 7th Street, Renton WA 98057 t 425.204.2345 I
randy.matheson@rentonschools,U5 I www.rentonsCh001s.usl~ t" ~
-----!' l'tentqn
From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 7:41 AM
To: Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>
Subject: RE: City of Renton Notice of Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development & School Information Request
Randy,
The site does not have an address, it is parcel number 2924059002. The closest address to the south is 1252 N 420d PI,
Renton Wa.
'Vanessa 'Da{fiec, Current Planning Manager
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
10555 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
From: Randy Matheson [mailto:randy.matheson@rentonschools.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 7:34 AM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: RE: City of Renton Notice of Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development & School Information Request
Do you have an actual address of the proposed construction? (That's the easiest and quickest way to provide you with
school-related information.)
Randy Matheson, Executive Director, Community Relations Renton School District I 300 sw 7th Street, Renton WA 98057 1 425.204.2345 I
In)
randy.matheson@rentonschools.U5 I www.rentonschools_us I ~--'I '
1
From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.govl
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 7:31 AM
To: Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>
Subject: [spaml City of Renton Notice of Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development & School Information Request
Randy,
I am requesting school information regarding a large multi-family project proposed along Lake
Washington. The subject application was applied for in 2009 and I do not have documentation that the School
District replied in 2009. The project has undergone an EIS since the original application date and the FEIS was
recently issued. You can find the DEIS, Addendum to the DEIS, FEIS, and the Mitigation Document as the
following link: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Brief Project Description:
The applicant has requested Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval, and a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit for the construction of a mixed use development project located along Lake Washington
off of 1-405 Exit 7, just south of the Seahawks Training Facility. The site is approximately 21.5 acres and is
zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR). The Preferred Development Alternative is comprised of 21,600
square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant, and 692 residential units with 1,337 parking spaces. The
anticipated site population based on the Addendum to the DEIS is 1,108 residents.
If you would like additional information please let me know. Below is the typical school information request
form.
SCHOOL INFORMATION REQUEST
Subject: Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SM, SA-M, BSP
The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a
mixed use development located along Lake Washington just south of the Seahawks Training Facility.
Please see information above for further details.
In order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in
residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter
to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 or fax to
(425) 430-7300, by March 30, 2016
Elementary School: Hazelwood Elementary School (School bus transportation provided)
Middle School: McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School (School bus transportation provided)
High School: Hazen High School (School bus transportation provided)
Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the
proposed development? Yes Yes No __ _
Any Comments: ____________________________ _
2
Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me
at (425) 430-6598.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
3
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Roberta Graver
Thursday, February 11, 2016 2:50 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Leslie A Betlach
LUA09-lSl QUENDALL TERMINALS MIXED USE DEVELOPEMENT
FollowUp
Flagged
lUA09-151 QUENDAll TERMINALS MIXED USE DEVElOPMENT
PER 2/3/16 MEMO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMENTS (from Community Services)
1. As per the Final EIS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect
the crosswalk across lake Washington Blvd. as per Mitigation G-9 Condition.
2. As per the final EIS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation Document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect
the Trail connection within the 100' shoreline setback south to the Barbe Mill Development as per G-11
Mitigation Condition.
Please include these comments in the "Energov" system jar this LUA.
1<P6erta q-raver
Administrative Assistant
Community Services Department -City of Renton
P: (425)430-6604 I F: (425) 430-6603 I rgraver@rentonwa.gov
1
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Staff,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday, February 22, 20169:59 PM
brad nicholson
ann.gygi@hcmp.com; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; Jason Seth; Vanessa Dolbee;
Cynthia Moya; Larry Warren
Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
Follow up
Flagged
This will be the last addition to the email string regarding the FEIS appeal. As requested before, please have
five copies ready for the hearing should anyone need to see these emails when I disclose these ex parte contacts
with Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. Nicholson,
I would normally not further complicate the record of this case by further communications with you, but it
appears that there is some major misunderstanding or miscommunication going on and I want to take one last
attempt at rectifying it. I wish I could just talk to you about this, but as the decision maker my ability to
communicate with you is very limited due to the reasons identified in my first email to you. Ultimately,
however, this will have to be our last communication regarding your appeal unless you plan on making some
motion that you entered into the stipulated dismissal order due to some form of fraud or misrepresentation. Any
other further information you want me to consider should be sent exclusively to the planning staff as comment
on the application.
As I identified in my first email to you, I don't become involved in an appeal until it's time to consider whether a
prehearing conference or email exchange is in order. This usually occurs four to six weeks prior to the
scheduled appeal date. In this case you would likely have received an email from me to all appeal parties
inquiring whether the parties wanted to resolve some prehearing procedural issues or otherwise desired a
prehearing order outlining hearing procedures. A request for such a prehearing order is usually initiated by one
of the appeal parties, but I will often initiate that inquiry on my own if no one beats me to it.
I will also address any proposed orders or prehearing motions when they come in. Beyond this, planning and
city clerk staff are responsible for processing an appeal. The role of City staff and myself does not change
because you've persuaded staff to send me your notice of appeal earlier than the completion of the staff
report. I'm not sure what type of response you were looking for from your appeal statement. If you just wanted
an acknowledgement that your appeal had been filed, then staff would be responsible for that. If they don't
issue some sort of acknowledgment as a matter of course, I'm sure they would provide you with something upon
request. If you had any questions about how the appeal would be processed or scheduled, all you had to do was
ask staff. If you disagreed with how staff was handling some prehearing procedural issue regarding your
appeal, you were free to either file a motion with myself ahead of time or to raise the issue at the hearing. If you
had made a legally compelling argument that consolidation should not have occured during your appeal hearing,
I would not have had any problem segregating out your appeal (although for future reference, the SEPA rules
requiring consolidation are fairly clear and I've yet to come across any argument to the contrary).
1
[f you arc upset because I didn't read your appeal months prior to the appeal hearing, there is no reason to
be, There's nothing [ could have done with any knowledge [ would have gained from reading your appeal
months in advance, Reading appeal statements too far in advance (especially those exceeding the more typical
10 pages and under) can be a tremendous waste of time since the appeal can easily be narrowed or even
withdrawn over time and also because I will have to re-read everything once the hearing date is
close, Excluding any prehearing motions or orders that may be presented to me, I only need to know about the
details of your appeal in time for the hearing on your appeal. For the stipulated motion to dismiss, I just needed
documentation establishing what hearing parties should be included in the order, and I got that information
when you pointed out that your notice of appeal had been emailed to me months earlier. If you had not agreed
to have your appeal dismissed, I would have read your entire notice of appeal prior to the hearing and I would
have gone through it with a fine toothed comb after the hearing as I prepared my decision. It's entirely possible
that you would not have liked the result of my decision on your appeal, but I can assure you that you would not
have been able to sincerely assert that your issues had not been thoroughly reviewed and addressed.
Once the hearing on Quendall is over and the appeal period has expired I will be happy to discuss this with you
further (assuming the discussion doesn't relate to some other pending appeal or application). Also, if it wasn't
clear to staff before, it is appropriate for staff to recommend to the parties of an appeal that they request some
sort of prehearing conference or email exchange from me if the appeal parties have procedural questions about
the conduct of a hearing. For appeal parties represented by attorneys (which has usually been the case), there
isn't much confusion about how to participate. For unrepresented citizens, however, I'm sure there's room for
improvement as to how to make hearing participants comfortable with the process. Land use appeals in Renton
are rare, especially when they involve unrepresented parties.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:48 PM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotrnail.com> wrote:
your Honor,
Well I want to apologize but well it took 5 months to get a response? the appeal notice i.e "The facts are
dispositive" while it took 24 hours to respond to the PRP's
I amjust wondering do you need to have the EPA sign off on the case too? It could be Cami Grandinetti.
Res pectfull y
Brad Nicholson
From: LWarren@Rentonwa.gov
To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com; brad827@hotmail.com; CMoya@Rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov;
JSeth@Rentonwa.gov; cmathewson@centurypacifielp.com; ann. gygi@hcmp.com
Subject: RE: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:38:55 +0000
Mr. Olbrechts, the city has no objection to the stipulated order. If you have any questions, please let me know.
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:44 AM
To: brad nicholson; Cynthia Moya; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth; cmathewson@centurypacificlD.com;
2
ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
All Appellants,
The proposed stipulated order is missing one of the parties to the appeal. As outlined in RMC 4-8-11O(E)(7),
the City is a party to the appeal. I will sign the stipulated order if I get email confirmation from the City that it
has no objection to the stipulated order.
Please note Mr. Nicholson has sent me another email, included in this email string, that was not cc'd to the other
parties to the appeal. As before, I request that staff include this updated email string as one of their hearing
exhibits. They should also have five copies of this email string available at the hearing so that I can disclose the
ex parte communications with Mr. Nicholson and give the opportunity for the public to review and respond to
those communications. In response to Mr. Nicholson's second email, as noted in my last email to him, I
received a copy of his notice of appeal (all 200+ pages) as an email attachment from the City Clerk's Office last
September. Other than a response from staff as to whether they have an objection to the stipulated order, I ask
that I receive no further communications from the parties on the appeal regarding the appeal. For the reasons
outlined in my last email toMr.Nichols.itis important that pre-hearing ex parte communications be limited as
much as possible.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 PM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com>wrote:
Your Honor,
I can recall with crystal clarity. 5 weeks after filing the appeal, I called the City Clerk and requested information
about why I received no acknowledgement of its receipt or correspondence whatsoever. It would appear that I
have been involved in as many appeals in Renton as you have and in the past, the normal process has been to
give a short explanation of what is going on. At first the Clerk told me that he had posted it on the web and that
I would need to talk to Staff about it. I had complained to him that I had spent considerable time and had
addressed the appeal to you and not to staff. My comment letter was addressed to staff but my appeal notice
along with 5250.00 was addressed to you according to staff instructions. The Clerk then assured me in no
uncertain terms that the appeal document went directly to you and that you had a copy of it in your possession. I
complained to him that I paid the fee for the appeal to go to you and not to staff. Thus I am surprised that you
would indicate that you have no documents. I am also surprised that you did not get it and it was never in your
possession. I am just saying that I had also been quite disturbed that staff had been the ones to decide on the
appeal consolidation even though I think you are correct in presuming that it may have been generally known to
be the case. But I had not understood that they had jurisdiction to decide issues of Law in a pending appeal.
Respectfull y
3
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 201606:07:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Qucndall Homes (LUA-09-lSI)
From: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
To: brad827@hotmail.com; CMoya@rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@rentonwa.gov; LWarren@rentonwa.gov;
JSeth@rentonwa.gov; cmathewson@cenlurypacificlp.com; ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Staff,
Please include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendall Homes application.
Mr. Nicholson,
Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I will likely send out a signed order tomorrow once I've
had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal.
From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or
should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of
involvement in your case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to
know as little about your project as possible until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing
exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions I am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff,
the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your case outside the hearing
process. Because of these legal requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is
strictly limited to the testimony presented during the project hearing and the exhibits admitted into
evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the
opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited to knowing it's big, controversial and involves a
superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if
anything big is coming up, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as
opposed to applications) sometimes involve a little more advance information due to the necessity to sometimes
hold prehearing conferences. Prehearing conferences are prehearing meetings or email exchanges with appeal
hearing participants designed to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a more efficient
appeal hearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for
testimony, requiring the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and setting deadlines for prehearing motions
and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehearing conference, I will typically ask for a copy of
4
the notice of appeal four to six weeks in advance of a scheduled appeal hearing to determine whether a
prehearing conference would be useful.
As best as I can recall, Renton has only had a couple land use appeal hearings in the last five years that I've
worked with the city. Renton is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently
regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staff repOlt is
complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be
included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed. However, it's not going to attract my notice
until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a prehearing conference. From your
email response yesterday I was able to find an email from the City Clerk's office from last September that
contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that
the stipulated order includes all necessary parties.
Your email also asserts that I've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law
requires an appeal of FElS adequacy to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I
would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previously discussed, the
circumstances under which staff can talk to me about a case are very limited outside the hearing process. I don't
recall making any comments to staff regarding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten
about it.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your Honor,
You may be looking for "Quendall Homes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall
Terminals" EIS decision which you decided to consolidate with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago.
Vanessa Dolbee informed me that is was because of "State Law" You may have forgotten about it but the
appeal documents were sent directly to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an
appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving the Master Plan for around
700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take
your actions?
Respectfully,
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
From: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
5
To: C~10ya@rentonwa.gov
CC: VDolbee@rentonwa.l!ov; LWarrcn@rcntonwa.gov; lSeth@rentonwa.gov;
cmalhewson@centurypacificlp.eom; brad8?7@hotmail.com; ann.gygi@hemp.com
Please confirm that all parties to the SEPA appeal have signed the stipulated order to dismiss. I have no
documentation on the appeal, so I have no knowledge of what parties are involved.
On Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <CMoya@rcntonwa.gov> wrote:
Mr. Olbrechts,
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendall Terminals FEIS
& Mitigation Document, SEPA Appeal (File #LU A-09-151). The parties have asked that you sign the attached
document as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at 425-430-7314.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton -Administrative Services/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
6
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Review Team ,.r . ::\J
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager \j
SUBJECT: lUA09-151 Quendall Terminals Mixed Use De'/elopment
The Final EIS and associated mitigation document has been issued for the subject
project. The applicant has revised the project application materials as necessary to
comply with the mitigation document. Attached are all revised plan sheets along with
other documents that have not changed as a result of the EIS process. If you would like
to review any of the EIS documents please download the PDF from the following link on
the Renton Web Site: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Please review the attached plan sets and provide comments in Energov by February 17,
2016.
Thank you.
h:\ced\planning\currcnt pJanning\projects\09-1S1. vanessa\master pJan_ssJp_hinding site plan process\routing memo 2-
3-16.docx
Vanessa Dolbee
From: Vanessa Dolbee
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:19 PM
'Inez "Ine" Petersen'
Subject: RE: Party of Record -Quendall Terminals
Attachments: Off Hold Letter 2.3.16_Quendall Terminals_09-151.pdf
Inez,
You have been added to the party of record list for the Quendall Terminals project, LUA09-151. In addition, I have
attached the most recent correspondence related to the public hearing date for your information. At this time, the
public hearing is tentatively scheduled for 10:00 am on April 19, 2016.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Vanessa 'Do(bee, Current Planning Manager
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
From: Inez "Ine" Petersen [mailto:inezpetersenjd@gmail.coml
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:13 PM
To: Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: Party of Record -Quendall Terminals
Vanessa,
Would you please make me a party of record regarding the subject project, especially
as it pertains to hearing times and dates.
Thank you,
Inez Petersen
3306 Lake Wash Blvd North
Unit 1
Renton, WA 98056-1978
425-255-5543
1
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
Fisheries Division
39015 -172 nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763
Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752
Ms. Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
CED-Planning Division
\055 South Grady Way
Renton. W A 98057
February 12,2016
RE: Boeing Apron A 737 Cl Max, LUA16-000028, ECF, SM, Notice of Application and Proposed
Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated
Dear M&..-ButOee: V (} \'\tI'Y.lc\ :
Our Habitat Program has reviewed the propose Notice of Application and Proposed Detemlination of
Non-Significance-Mitigated for Boeing's Apron A 737 CI Max project referenced above. First. we
would like to say thank you for sending the Site plan; Stream Study; the Lighting Impingement Study;
and the Technical Information Report that we needed to fully evaluate this project. Second. we apologize
for the deJay in getting these comments to Renton.
Generally. we appreciate the City's cfforts to require that the lighting impacts of this project be
examined. We also appreciate the applicant's proposal to use full cut -otT lixtures and careful aiming of
lighting to try to limit impacts on the lower Cedar River. We recognize the project need and its
importance to Bocing.
However, the information provided in the modeling from the Casne Engineering Impingement Study
December L 2015) modeling and AMEC Stream Study (January 2016) both indicate that the project
lighting c1emcnts will increase the artificial light intensity along the affected lower Cedar River areas by
around 100 to 400 percent depending on the location. Existing light intensity in the lower Cedar River
already exceeds the recommended goal from Tabor et al. (2004) of 0.1 lux by a factor of 10 or more in the
project area. For rcference, 0.1 foot candle (fc) is equal to 1.0764 lux (Ix). On that basis, we disagree
with and do not understand how AMEC can possibly conclude that:
"Even though the estimated light intensitiesjrom the modeling are higher than the measured light
intensities. the model clearly demonstrates that there should be no significant change in light
intensities on the LCR adjacent to the site under the proposed plan."
....... ~~.-----Denis Law-C· f
_--':M:.ayor ---,.."".,,--:t~t®ro I, ""'-v-......
February 18, 2016
Mark Clement
The Boeing Company
PO Box 3707 MC 1W-09
Seattle, WA 98124
SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E. "Chi p"Vi ncent, Adm i n istrator
Boeing Apron A 737 C1 MAX, LUA16-000028, ECF, SM
Dear Mr. Clement:
The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for
review on January 20, 2016. During our review, staff has determined that additional
information is necessary in order to proceed further.
The following information will need to be submitted before May 19, 2016 so that we
may continue the review of the above subject application:
• The square footage of impervious area added to the shoreline is not consistent
throughout the submittal items. Please clarify the square footage of new
impervious serface in the shoreline and updated any plans as necessary.
• The provided Stream Study did not address the ecological impacts of filling up to
8,500 sf of vegitated area. The study shall include an anaysis of net loss of
ecological functions and vaules.
• Please address the comments recived from the Mucleshoot Inidan Tribe, see
enclosed comment leter, dated Febuary 12, 2016.
At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested
information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions.
S~C/IY, "
'./(Ja~{J~
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Enclosure: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Letter, dated February 12, 2016
cc: City of Renton / Ownerls)
Jennifer Flathman/Party of Record
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • ,enlonwa.gov
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
Fisheries Division
39015 -172"d Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763
Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752
Ms. Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
CED-Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
February 12,2016
RE: Boeing Apron A 737 Cl Max, LUA16-000028, ECF, SM, Notice of Application and Proposed
Determination of Non-Signifieance-Mitigated
Our Habitat Program has reviewed the propose Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of
Non-Significance-Mitigated jiJr Boeing's Apron A 737 Cl Max project referenced above. First. we
would like to say thank you for sending the Site plan; Strean1 Study: the Lighting Impingement Study;
and the Technical Information Report that we needed to fully evaluate this project. Second, we apologize
for the delay in getting these comments to Renton.
Generally, we appreciate the City's eftorts to require that the lighting impacts of this project be
examined. We also appreciate the applicant's proposal to use full cut -off tixtures and careful aiming of
lighting to try to limit impacts on the lower Cedar River. We recognize the project need and its
importance to Boeing.
However. the information provided in the modeling from the easne Engineering Impingement Study
December I. 2(15) modeling and AMEC Stream Study (January 2016) both indicate that the project
lighting elements will increase the artificial light intensity along the affected lower Cedar River areas by
around 100 to 400 percent depending on the location. Existing light intensity in the lower Cedar River
already exceeds the recommended goal from Tabor et al. (2004) of 0.1 lux by a factor of 10 or more in the
project area. For reference, 0.1 foot candle (fe) is equal to 1.0764 lux (Ix). On that basis. we disagree
with and do not understand how AMEC can possibly conclude that:
"Even though the estimated light intensities from the modeling are higher than the measured light
intensities, the model clearly demonstrates that there should be no significant change in light
intensities on the LCR adjacent to the site under the proposed plan."
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Vanessa,
Karen Walter < KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn,us>
Wednesday, February 03, 2016 12:11 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
FW: Notice of Application-Apron A 737 / Cl MAX -LUA1S-000714, ECF, SM
imageOO1.png; NOA-DNSM_Boeing Apron A_16-000028,pdf; SEPA CHECKUST_Boeing
Apron A.737 Cl Max_16-000028.pdf
High
Follow up
Flagged
We have reviewed the Notice of Application/proposed DNS-M for the Boeing Apron A project referenced above, We
need more information to fully evaluate this project and request a copy of the following documents referenced in the
checklist but not included with the original notice:
1. Site plans;
2, Stream Study Narrative and Habitat Data Report (AMEC/Foster Wheeler Jan 2016); 3, Technical Information Report
(Dowl Group); 4, Flood Report (Dowl Group); and 5, Lighting Impignment Study (Casne Engineering)
As you know, we have been working with Renton for awhile to get existing lighting sources that contribute to salmon
predation reduced along the Cedar River, This project's lighting proposal needs to avoid contributing further artificial
lighting to the existing problem, as well as, be an opportunity to reduce lighting at the Renton Airport since this project
proposes to occur on City property,
The project also needs to ensure adequate stormwater treatment due to the site's location and potential impacts to
Cedar River adult and juvenile salmon, For these reasons, we need the project information listed above to determine
this project's potential impacts and adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We prefer electronic copies if available and we have a dropbox account to send these materials. Alternatively, they can
be put on a FTP site. Whatever is easiest for the City and applicant.
Thank you very much,
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
253-876-3116
From: Jennifer Cisneros [JCisneros@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20,20164:21 PM
To: 'DOE'; Erin Slaten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy
Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Sabrina Mirante
Subject: Notice of Application-Apron A 737 / C1 MAX -LUA15-000714, ECF, SM
1
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF Non-significance-mitigated (dns-M)
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-
Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public
Approvals.
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: January 20, 2016
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA16-000028, ECF, SM
PROJECT NAME: Boeing Apron A 737 C1 MAX
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to provide two aircraft parking positions and aSSOCiated infrastructure for
Boeing 737 aircraft. Each stall would be able to accommodate de-icing operations. The project is located at the Renton
Municipal Airport, 616 W Perimeter Rd. The site is 13,650 SF and is zoned Industrial Medium (1M). Site improvements
would include pavement repair and replacement, infrastructure including, water, air, electrical, lighting and storm water
drainage improvements. One new 1,S60 SF super cabana building and 20 ft. light stand are proposed and the relocation
of two blast fences, 3 light stands, and one 360 SF crew shelter. Overall the project would increase imperious coverage
by 8,200 SF and result in 3,990 cubic yards of grading. The site is located within a seismic hazard area and along the
Cedar River, a Shoreline of the State. Reach A the Cedar River Shoreline is designated as High Intensity at the project
location.
PROJECT LOCATION: 616 W Perimeter Rd
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has
determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a
DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single
comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance ofthe Threshold Determination of Non-
Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the
proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M.
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON:
98124/206-617-2944
January 14, 2016
January 20, 2016
Mark Clement, The Boeing Co./ PO Box 3707 MC 1W-09/ Seattle, WA
2
Permits/Review Requested:
Permit
Other Permits which may be required:
Requested Studies:
or Supplemental)
Location where application may
Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development
None
Drainage report; Geotechnical Report; Stream/Lake Study (Standard
be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-
Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW:
Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated COMP-EA on the City of Renton
Comprehensive Land Use Map and 1M on the City's Zoning Map.
Environmental Documents that
Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist
Development Regulations
Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, 4-2-130
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS, 4-9-070
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the
proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and
regulations as cited above.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Stream Study Narrative and,Habitat Data Report,
prepared by AMEC Foster Wheeler, dated January 2016.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager, CED-
Planning Division, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on February 3, 2016. If you have questions
about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project
Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any
decision on this project. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination is available upon request.
3
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Eml:
vdolbee@rentonwa.gov<mailto:vdolbee@rentonwa.gov>
Jenny Cisneros, Administrative Secretary I City of Renton 1 CED 1 Development Engineering
10555 Grady Way 16th Floor 1 Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425.430.72721 Fax: 425.430.7300 1 jcisneros@rentonwa.gov<mailto:jcisneros@rentonwa.gov>
[cid:image001.png@01D1539E.8E38A470]
4
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Region 4 Office: 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard· Mill Creek, Washington 98012· (425) 775-1311
January 26, 2016
City of Renton
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
CED -Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Dear Ms. Dolbee:
SUBJECT: Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-significance-
Mitigated, LUAI6-000028, ECF, SM, Boeing Apron A 737 CI MAX Project,
Cedar River, Tributary to Lake Washington, WRIA 08.0299
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above referenced
document and submits the following comments at this time.
Most of my comments will be concerning the proposed lights associated with the project.
There is currently considerable attention being directed toward the effects of artificial lighting on
ecosystems and fish, in particular. On January 14,2016, I attended a discussion with local
experts lead by Elizabeth Perkins of Willamette University on this subject at the county office.
One of the local experts is manufacturing lights and has the capability to customize light fixtures.
I heard him state that, by changing the color temperature of the light, it is possible to change what
fish see.
A lighting study and reduction plan has been prepared to contribute to the mitigation for
predation impacts related to the proposed Lower Cedar River Maintenance Dredging Project.
This includes a list of recommendations for mitigating the effects of artificial lights, summarized
as follows:
I. Reducing "on" hours
2. Relocation
3. Re-aiming
4. Addition of baffles or other shielding devices
5. Changing fixture types
6. Changing lamp types, color temperatures/wavelength and/or wattage
7. Dimming
8. Lower light levels if using LEDs; a caution about LEDs-the experts say they normally
have a spike in the blue spectrum which is particularly harsh to many life forms
Ms.Oolbee
January 26,2016
Page 2
9. Reducing lamp heigbt
10. Eliminating unnecessary lights
The effects of artiticial lighting are important on the lower Cedar River, as documented in a
study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which found that outmigration of sockeye salmon
fry is delayed there due to artificial light levels, making them more vulnerable to predation. I am
glad to see, based upon the information contained in the lighting impingement study conducted
for this project, that the City and the Boeing Company have already given this issue serious
consideration, and the project is designed in a manner to mitigate the potential impacts of the
lighting associated with the project on fish and wildlife resources at the site.
WOFW appreciates the opportunity to work collaboratively with the City of Renton in our efforts
to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state of
Washington.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 425-313-5683 or fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Larry Fisher
Area Habitat Biologist
LF: If: CORBoeing_Apron_A.SEPA.doc
cc: WOFW: SEPA Coordinator
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: February 3, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Review Team ~ Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT: LUA09-151 Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development
The Final EIS and associated mitigation document has been issued for the subject
project. The applicant has revised the project application materials as necessary to
comply with the mitigation document. Attached are all revised plan sheets along with
other documents that have not changed as a result of the EIS process. If you would like
to review any ofthe EIS documents please download the PDF from the following link on
the Renton Web Site: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id-32800
Please review the attached plan sets and provide eomments inlinergov by February 17,
2016.
h:\ced\pJanni ng\current anning\proje\.:ts\09-1S1. vanessa\master plan_ssdp_binding site plan process\routing memo 2-
~.
Denis Law
_~N'=ayo; ------~·_r _ ~ (_1,. _r ,r )JJ
February 3, 2016 _ _ V __
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
South End Gives Back
Brad Nicholson, President
2302 N.E. 28 th Street
Renton, WA 98056
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Quendall Terminals I LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Dear Mr. Mathewson and Mr. Nicholson:
The additional materials requested in the September 2, 2015 letter from the City have now
been submitted by the applicant for the subject project. Therefore, the Quendali Terminals
project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review the project.
The EIS Appeal and Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been
tentatively scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on April 19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. If
necessary the public hearing may be continued to April 26, 2016 at 10:00 am. If you have any
questions, please contact me at (42S) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties. Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners
Phil Olbrechts, City of Renton Hearing EXaminer
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Renton City Hall -1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonw •. gov
LAND USE, SHORELINE &
MASTER PLAN PERMIT
APPLICATION UPDATE
Quendall Terminals
Century Pacific, L.P.
December 2015
kpff
Quendall Terminals Master Site Plan Update
December 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Five copies of each Item below and an electronic copy of each
UPDATED DoCUMENTS
• Project Narrative
• Density Worksheet
• Tree Retention Worksheet
UPDATED PLANS
• Site Plan
• Parking Level Plans
• Typical Architectural Elevations
• Conceptual Landscape Plan
• Tree Inventory Plan
• Topographic Survey (from 2009)
• Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plans
• Conceptual Utility Plans
PREVIOUSLY SUBMI1TED REPORTS FOR REFERENCE
• Original Environmental Checklist (SEPA)
• Urban Center Overlay District C Statement
• Neighborhood Detail Map
• Flood Hazard Map
• Preliminary Geotechnical Study
• Storm Drainage Report (TIR)
• Sewer Report
• Title Report
• Historical and Cultural Report (Larson, March 1997)
• Wetland Assessment, Lake Study, Habitat Data, and Conceptual Restoration Report
Table of Contents
December 2015
Century Pacific, LP
Project Narrative, Revised
Project Overview
The Ouendall Terminals project is being updated following the completion of the Final EIS and
mitigation document dated August 2015. The attached supplemental materials have been revised to
conform to the mitigation document.
TEAM
This updated entitlement submittal has been prepared for property owners Altino Properties, Inc. and
J.H. Baxter & Co.
The project developer and applicant is:
• Century Pacific, LLLP.
Contact: Campbell Mathewson
The following consultants contributed to preparation of the plans and documents:
• KPFF Consulting Engineers -Entitlement Lead, Civil Site Development
Contact: Tom Jones
• Lance Mueller & Associates -Architecture and Landscaping
Contact: Lance Mueller
• Transpo Group -Transportation and Traffic
Contact: Larry Toedtli (retired)
• Anchor OEA -Environmental
Contact: Peter Hummel
• Aspect Consulting -Geotechnical
PROJECT SIZE AND LOCATION
The Ouendall Terminals project is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in the northern portion of
Renton, Washington. The project site is bordered by Lake Washington to the west, the Sea hawks
Training Facility to the north, Ripley Lane North to the east, and the Barbee Mill site to the south. The
site area is approximately 21.46 acres (20.3 acre main parcel and an isolated 1.15 acre parcel east of
Ripley Lane). The site includes approximately 1,583 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington.
Quendall Terminals Project Narrative -December 2015 1
Century Pacific, lP
EPA ROLE
Environmental remediation and mitigation of the property will be conducted prior to development. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency for all site remediation, and mitigation
actions, which are to be performed at the Ouendall Terminals site under Superfund. The actions selected
by EPA must comply with substantive elements of SEPA and other applicable, relevant, and appropriate
environmental reviews and permitting requirements, though the remediation and mitigation actions are
exempt from procedural requirements of SEPA.
The Ouendall Terminals Final EIS (August 201S) addresses the current status of the EPA proceedings.
PERMITS AND ZONING
As identified in the Final EIS fpr the Ouendall Terminals project, issued August 201S, the following
permits and approvals are required to complete redevelopment of the site. The permits shown in italics
are those anticipated to complete the City of Renton Land Use Shoreline and Master Site plan
entitlement for the Ouendall Terminals project:
City of Renton Permits
• Master Site Plan Approval'
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Binding Site Plan
• Site Plan Review
• Construction Perm its
• Building Permits
• Utility Approvals
• Property Permits & Licenses
The FEIS also identifies the following state and federal permits and approvals required to complete
redevelopment of the site:
Federal
• CERCLA Remediation (for site cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment)
State of Washington
• Dept. of Ecology, Construction Stormwater General Permit
• Dept. of Ecology, NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit
• Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Hydraulic Project Approval
Quendall Terminals Project Narrative -December 2015 2
Century Pacific, LP
Zoning
The applicable zoning classification and comprehensive plan designation for the site is (COR)
Commercial/Office/Residential. The applicable shoreline master program designation forthe site is
"urban."
The Sea hawks Training Facility to the north and the Barbee Mill site to the south have the same COR
zoning classification and designation per the City of Renton comprehensive plan.
ACCESS
Interstate 405 provides regional access to the project site via the Lake Washington Boulevard/44th Street
interchange. Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane (aka Seahawks Way) front the eastern
boundary of the site, Two entrances to the project are proposed from these public rights of way. To the
south an existing entrance to the Barbee Mill site will be used as a primary site access, A second site
access will be provided at the northeast end of the site by connection to Ripley Lane, Both site access
points cross a now abandoned Burlington Northern Santa Fe at-grade railroad line, New on-site public
streets and private access tracts will be constructed to provide site access to the buildings.
CURRENT USE
The site is currently vacant with the exception of a small shed used during past logging operations, The
site has been used for various industrial purposes in the past, most recently as a log sorting and storage
yard, Historical industrial uses have included a refinery, and have resulted in hazardous substances and
soil contamination.
Various small docks, structures, and pilings are located at the west edge of the project site along Lake
Washington,
Adjacent Uses
• Sea hawks Training Facility, a football training facility, to the north,
• Barbee Mill, a residential development, to the south,
• Pan Abode, an existing cedar home manufacturing facility, to the southeast (as of December 20~5,
no longer on site), Future planning includes a hotel (Hawks Landing),
• Lake Washington Boulevard, Ripley Lane, and Interstate 405 are to the east.
• Lake Washington is located to the west,
PROPOSED USES
The proposed development includes construction of four mixed-use bUildings with structured and surface
parking for ~.366 vehicles. The development will include 692 residential units, office space, 20,025 square
feet of retail, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant, and public trails/paths.
Density
The gross site area totals 883,350 SF (20,28 Ac)
Quendall Terminals Project Narrative -December 2015 3
Century Pacific, LP
Deductions for Public Streets total 98,600 SF (2.26 Ac)
Deductions for Private Access total 13,800 SF (0,32 Ac)
This results in a Net Site Area of 770,950 SF (17.70 Ac)
Based on a proposed density of 692 dwelling units provides a net density of 39,1 units/Ac
SPECIAL SITE FEATURES
The site contains approximately 0,81 acres (35,181 square feet) of wetlands and has approximately 1,583
feet of shoreline along Lake Washington, Site slopes are generally 0 to 5 percent with localized slopes up
to 2H:l Vat debris piles and up to lH:l Vat the bank of the lake,
PROPOSED OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
WSDOT has identified future improvements to the 1-405/Northeast 44th Street interchange as part of the
WSDOT 1-405 Renton to Bellevue improvement project, Project contributions with and without the 1-405
improvements are set forth in the EIS. Several additional improvements are proposed or identified by the
project to mitigate project generated impacts, These include:
• A southbound left-turn lane, a dedicated westbound right-turn lane, and an eastbound left-turn lane
at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection.
• A northbound left-turn lane at the Main Project Access/Barbee Mill/Conner Homes Access
intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard,
• Installation of a new traffic signal at the Main Project Access/Barbee Mill/Conner Homes Access
intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard, or at the intersection of Ripley Lane with Lake
Washington Boulevard, as determined by the City,
• A westbound left-turn lane at the Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection,
• Traffic calming on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N, 41st Street to encourage primary trips to
use 1-405 corridor.
• Implementation of programs that reduce auto travel to/from the site, including access to future
transit on 1-405 or Lake Washington Boulevard,
• Construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the site,
Note: Improvements listed are based on full build-out, initial phased development will not require all
improvements.
SOILS AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
Soils
Site soils consist of highly heterogeneous shallow alluvial and lacustrine silts, sands and peat
underlain by a coarser sand-gravel alluvium, The shallow alluvial deposits are overlain by years
of fill deposits,
Quenda!1 Terminals Project Narrative -December 2015 4
Century Pacific, lP
Drainage Conditions
Stormwater runoff from the existing site either infiltrates or flows overland to Lake Washington with no
known flooding problems. Storm water runoff from the proposed development will be collected and
conveyed via a piped stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution-
generating surfaces will be treated prior to discharge to the lake.
SHORELINE
The project site includes approximately ',583 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The existing
shoreline varies from gently sloping wetlands to steep (,H:>V) banks. Various docks and structures are
located along the bank and in the water along the shore.
The shoreline includes a wo-foot average width riparian buffer upland from the ordinary high water
mark. A shoreline restoration plan is being designed and approved under EPA direction. The following
work is anticipated within 200 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline:
Activities related to shoreline restoration, contaminant remediation and mitigation, including capping of
the site, and construction of mixed-use buildings, roads, utilities, retaining walls, hardscape/landscape
areas.
VIEW CORRIDORS
The site is currently vacant, so construction of the proposed development will create potential partial
obstructions from certain vantage points around the site. The design of the project will maintain view
corridors between the proposed buildings.
TREE RETENTION
The Ouendall Terminals site will undergo environmental remediation and mitigation for on-site
contaminated soils after Master Site Plan submittal and prior to final design and construction of the
development included in this proposal. The site remediation is under the direction of the EPA and will
include significant removal of on-site trees and placement of fill. The assumed existing conditions for
Master Site Plan design are the post remediation and mitigation conditions.
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION
Construction is anticipated to commence following EPA approval of a site cleanup action plan. Full
project buildout is expected two years following the commencement of site remediation and mitigation
construction.
The following construction mitigation measures are anticipated:
• No special hours of construction activity are anticipated outside what is allowed under the
current City of Renton Municipal Code.
Quendal! Terminals Project Narrative ~ December 2015 5
Century Pacific, LP
• A proposed haul route plan will be developed prior to construction.
• A Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan will be developed prior to construction to
minimize erosion.
• A traffic control plan will be developed prior to construction to address traffic and transportation
impacts.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
Estimated Fill:
A fill cap is anticipated to be placed over the site as part of EPA site remediation and mitigation. The
combined volume of the fill cap and additional fill required to achieve building grades is estimated to be
approximately 50,000 to 100,000 cubic yards. Actual volumes will be determined by the final EPA site
remediation plan and final site design.
Estimated Costs:
Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value:
• Construction is estimated to total $390 million
• Project Fair MarketValue is $390 million
Quendall Terminals Project Narrative ~ December 2015 6
DENSITY
WORKSHEET
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA ga057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
1. Gross area of property: 1.925,376 square feet (21.24Ac)
2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations.
These include:
Public streets" (Streets A,S & C)
Private access easements" (D,& E)
Critical Areas'
Total excluded area:
3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area:
4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage:
5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned:
6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density:
161.243 square feet
28.165 square feet
____ square feet
(3.70Ac)
(0.65Ac)
2. 189.408 square feet (4.35Ac)
3. 735.968 square feet
4. 16.90 acres
5. 692 units/lots
6. 40.9 = dwelling units/acre
*Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for
development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations
including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or f1oodways."
Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded.
** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded.
- I -12/2015
Ar""s of 500-year flood; areas of 100-
flood with average depths of less
1 foot or with drainage areas less
1 square mile; and areas protected
levees from 1 ~O-year floor.
• PANEL NOT PRINTED -OPEN WATER AREA ALL IN
----
.. PANEL NOT PRINTED -AREA IN LUNt X
,--"-------
... PANEL NOT PRINTED -AREA IN ZONE D
.... PANEL NOT PRINTED -PANEL 53033C1490 IS SHowN
MAP INDEX
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
(SEE LISTING OF COMMUNmes TABlE)
MAP INDEX
PANELS PftINTBI: 20,", .. , 44, 0>, 04, N, It,
al, 93, .,111, 120, 1M, 213, 214, 3-10, 320, 321,_
330, m. 332, m, 3M. 34O,.su. 3M. 310, IN. 3M, ., 370, 377,371,311,313,_ 310, _, 401, 405,
4to, .. fa. .",.11, GO, aI .... _. 502, 508,1507,
lOt, m. 128, 121, 133.110. ",, 120, sao, 1M, ... NO, tw6, _ M4. W, lIT. III, _, ISM, III" ee7,
MI, _. 110, B86, Uf, _. _,..,. eaz,lI3, "'"
705, 1GI. 710,715. 711, 717,718,71'.728,738, m,
731, 741, 7a. 743, 7oM, 111, 783, 825, 031, fISO.l53,
1M, _.1I7,0II ..... 981.tG, ........ 7 ••
_,171,117, .... 171, .. ,_l1li3 ....... ,l1li7,
•• 111,112,113, ..... 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1008,
1007, 1001, 1001. 1011, 1020. 1028. 1032. 1038, 1038,
1012, 1051.1017. 10lIl,107&.1017, 1018.1071, 1200,
1228,1252. t231. 12a,. 1210. 12St, 1282,1253, 12M,
1257,' •• 1.',1212" 1213, ' .... ,218, 1287,'.
12811, ,_. 1210, 12t5" 1311, 1350, 1457, ' •• 1 .....
'_.1505.1511,1125.11510
-
MAP NUMBER
53033CINDOA
MAP REVISED
APRIL 19, 2005
Fedenl Em ....... cy MIID_..,enl Ageacy
mop
was extracted using F-M1T On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendmenlE which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance
flood maos check the FEMA Flood
Century Pacific, LP
Overlay Design District C Statement
Compliance Statement
The Ouendall Terminals master site plan submittal and all supporting documents shall meet or exceed
the minimum compliance requirements included in the Overlay Design District C.
This includes the following,
• Site design and building location
• Building location, character, massing, rooflines and materials
• Transition to surrounding development
• Parking and vehicular access
• Location of surface and structured parking
• Pedestrian build ing entries
• Pedestrian circulation
• Landscaping
• Common space
• Signage
• Light ing
As specific site development plans are prepared the applicant and design team will cant inue to
coordinate the proposed design with the City of Renton to ensure compliance.
Quendall Terminals Project Narrative -December 2015 1
-
Ms. Vanessa Dolbee
City of Renton
Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
January 13, 201 G
Rc: Qliendal/ Tenninab; Plan Set Updates
LUA09-151, ECF, SA-M, SM, DSP
Dear Vanessa:
We represent Century Pacific ILLP, applicant on behalf of the Owners of the Quendall
Terminals site for the above referenced Master Site Plan Approval, Binding Site Plan, and
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Following the City'S completion of the project
SEPA review and issuance of the Mitigation Document, the City requested updated drawings
to show project plans conforming to the Mitigation Document published for the preferred
alternative of the EIS Addendum (October 2012) and Final EIS (August 2015).
In response to the City, the applicant submits the enclosed December 2015 plan
revisions, updated to reflect applicable mitigation conditions. Also at the City's request, in
addition to the revised materials, trus submittal package includes for your convenience the full
set of existing application materials and supporting reports, as identified on the enclosed table
of contents.
With the published SEPA documents, the project Mitigation Document, and the
requested supplemental submittal, the City should have everything required to proceed with
the staff report and hearing examiner proceedings on the Quendall Terminals applications
referenced above. We note that in addition to conditions reflected in this submittal, we
anticipate that the Master Site Plan approval will incorporate alll\1itigation Document
conditions, including those for off-site improvements, construction mitigation, and any details
not relevant here but applicable to future site plan and building pertnit applications.
Enclosed arc 5 sets and one digital copy of the updated project plans and previous
matetials in support of the upcoming permit proceedings for the referenced applications. We
ask that the City contact us at your earliest convenience if you have any questions. lbe
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 1 Seattle, WA 981011 206.623.1745 1 f: 206.623.77891
Ms. Vanessa Dalbec
January 13, 2016
Page 2 of2
applicant team looks forward to completing this comprehensive permit review process.
AMG:kah
E·Mail ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Dirrcl Dial' (206) 470-7638
Fax: (206) 623-77 89
Enclosures
cc: Campbell Mathewson, w! out end.
Larry Warren, w / out end.
ND: 19'J5R(X~2 4833-7547-6780v]
Vety truly yours,
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
11-'6-09
N; !DlI'G$j09 '20j()J(NOA.lljPt-O
o c m z o » r r
--i m
;0 s: -();:o Z mm
ZZ» -i-i
COr
;:0 Z en -<~
"'U~ »» I
()W -I"'U 11_
-Z -() G);o
r-im ro
[(j Z-n
m
;0
;0
m o
» r
--i m
;0 z »
--i -< m
I , ;.
" lo
" ~>J ,
! ,
!
~
~ ,
.~ ,
" ~.
.. g
~~
or
~r () '>0
~ 'Zz
-, Of)
:'(j)rn
~ ~()""U »-<
"Uc
f'lJ> r
"U
~. r
J>
7
••••
" ~~ , f~ , , .
, 2 .' .. ~::I g' • ' .
!~ .
'. ' .
$'" ~~ z
i:; ~~
~~ .~ ~. , ,.
~. <II , , [ j
\ ,
1 .. , • • , ,
;
3 ,
3
\
I
.
~
~
LANCE t.4UELLE R & A 860CI ... TEB
r
I .. .. c: .. I , Ie' •
0 • ~
~
,
~ i ~ • l
~ , ,
I J •
f • ~ y."
~.
" \
0 • ,
, 10 LAtc:(SIO( • st ... nu . WI. 11 6 1 22 2 0 6 J25 2~~J
•
¥~ 1,1;\
.~~
Q~ ~~
f~ ,
> ~ • ~ • ,
2 i ..
" ~ .~ \ • . , , , , ,
f j ~ \
[ ,
"
,
~ ,
" " [
\ ~.
, ~ ~
a • • • ~
f
f
~
.~
-~
T
~
[
~
t
~
QUE NDA LL TERM IN ALS
RENTON , WASH IN GTON
CEN TURY PAC IFIC , LLLP
.' " ~
~
~
~~ ,
~:2
'" " ~£ ~~ 0, z
\
N
+
(e l 2008 King Coun1"y
LAKE WASHINGTON
£-""
~ ..
,<I
"f
G
IPROJECT SITE I
20.3 AC
.---.)
CJ
.'
>'
d o
[1-405[
~RIPLEY LN NI "
[1-405[
[BARBEE MILL ENTRANCE f-------. ~N43RDST[
[N 42N[)PL[
~
t; • "
~
.:,.<J
/"~LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NI
" itO
:/'
~ l' GRAPHIC SCALE :
. 0 1 1400 ft
NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP
QUENDALL TERMINALS
MITIGATION DOCUMENT
Quendall
Terminals
-------.. Renton ®
Renton, Washington
August 2015
prepared by
City of Renton
Depat1ment of Community and Economic Development
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Below is the final list of mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
The mitigation measures list is also contained in the Ouendall Terminals Final EIS (August
2015; a separate document). There is some duplication of mitigation measures under the
various elements of the environment discussed in this Mitigation Document and the Ouendall
Terminals Final EIS. This is necessary in order to clearly indicate how specifiC impacts to each
element will be addressed by the project (e.g., the required stormwater control system will
address impacts on water resources as well as critical areas, and as such is included under
both elements).
It should be noted that this list of mitigation measures and the accompanying implementation
language later in this document do not exempt the applicant from complying with all portions of
vested Renton Municipal Code (RMC), and any conditions that may be applied through the
Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review processes. Furthermore. the site plan depicted as the
Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1. Preferred Alternative) has not been reviewed for
compliance with all segments of the RMC; this review will be conducted at a later date.
A. Earth
During Construction
A 1. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, shall be
implemented. This plan shall include, but not limited to, the following measures:
• All temporary (and/or permanent) devices used to collect stormwater runoff shall
be directed into tightlined systems that shall discharge to an approved
stormwater facility.
• Soils to be reused at the site during construction shall be stockpiled or stored in
such a manner to minimize erosion from the stock pile. Protective measures shall
include covering with plastiC sheeting and the use of silt fences around pile
perimeters.
• During construction, silt fences or other methods, such as straw bales, shall be
placed along surface water runoff collection areas in proximity to Lake
Washington and the adjacent wetlands to reduce the potential of sediment
discharge into these waters. In addition, rock check dams shall be established
along roadways during construction.
• Temporary sedimentation traps or detention facilities shall be installed to provide
erosion and sediment transport control during construction.
• The project construction shall adhere to the wet season construction
requirements between October 1" and April 30 th
A2. A geotechnical engineer that is a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control
or a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall review the grading and TESCP
plans prior to final plan design to ensure that erosion and sediment transport hazards
are addressed during and following construction. As necessary, additional erosion
mitigation measures could be required in response to specific design plans.
Quenda/l T ermina/s
Mitigation Document
August 2015
.. 'f
l
A3. Site preparation for roadways, utilities, and structures, and the placement and
compaction of structural fill shall be based upon the recommendations of a geotechnical
engineer.
A4. Temporary excavation dewatering shall be conducted if groundwater is encountered
during excavation and construction activities. Such dewatering activities shall be
conducted in a manner that shall minimize potential impacts due to settlement.
A5. A geotechnical engineer shall determine whether structural fill shall be placed to control
the potential for settlement of adjacent areas; adjacent structures/areas shall be
monitored to verify that no significant settlement occurs.
A6. A geotechnical engineer shall determine whether deep foundation systems (such as
piles or aggregate piers) shall be installed and/or ground improvements made to
minimize potential damage from soil settlement, consolidation, spreading, and
liquefaction.
A7. If deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) are used to support
structures, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Measures shall be employed to ensure that the site cap (i.e., soils/impervious
surfaces, should they be installed) shall not be affected and that installation of
the piles/piers shall not mobilize contamination that shall be contained by the
cap. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall determine the
appropriate measures to be employed, which could include: installation of
surface casing through the contaminated zone; installation of piles composed of
impermeable materials (steel or cast-in-place concrete) using soil displacement
methods; the use of pointed-tip piles to prevent carry down of contamination;
and/or, the use of ground improvement technologies, such as in-place
densification or compaction grouting.
• A pile vibration analysis and vibration monitoring shall be conducted during pile
installation in order to ensure that impacts due to vibration do not occur.
• Suitable pile and pile hammer types shall be matched to the subsurface
conditions to achieve the required penetrations with minimal effort to reduce
potential vibration. Potential pile types could include driven open-end steel pipe
piles, driven closed-end steel pipe piles, or driven cast-in-place concrete piles.
Potential hammer types could include percussion hammers or vibratory
hammers.
• Suitable hammer and pile cushion types shall be used for the specific conditions
to reduce potential noise. A typical hammer employs the use of a heavy impact
hammer that is controlled by a lead, which is in turn supported by a crane.
• Pile installation shall occur during regulated construction hours.
AB. Fill soils shall be properly placed and cuts shall be used to reduce the potential for
landslide impacts during (and after) construction.
A9. The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site shall be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by the EPA.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
ii
Following Construction
A 10. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed in accordance with the
applicable stormwater regulations.
A 11. Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater
control system shall be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to
prevent erosion of the lake shoreline and bottom.
A12. All buildings shall be designed in accordance with the International Building Code to
address the potential for seismic impacts.
A 13. The majority of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces following
redevelopment. Permanent landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the potential for
erosion and sedimentation with redevelopment.
A 14. Flexible utility connections shall be employed to minimize the risk of damage to utility
lines due to differential settlement between structures and underground utilities, as
needed and as determined by the City's responsible public official.
B. Critical Areas
During Construction
Bl. A TESCP, including BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control, shall be implemented
during construction. Implementation of this plan shall prevent or limit impacts to the lake
and shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation.
B2. If approved by EPA, trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls shall be incorporated
into site grading associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance
of re-vegetated areas.
B3. Upland areas on the Main Property (i.e., areas landward of the minimum 100-foot
shoreline setback from Lake Washington's ordinary high water mark (OHWM)) shall be
temporarily re-vegetated (e.g., with hydro-seed) following site remediation, if building
permits for the disturbed area have not been filed with the City of Renton.
Following Construction
B4. Proposed redevelopment shall avoid direct impacts to the on-site wetlands retained/re-
established and/or expanded as part of EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) for the
remediation project or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement.
B5. Retained/re-established and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers, and all other
habitat restoration areas required as part of EPA's anticipated ROD for the remediation
project or any NRD settlement shall be retained within and be a function of the open
space tract(s).
B6. Proposed buildings shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the OHWM, consistent
with the City of Renton's 2011 Shoreline Master Program.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
iii
T
87. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed consistent with the applicable
requirements. The system shall collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake
Washington via a tight-lined system or another system approved by the City's
responsible public official. Water quality treatment shall be provided for runoff from
pollution-generating surfaces to prevent water quality impacts to the lake and shoreline
wetlands.
88. Native plant species shall be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland area
on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat
benefits to native wildlife species.
89. Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species shall be avoided to the extent
practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with
the native species planted, this shall help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive
species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in
the vicinity for wildlife.
810. A publicly accessible, unpaved trail with interpretive viewpoints shall be provided through
the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline setback area unless the trail is prohibited by the EPA
ROD or any NRD settlement. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the
trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be
combined with the fire access road.
811. The proposed redevelopment shall include design elements to minimize the potential
adverse effects of artificial lighting on wetland, shoreline and riparian habitats, and
adjacent properties. These elements shall include directing lighting downward and away
from these habitats and adjacent properties, and shall also include shielding of lights,
use of low-pressure sodium lights, and/or minimizing the use of reflective glazing
materials in building design, as feasible.
c. Environmental Health
C1. Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process,
and shall be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy
selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls.
C2. The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site shall be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping
requirements, vapor barriers, and/or other measures shall be implemented to ensure
that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater, or vapors shall not
occur.
C3. Institutional controls shall be followed to prevent alteration of the site cap (should it be
installed) without EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any
purpose.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
iv
C4. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) shall be implemented to
prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, or other site disturbances without
prior EPA approval.
C5. As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers shall be used and special
handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent
contact with hazardous materials and substances.
C6. Institutional controls specified by EPA shall also be implemented to prevent exposure to
unacceptable vapors.
C7. If approved by EPA, utilities (including the main utility corridors) shall be installed as part
of the planned remedial action so that disturbance of the site cap (should it be installed)
and underlying contaminated soils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to
capping of the Main Property.
CB. Personal protection measures and special training costs shall be funded by the applicant
for City of Renton staff who provide inspection during construction and maintenance
following construction in areas where there is a potential to encounter contaminated soils
or groundwater.
C9. If approved by EPA, buried utilities, public roads, and infrastructure serving the site
development shall be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities in a trench with
sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert of the utility), along with an
acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect
the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the road or utility lines.
If the above is not approved by EPA, no public dility lines shall be installed until the
applicant, EPA, and the City agree upon appropriate protection measures for future road
and utility maintenance.
C10. If EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals
EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to
prepare additional SEPA review, including a possible Supplement to the EIS or
Addendum to the EIS, to address any differences between the ROD and the
assumptions in the EIS.
D. Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions
01. Development may incorporate low-impact/sustainable design features into the design of
proposed buildings on the site to reduce the demand for energy and reduce the amount
of greenhouse gas emissions. Such features could include architectural design features;
sustainable building materials; use of energy efficient products; natural drainage/green
roof features; use of native plants in landscaping; and/or other design features.
E. Land and Shoreline Use
E1. New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas, and proposed building setback
areas shall be designed and constructed to provide a buffer between proposed buildings
and land uses on adjacent properties.
Quendall Terminals
MItIgatIon Document
August 2015
v
E2. Proposed landscaping, particularly along the north and south boundaries of the Main
Property, shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between
proposed buildings and adjacent uses.
E3. Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, fayade modulation, building materials, etc.) shall
be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses.
E4. As shown in the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred
Alternative Site Plan), building heights shall be modulated to reduce potential
height/bulk/scale impacts on adjacent development (i.e., Barbee Mill); Building SW4
located adjacent to the southwest property line shall be 4 stories high; other buildings
shall be 5 to 6 stories high.
E5. A fire mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed development
at the time of building permit issuance and as required by the Renton Municipal Code to
help offset the impacts of the project on the City's fire emergency services.
F. AestheticslViews
F1. Building design shall include a variety of details and materials that are intended to create
a human scale and provide a visually interesting streets.cape and fac;:ade, such as
horizontal plan modulation, projecting vertical elements, and alternating fac;:ade materials
and details.
F2. Street-level, under-building parking areas shall be screened from sidewalks and streets
by retail and commercial uses along certain fac;:ades. Where this parking extends to the
exterior of the building, elements, such as architectural fayade components, trellises,
berms, and landscaping shall be used for screening.
F3. Public view corridors toward Lake Washington shall be provided along the main
east/west roadway onsite (Street "B") and along the private driveways at the north and
south ends of the site. Public views of the lake shall also be provided from the publically
accessible trail in the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline setback area in the western portion of
the Main Property, if the trail is not prohibited by EPA or any NRD settlement. If EPA's
ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side
of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road.
Additional views of the lake shall be provided for project residents from semi-private
landscaped courtyard areas between the new buildings onsite.
F4. New landscaping shall be provided in the upland area of the Main Property that is
intended to enhance the visual character of the site. Landscaping shall include new
trees, shrubs, and groundcovers of various sizes and species.
F5. Proposed landscaping along the north and south property lines shall be designed and
constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent
uses.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
vi
F6. The natural vegetation in the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline setback area and/or other site
areas established or protected by EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement shall be retained
with proposed site development.
Fl. Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting shall be directed
downward and away from surrounding buildings, properties, and the shoreline of Lake
Washington to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses and fish.
F8. As indicated in the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred
Alternative Site Plan), building setbacks shall be provided adjacent to Lake Washington
and along the. south site boundaries, to enhance the aesthetic character of development
and retain views of Lake Washington.
F9. 8uilding height modulation shall be provided across the site to enhance the aesthetic
character of development and retain some views of Lake Washington.
FlO. No surface parking shall be located at the terminus of Street "8" in order to enhance the
aesthetic character of the development, particularly from the shoreline trail, if the trail is
located within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area and not prohibited by EPA's
ROD or any NRD settlement. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail
within the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline setback area, the trail shall be relocated to the
west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire
access road.
F11. During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake
Washington OHWM shall be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the
COR zone (125 feet allowed height x Y, = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton's
2011 Shoreline Master Program, which will help maintain views toward the lake.
F12. As determined by the City's responsible public official, the amount of required parking
may be reduced, relocated, and/or redesigned (i.e., through implementation of
transportation demand management (TOM) measures or other means) so that additional
areas of the street-level, under-building parking can be setback from the exterior of the
building, particularly along Streets "A", "C," and the lake side of the development. This
will allow other uses, including retail, restaurant, commercial, and residential uses, and
plaza areas to occupy these areas and enhance the aesthetic character at the ground
level.
F13. Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, shall be
considered as part of the fa'Y8de design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts
to surrounding uses.
F14. Design features such as: public art, special landscape treatment, additional open
space/plazas, landmark building form, special paving/pedestrian scale lighting, and/or
prominent arChitectural features shall be provided as part of development to further
enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site.
F15. Vertical and/or horizontal modulation shall be provided along the west or lake side of the
buildings to provide a human scale and break up the larger structures which will be
adjacent to the shoreline area and pedestrian environment.
Quendal/ Terminals
MItigation Document
August 2015
vII
G. Parks and Recreation
Measures to Improve Public Open Space and Related Areas/Fees 1
G 1. A parks mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for each multifamily unit in
the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance
with the City of Renton Municipal Code.
G2. As shown on the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FE IS Figure 1-1, Preferred
Alternative Site Plan), approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas"
and "Other Related Areas" shall be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open
Space Areas" shall include the approximately 0.5-acre trail within the minimum 100-foot
shoreline setback area, and approximately 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. If
EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the
west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire
access road. It is the City's intent that the natural area along the trail be used for
retained/re-established and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers, and all other
habitat restoration areas required as part of EPA's ROD for the remediation project or
any NRD settlement. The "Other Related Areas" onsite shall include street-level
landscaping, landscaped courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas, and the Isolated
Property. These areas mayor may not meet the City's standards, regulations, and
procedures for public open space. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement result in
alterations to the plans for the Preferred Alternative, including the "Natural Public Open
Space Areas" or "Other Related Areas," the City could re-evaluate the plans.
G3. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, shall be provided along the west side of
Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N along the site. These sidewalks shall
connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities
in the area.
G4. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by
EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement, public parking shall be provided in the same general
area as the retail/restaurant parking; the applicant shall speCifically identify this parking
prior to site plan approval. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail
shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be
combined with the fire access road; public parking shall be provided for the relocated
trail as described above. Public parking spaces shall be provided as required by the
Renton Municipal Code and the Shoreline Master Program and shall be identified as
public by signage or other means approved by the City.
G5. Signage, detours, and safety measures shall be put in place to detour bicyclists from
using the Lake Washington Loop trail at the time of construction.
G6. If the trail through the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA
or any NRD settlement, the connection between the trail and Lake Washington
Boulevard shall be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (Le., 15-foot wide) that are
part of public rights-of-way along the Street "B" corridor. If EPA's ROD or any NRD
1 Hours of public access shall meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
viii
settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. The
connection of the relocated trail to Lake Washington Boulevard shall also be enhanced
by providing wider sidewalks (i.e., 15-foot wide), as described above.
G7. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA
or any NRD settlement, the hours of public use (i.e., not the residents' use) of the trail
shall be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. If EPA's ROD or
any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; the
hours of public use (i.e., not the residents' use) of the trail shall be determined by the
City's Community Services Administrator.
G8. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area shall be provided onsite for active
recreation (e.g., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms,
active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City's responsible public
official.
G9. A crosswalk including pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the
crosswalk shall be provided across Lake Washington Boulevard in order to connect the
proposed development to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. The
crosswalk shall be controlled by Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, if the City
determines that such lighting is warranted.
G10. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA
or any NRD settlement, the trail and other recreation areas shall be enhanced with site
amenities, such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc., and
approved by the City's Community Services Administrator. If EPA's ROD or any NRD
settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; the trail
and other recreation areas shall be enhanced with site amenities, such as tables, litter
receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc. and approved by the City's Community
Services Administrator.
G11. The trail shall connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. If EPA's
ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west
side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and it could be combined with the fire access
road; the trail shall connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south.
Measures to Improve Semi·Private Recreation Access for Residents
G12. As part of the total open space, semi-private landscaped courtyardS on top of the
parking garages shall be provided as shared open space for residents of the site. These
areas shall help to meet the demand for recreation facilities from project residents.
G13. Street level landscaping, plazas, and sidewalks shall be provided. These areas will help
meet the project's demand for passive recreation facilities.
Quenda/l Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
Ix
H. Transportation
With or Without Planned 1·405 Improvements
H1. A traffic mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed
development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of
Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways.
H2. TDM measures shall be implemented to reduce the number of vehicle trips and thus
provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing impacts at study intersections.
H3. Infrastructure improvements within the site shall include full curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
and landscape strips (where applicable) as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter,
sidewalk, landscape strips, bike lanes, pavement width, and utilities) along the west side
of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions
for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site
when planned public transit becomes available.
H4. If approved by EPA and any NRD settlement, a pedestrian trail shall be provided onsite
. through the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline setback area that shall be accessible to the
public and shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site
sidewalk system. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall
be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be
combined with the fire access road; this trail shall connect to Lake Washington
Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk system.
H5. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the
development, the applicant shall install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington
Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to
utilize the 1-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic
management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create
either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but not
limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed
tables, and/or speed humps. Final design of traffic calming elements shall be approved
by the City.
H6. The parking supply under the Preferred Alternative shall meet the minimum off-street
parking requirements of the City of Renton.
H7. Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of TDM
measures for proposed residential uses shall be implemented to reduce parking demand
during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply.
H8. 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 and any NRD settlement, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian
trail. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
x
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.
H9. In order to promote a multi modal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall
Terminals site shall include site amenities (i.e., planting strips, street lighting, etc.) and
access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1-405/NE 44th
Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the
future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid
Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange).
H10. A paved bicycle lane shall be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley
Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley
Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path
could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane/Lake Washington
Boulevard to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals
site access point on Ripley Lane.
With Planned 1-405 Improvements
H11. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43'· Street) and Ripley
Lane N. The eastbound and westbound through lanes planned by WSDOT shall be
extended beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This shall result in
two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Boulevard from the 1-405
interchange past the Barbee Mill access (N 43'· Street). Ultimately, the City of Renton
shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination
with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the viCinity rail
right-of-way), and adjacent private development.
H 12. Barbee Mill Access (N 43'· Street)ILake Washington Boulevard. A traffic signal shall
be installed at this intersection. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43'· Street}/Lake
Washington Boulevard intersection the eastbound approach shall be widened to include
a separate left-turn only lane and the northbound approach shall be widened to include a
separate left-turn only lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best
configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the
adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and
adjacent private development. If the traffic signal and eastbound left turn lane at N 43'·
Street have not been constructed prior to the WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th
Streetll-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the
intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. Relocating the traffic signal to
Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. could reduce/eliminate potential impacts of
traffic queues on N 43'· Street between Lake Washington Boulevard and Road A, and
with the existing rail crossing (should it be re-activated for rail service or converted to a
trail corridor). An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the
determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either N 43'· Street
or Ripley Lane.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
xi
Without Planned 1-405 Improvements
H 13. Traffic Signals. Traffic signals shall be installed at the intersections of the 1-405
northbound and southbound ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Barbee
Mill Access (N 43,d Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard. The City will consider moving
the location of this signal to the intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard
as part of a future WSDOT improvement project to the NE 44th Street interchange.
Relocating the traffic signal to Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard could
reduce/eliminate potential longer-range impacts of traffic queues on N 43,d Street
between Lake Washington Boulevard and Road A, and with the existing rail crossing
(should it be re-activated for rail service or converted to a trail corridor). An engineering
study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the
installation of the traffic signal at either N 43,d Street or Ripley Lane.
H14. Intersection #1 -1-405 Northbound Ramps/NE 44'h Street. The southbound and
northbound approaches shall be widened so that a separate left turn lane and shared
thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of
the intersection with the additional widening improvements shall be coordinated with
WSDOT.
H15. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43,d Street) and 1-405
Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill
access and the 1-405 southbound ramps shall be constructed. Additional eastbound and
westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the
traffic signals required at the southbound ramp and Barbee Mill Access (N 43,d Street)
along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43,d Street)/Lake
Washington Boulevard intersection the westbound approach on the Barbee Mill Access
shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only lane and the northbound approach
on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only
lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the
improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange
design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private
development.
1_ Cultural Resources
11. Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring shall be conducted during construction
activities on the site (clearing and grading of the upland portion, construction of deep
building foundations, and excavation of utilities). During construction, a monitoring plan
and inadvertent discovery plan shall be developed as part of the project (see Appendix F
to the Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum for a copy of the proposed monitoring plan
and inadvertent discovery plan).
12. In the unlikely event that ground-disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent
discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities shall be halted in the
immediate area and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) shall be contacted. Work shall be halted until such time as further
investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
xii
13. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, construction shall
be halted in the area, the discovery shall be covered and secured against further
disturbance, and contact shall be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP, and
authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes.
J. Construction Impacts
Air Quality
J1. Site development and construction activities shall comply with applicable Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations regarding demolition activities and fugitive dust
emissions. If approved by the EPA, wetting of exposed soils, covering or wetting
transported earth materials, washing of truck tires and undercarriages prior to travel on
public streets, and prompt cleanup of any materials tracked or spilled onto public streets
shall be provided.
J2. The EPA cleanup/remediation process for the site and associated institutional control
requirements shall ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and
vapors shall not occur during or following construction. An OMMP shall be implemented
to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, and other site disturbances
without prior EPA approval.
Noise
J3. Per the City of Renton's construction standards related to permitted hours of work (RMC
4-4-030C), commercial and multifamily construction activities within 300 feet of
residential areas shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through
Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours of 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM and no
work shall be permitted on Sundays. The City of Renton Development Services Director
shall be required to approve any work outside of these construction hours via a variance.
J4. Noise from construction shall be governed by the timing restrictions and the noise limits
included in the King County noise code requirements (KCC Section 12.88.040). This rule
defines maximum permissible sound levels based on the zoning of the source and
receiving properties and sets maximum levels and durations of allowable daytime
construction noise.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
xiii
QUENDALL TERMINALS PROJECT
MITIGATION DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The applicant submitted Applications for the Quendall Tenminals project in 2009; the City of
Renton determined that the Applications were complete on February 5, 2010. In order to meet
SEPA requirements, the Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton issued the
Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on December 10, 2010, the
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum on October 19, 2012. and the Quendall Terminals Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on August 31. 2015. The purpose of this Mitigation
Document is to establish specific mitigation measures and discuss these measures. based upon
significant impacts that were identified in the DEIS. EIS Addendum. and FEIS.
USE OF TERMS
The subject site may be referenced as the "Quendall Terminals site" or "site" in this Mitigation
Document.
EIS preparation was triggered by applications submitted for Master Site Plan Approval. Binding
Site Plan Approval. and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. collectively. the
"Applications".
The "Proposal" covered by the EIS and addressed in this Mitigation Document includes the
construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project substantially as
proposed in the foregoing Applications. as revised on June 25. 2012.
In the Quendall Terminals DEIS (2010) and the Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum (2012). the
phrase "Shoreline Restoration Area" is used to indicate the building setback area from the Lake
Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in which a number of shoreline-related site
cleanup and remediation activities would occur under the oversight of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). and in which a number of restoration activities could potentially occur
if a settlement is reached with the Natural Resource Trustees. In the list of mitigation measures
in this Mitigation Document and in the Quendall Terminals FEIS (2015). the phrase "Shoreline
Restoration Area" has been replaced with the phrase "minimum 100-foot shoreline setback
area." This change was made in order to clarify that this area was set aside for activities that
include retention/re-establishment and/or expansion of wetlands. and provision of associated
buffers. as anticipated to be required by EPA in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the
remediation project and any Natural Resource Damage (NRD) settlement.
SEPA REQUIREMENTS
State regulations (WAC 197-11) and local regulations (RMC Title 4. Chapter 9) govern the
development of mitigation measures to address identified environmental impacts. The primary
regulatory chapters are cited below.
WAC 197-11-060. titled Content of Environmental Review. states in part that agencies shall
"carefully consider the range of probable impacts. including short-term and long-term effects"
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
1
including "those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal" or in some cases,
continues beyond the life of the proposal.
WAC 197-11-330, titled Threshold Determination Process, requires in part that the responsible
official take into account the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposal when
determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts. In reaching a decision, SEPA
states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal
outweigh the adverse impacts, but rather shall consider whether a proposal has any probable
significant adverse environmental impacts.
WAC 197-11-768 titled Mitigation, defines mitigation as the following:
1. Avoiding the impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimizing the impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to
avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments; and/or,
6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
WAC 197-11-660(1) titled Substantive Authority and Mitigation, states that decision-makers may
impose mitigation measures designed to mitigate the environmental impacts, subject to the
following limitations:
A. Mitigation measures or denials shall be based on policies, plans, rules, or regulations
formally deSignated by the agency;
B. Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts
clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated
in writing by the decision-maker;
C. Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished;
D. Responsibility for implementing mitigations measures may be imposed upon an
applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its
proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur;
E. Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state, or
federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact;
and,
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
2
F. If, during project review, a jurisdiction's development regulations or comprehensive
plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, or in other applicable local, state, or
federal laws or rules, provided adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific
adverse environmental impacts of the project action under RCW 43.21C.240, the
jurisdiction shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter.
MITIGATION DOCUMENT
This Mitigation Document identifies the mitigation measures established under the SEPA rules
to address specific impacts identified in the Quendall Terminals DE/S, Quendal/ Terminals EIS
Addendum, and Quendall Terminals FEIS. Numerous state and local regulations will serve to
govern development of the Quendall Terminals site, and application of those regulations will
also serve to mitigate certain significant adverse environmental impacts. Additional consistency
review will be conducted by the City of Renton under the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan,
Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; reviews for permits by other agencies
will also be conducted.
Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and
FEIS are: 1) References to text for Affected Environment and Impacts sections within the DEIS,
EIS Addendum, and/or FEIS; 2) Mitigation measures; 3) Discussion of the mitigation measures;
and, 4) Policy nexus.
A. Earth
Refer to DEIS Section 3.1 and EIS Addendum Section 4.1 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on geotechnical conditions. The
mitigation measures below address the identified earth-related impacts of the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
During Construction
A 1. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, shall be
implemented. This plan shall include, but not limited, to the following measures:
• All temporary (and/or permanent) devices used to collect stormwater runoff shall
be directed into tightlined systems that shall discharge to an approved
stormwater facility.
• Soils to be reused at the site during construction shall be stockpiled or stored in
such a manner to minimize erosion from the stock pile. Protective measures shall
include covering with plastic sheeting and the use of silt fences around pile
perimeters.
• During construction, silt fences or other methods, such as straw bales, shall be
placed along surface water runoff collection areas in proximity to Lake
Washington and the adjacent wetlands to reduce the potential of sediment
discharge into these waters. In addition, rock check dams shall be established
along roadways during construction.
• Temporary sedimentation traps or detention facilities shall be installed to provide
erosion and sediment transport control during construction.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
3
• The project construction shall adhere to the wet season construction
requirements between October 1 sl and April 30 1h •
A2. A geotechnical engineer that is a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control
or a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall review the grading and TESCP
plans prior to final plan design to ensure that erosion and sediment transport hazards
are addressed during and following construction. As necessary, additional erosion
mitigation measures could be required in response to specific design plans.
Discussion:
As listed above, a variety of BMPS shall be included as part of the TESCP for the project to limit
erosion and sedimentation during construction. Site work shall be phased to minimize the
amount of soil exposed during construction. The TESCP shall be available at the site and the
BMPs shall be in place prior to the start of construction. By effectively using construction BMPs,
erosion, sediment-laden water, and dust will be controlled and adverse impacts to water
resources will be reduced. Also see the discussion under mitigation measure B1 below of the
Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Storm water General Permit for the
project.
A3. Site preparation for roadways, utilities, and structures, and the placement and
compaction of structural fill shall be based upon the recommendations of a geotechnical
engineer.
A4. Temporary excavation dewatering shall be conducted if groundwater is encountered
during excavation and construction activities. Such dewatering activities shall be
conducted in a manner that shall minimize potential impacts due to settlement.
A5. A geotechnical engineer shall determine whether structural fill shall be placed to control
the potential for settlement of adjacent areas; adjacent structures/areas shall be
monitored to verify that no significant settlement occurs.
A6. A geotechnical engineer shall determine whether deep foundation systems (such as
piles or aggregate piers) shall be installed and/or ground improvements made to
minimize potential damage from soil settlement, consolidation, spreading. and
liquefaction.
A7. If deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) are used to support
structures, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Measures shall be employed to ensure that the site cap (I.e., soils/impervious
surfaces, should they be installed) shall not be affected and that installation of
the piles/piers shall not mobilize contamination that shall be contained by the
cap. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall determine the
appropriate measures to be employed, Which could include: installation of
surface casing through the contaminated zone; installation of piles composed of
impermeable materials (steel or cast-in-place concrete) using soil displacement
methods; the use of pointed-tip piles to prevent carry down of contamination;
and/or, the use of ground improvement technologies, such as in-place
densification or compaction grouting.
Quendall Terminals 4
Mitigation Document
August 201S
• A pile vibration analysis and vibration monitoring shall be conducted during pile
installation in order to ensure that impacts due to vibration do not occur.
• Suitable pile and pile hammer types shall be matched to the subsurface
conditions to achieve the required penetrations with minimal effort to reduce
potential vibration. Potential pile types could include driven open-end steel pipe
piles, driven closed-end steel pipe piles, or driven cast-in-place concrete piles.
Potential hammer types could include percussion hammers or vibratory
hammers.
• Suitable hammer and pile cushion types shall be used for the specific conditions
to reduce potential noise. A typical hammer employs the use of a heavy impact
hammer that is controlled by a lead, which is in turn supported by a crane.
• Pile installation shall occur during regulated construction hours.
AB. Fill soils shall be properly placed and cuts shall be used to reduce the potential for
landslide impacts during (and after) construction.
A9. The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site shall be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by the EPA.
Following Construction
A 10. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed in accordance with applicable
storm water regulations.
A 11. Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater
control system shall be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to
prevent erosion of the lake shoreline and bottom.
A12. All buildings shall be designed in accordance with the International Building Code to
address the potential for seismic impacts.
A 13. The majority of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces following
redevelopment. Permanent landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the potential for
erosion and sedimentation with redevelopment.
A 14. Flexible utility connections shall be employed to minimize the risk of damage to utility
lines due to differential settlement between structures and underground utilities, as
needed and as determined by the City's responsible public official.
Discussion:
Prior to submittal of building permit application(s), the applicant shall provide geotechnical
analyses prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the City that address the appropriateness of
the above construction-related measures. The analyses of the potential need to place fill to
control settlement and the need for deep foundation systems (measures AS and A6) shal/ be
prepared by a geotechnical engineer in conjunction with the project architect and structural
engineer.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
5
Regarding measure A9, see the discussion fol/owing measures C1 through C10 for discussion
of appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and groundwater that
could be encountered during site redevelopment.
Due to the nature of the soils that underlie the site (unconsolidated granular and soft fine
grained sediments) and the regional tectonic setting (high seismic risk), several geotechnical
issues related to project design and construction are identified in the Quendall Terminals DEIS.
These issues include: 1) the presence of soft and loose soils to depths of approximately 40 feet
below planned site grades; 2) the presence of potentially liquefiable, saturated granular soils to
depths of approximately 80 feet below planned site grades; and, 3) the potential lateral
movement of soil above liquefiable zones. These issues and potential impacts related to
settlement of the site and proposed structures and utilities shall be mitigated by the measures
listed above, appropriate project design, and proper implementation of the design during
construction.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Building
Standards (RMC 4-5); City of Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-
60); City of Renton Drainage (Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030); and, City of Renton
Utility Lines -Underground Installation Standards (RMC 4-6-090).
B. Critical Areas
Refer to DEIS Section 3.2 and EIS Addendum Section 4.2 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on critical areas (e.g., Lake
Washington and the shoreline wetlands). The mitigation measures below address the identified
critical areas-related impacts of the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
During Construction
B1. A TESCP, including BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control, shall be implemented
during construction. Implementation of this plan shall prevent or limit impacts to the lake
and shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation.
Discussion:
A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General
Permit will be required for the project and calls for preparation and implementation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include temporary erosion
and sedimentation control requirements and BMPs for construction activities in order to prevent
storm water from washing soil, nutrients, chemicals, and other harmful pollutants into the critical
areas on and adjacent to the site (e.g., shoreline wetlands and Lake Washington). The SWPPP
shall include the following measures:
• Mark Clearing Limits: Prior to cfearing or disturbing, the limits shall be marked. This
element is part of most typical construction plans as one of the first steps.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
6
• Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans shall install a stabilized
construction entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the
roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed. geo-textile fabric shall
be used under the rock.
• Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis, runoff from the site under
construction shall be provided, as necessary. A detention or temporary sediment
pond shall be used to control flows during construction, as necessary.
• Install Sediment Controls: If there is runoff from the construction site, sediment shall
be removed from the water. Water quality standards shall be met prior to discharge
to Lake Washington.
• Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of BMPs.
Seasonal requirements limiting time periods of allowed exposure shall be followed.
Both temporary and permanent groundcover shall be part of the construction plans.
• Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosive flows and
concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems are in
place.
• Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets shall be protected from sediment and silt
laden water.
• Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems
shall be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets
shall be protected.
• Control Pollutants: The SWPPP shall indicate hawaII pollutants, including waste
materials and demolition debris, shall be handled. This shall include maintenance of
construction equipment, fertilizers. application of chemicals, and water treatment
systems.
• Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and
foundations shall be discharged into a controlled system.
• Maintain BMPs: The SWPPP shall provide for inspection and maintenance of the
planned and installed construction BMPs as well as their removal at the end of the
project.
• Manage the Proiect: The SWPPP shall outline how the site shall be managed for
erosion control. The plan shall cover phasing, training, coordination, monitoring and
reporting.
Specific BMPs for the project shall include the following:
• Land disturbing or grading activities shall be limited between October 1 and April 30.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
7
• In-water work for the installation of the storm water treatment pond outfalls shall be
conducted during Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFIN,l-
prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington.
• Storm water during construction shall be routed to a holding pond for sediment
control. The majority of construction stormwater runoff from the site shall be
temporarily routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms. Later, storm water
shall be routed via permanent drainage pipes,
• The area designated for the permanent stormwater facility shall remain in an
undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized.
• Storm water released from the on-site TESC pond during construction shall be
controlled and monitored to ensure compliance with established water quality
discharge requirements.
• Soils shall be stabilized at the end of each day based on the weather forecast.
Applicable stabilization practices shall include, but are not limited to, temporary and
permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and
matting, the early application of a gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust
control.
• Matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures shall be
installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. Plans shall make provisions to
prevent concentrated flows from being routed over slopes.
• Water quality shall be monitored throughout the construction period. A monitoring
plan shall be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction
SWPPP shall contain a plan for storm water sampling locations, background
measurements and a periodic reporting schedule. The sampling points shall be
marked on a map and on the ground.
B2. If approved by EPA, trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls shall be incorporated
into site grading associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance
of re-vegetated areas.
B3. Upland areas on the Main Property (i.e., areas landward of the minimum 100-foot
shoreline setback from Lake Washington's ordinary high water mark (OHWM» shall be
temporarily re-vegetated (e.g., with hydro-seed) following site remediation, if building
permits for the disturbed area have not been filed with the City of Renton.
Discussion:
Geologic hazards (other than seismic) identified at the site are primarily related to erosion
hazards. These erosion hazards, and their potential to impact the lake and adjacent wetlands,
shall be addressed through the development and implementation of a TESCP and use of BMPs
during construction, including potentially managing the timing of trenching for utilitiesistormwater
ou/falls, as well as planting temporary vegetation in the upland areas on the Main Property to
protect site soils from erosion until permanent impervious surfaces and landscaping are
installed.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
8
Temporary re-vegetation (via seeding or by other means) shall avoid use of plant species that
can invade lakeshore riparian and wetland restoration areas and impair growth and
development of native plantings. These include, but are not limited to species on the current
King County list of noxious weeds or other weeds of concern. Plantings or seed mixes could
consist of sterile annuals designed to provide cover and soil stabilization for a shorl period of
time, as appropriate.
Following Construction
84. Proposed redevelopment shall avoid direct impacts to on-site wetlands retainedlre-
established and/or expanded as part of EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) for the
remediation project or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement.
Discussion:
The outer boundaries of the riparian and wetland areas along the lake retainedlre-established
and/or expanded as parl of EPA's ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement shall
be marked with permanent fencing and signage to clearly indicate the limits of the native growth
tract where it meets the ornamental landscaping of the developed area. Fencing could be
designed in a manner consistent with the landscape aesthetic, while providing a physical divide.
Signage could consist of standard critical areas signs or include interpretive elements, or a
combination of the two.
85. Retained/re-established and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers, and all other
habitat restoration areas required as part of EPA's anticipated ROD for the remediation
project or any NRD settlement shall be retained within and be a function of the open
space tract(s).
Discussion:
The open space tract(s) on the Quendall Terminals Main Properly (adjacent to the lake) and on
the Isolated Properly (to the norlheast of the Main Properly, across Ripley Lane N) shall be
placed in common ownership or management, through a homeowners association or other
similar entity.
Following Construction
86. Proposed buildings shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the OHWM, consistent
with the City of Renton's 2011 Shoreline Master Program.
87. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed consistent with applicable
requirements. The system shall collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake
Washington via a tight-lined system or another system approved by the City's
responsible public official. Water quality treatment shall be provided for runoff from
pollution-generating surfaces to prevent water quality impacts to the lake and shoreline
wetlands.
Discussion:
The baseline assumptions used in the Quendall Terminals DEIS were consistent with the
Renton Shoreline Management Plan (1983) in place at the time complete Applications for the
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
9
Quendall Terminals Project were submitted to the City, and other relevant information described
in Appendix E to the DEIS. The Project is vested to the development standards of the City's
Shoreline Management Plan in place at the time of complete Applications (February 5, 2010) for
purposes of local permits and approvals. In 2011, the City's Shoreline Management Program
(SMP) was updated, and more stringent shoreline setbacks and wetland buffers established.
EPA indicated in their comment letter on the DEIS that their final mitigationirestoration
requirements will be based on the shoreline regulations in place at the time EPA issues their
Record of Decision (ROD) which will constitute the final cleanup and mitigation plan for the site
for remediation purposes.
According to current City of Renton regulations and standards, the wetland and shoreline
restoration areas to be established as part of the anticipated ROD and any NRD settlement
would be larger than those assumed in the DEIS. The City of Renton's 2011 SMP requires a
toO-foot minimum setback from the OHWM of Lake Washington. In part, this setback will help
protect critical areas, such as the lake and adjacent wetlands. The Quendall Terminals Site Plan
for the Preferred Alternative incorporates this 100-foot minimum setback to provide for
mitigation and restoration as part of the anticipated ROD and any NRD settlement.
The operation and maintenance of the permanent stormwater control system shall conform to
applicable requirements. The plans for this system shall be reviewed and approved by the City
at the time of building permit application(s) and associated utility construction permit
application (s). If this system is properly implemented, significant adverse water quality impacts
on the lake and adjacent wetlands are not expected.
B8. Native plant species shall be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland area
on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat
benefits to native wildlife species.
B9. Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species shall be avoided to the extent
practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with
the native species planted, this shall help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive
species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in
the vicinity for wildlife.
Discussion:
A variety of native species appropriate for the developed site conditions shall be incorporated
within the landscaped areas to minimize the need for fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and
excessive watering, and reduce adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and
aquatic organisms in Lake Washington.
In addition, high quality soil materials with ample organic material should be used in ornamental
landscape areas to ensure adequate soil health and decrease the need for chemical
supplements or controls in landscape maintenance.
The landscape plantings shall avoid use of plant species on the current King County list of
noxious weeds or other weeds of concern, including those sometimes used in ornamental
plantings (e.g., English ivy, holly, or laurel; European mountain ash; and, others). The final
landscape requirements for the project shall be determined by the City through Site Plan review.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
10
B10. A publicly accessible, unpaved trail with interpretive viewpoints shall be provided
through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area unless the trail is prohibited by the
EPA ROD or any NRD settlement. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the
trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and
could be combined with the fire access road.
Discussion:
If the trail is constructed in the minimum 1OO-foot shoreline setback area, it could be routed
through the outer portions of the wet/and buffers, to the extent feasible, to allow greater
screening and cover between wet/and areas and human activity.
The trail shall be designed to discourage users from straying off the trail into the restoration
areas, to the extent feasible. Design features could include, but would not be limited to, elevated
boardwalk sections, overlooks with railings, and low railings or fencing along the edges.
Plantings along the trail shall be designed to form dense cover to discourage off-trail access.
B 11. The proposed redevelopment shall include design elements to minimize the potential
adverse effects of artificial lighting on wetland, shoreline, and riparian habitats, and
adjacent properties. These elements shall include directing lighting downward and away
from these habitats and adjacent properties, and shall also include shielding of lights,
use of low-pressure sodium lights, and/or minimizing the use of reflective glazing
materials in building design, as feasible.
Discussion:
The architectural design of the proposed buildings shall limit the use of highly reflective
materials (e.g., expanses of metal siding and glass windows) and incorporate low ref/ectivity
materials (e.g., could include, but would not be limited to, brick, stucco, and wood) on building
facades to the greatest extent possible.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Critical Areas
Regulations (RMC 4-3-050); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-
090); City of Renton Drainage (Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030); and, City of Renton
Exterior On-site Lighting Standards (RMC 4-4-075).
C. Environmental Health
Refer to DEIS Section 3.3 and EIS Addendum Section 4.3 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on environmental health; also
refer to FEIS Section 2-2 for a summary of the environmental health analysis. The mitigation
measures below address the identified environmental health-related impacts of the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
C1. Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process,
and shall be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy
selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
11
C2, The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site shall be
addressed through the cleanupiremediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping
requirements, vapor barriers, and/or other measures shall be implemented to ensure
that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater, or vapors shall not
occur,
C3. Institutional controls shall be followed to prevent alteration of the site cap (should it be
installed) without EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any
purpose.
C4. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) shall be implemented to
prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, or other site disturbances without
prior EPA approval.
CS. As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers shall be used and special
handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent
contact with hazardous materials and substances.
CS. Institutional controls specified by EPA shall also be implemented to prevent exposure to
unacceptable vapors.
C7. If approved by EPA, utilities (including the main utility corridors) shall be installed as part
of the planned remedial action so that disturbance of the site cap (should it be installed)
and underlying contaminated SOils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to
capping of the Main Property.
ca. Personal protection measures and special training costs shall be funded by the applicant
for City of Renton staff who provide inspection during construction and maintenance
following construction in areas where there is a potential to encounter contaminated soils
or groundwater.
C9. If approved by EPA, buried utilities, public roads and infrastructure serving the site
development shall be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities in a trench with
sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert of the utility), along with an
acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect
the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the road or utility lines.
If the above is not approved by EPA, no public utility lines shall be installed until the
applicant, EPA, and the City agree upon appropriate protection measures for future road
and utility maintenance.
C10. If EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals
EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to
prepare additional SEPA review, including a possible Supplement to the EIS or
Addendum to the EIS, to address any differences between the ROD and the
assumptions in the EIS.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
12
Discussion:
Construction bid specifications for future infrastructure and building development shall address
protecting the established EPA-approved components of the remedial action and the potential
for encountering contaminated soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and
hazardous materials contingency plan shall be developed that includes: specific worker, City of
Renton personnel, and public health safety precautions; protocols for handling materials
suspected and confirmed to be contaminated; and, treatment and disposal options for these
materials.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); United States
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); United
States Superfund Amendments and De-authorization Act; and, City of Renton Utility Lines -
Underground Installation Standards (RMC 4-6-090).
D. Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Refer to DEIS Section 3.4 and EIS Addendum Section 4.4 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on energy-g'reenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. The mitigation measure below addresses the identified energy-GHG
emission-related impacts from the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
01. Development may incorporate low-impact/sustainable design features into the design of
proposed buildings on the site to reduce the demand for energy and reduce the amount
of greenhouse gas emissions. Such features could include architectural design features;
sustainable building materials; use of energy efficient products; natural drainagelgreen
roof features; use of native plants in landscaping; and/or other design features.
Discussion:
Building design at Quendall Terminals could include a wide variety of green building features to
reduce the demand for energy and the amount of GHG emissions. Green building encompasses
energy and water conservation, waste reduction, and good indoor environmental quality. Tools
and standards that are used to measure green building performance could be used at Quendalf
Terminals. Some options could include: Built Green, Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design (LEED), and the Evergreen Sustainable Development Criteria. Some of the specific
building design strategies that could be considered include: energy star-rated appliances; water
conserving fixtures beyond code; low toxicity materials, finishes, and ffooring; high efficiency
fixtures, such as dual ffush toilets; and, irrigation supplied by recaptured rainwater.
Landscaping with native plants shaff be incorporated into the Quendaff Terminals Project, to the
extent feasible, to reduce water demand and integrate with the local ecosystem. Native plants
are plants that are adapted to the local climate and do not depend upon irrigation after plant
establishment for ultimate survival. The final landscape requirements for the project shalf be
determined by the City through Site Plan review.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
13
Policy Nexus
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4.9-070); and, Washington State GHG
Emission Reduction Requirements (RCW 70.235.020).
E. Land and Shoreline Use
Refer to DEIS Section 3.5 and EIS Addendum Section 4.5 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on land and shoreline use; also
refer to FEIS Section 2-3 for a summary of the land use analysis. The mitigation measures
below address the identified land use-related impacts of the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
E1. New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas, and proposed building setback
areas shall be designed and constructed to provide a buffer between proposed buildings
and land uses on adjacent properties.
E2. Proposed landscaping, particularly along the north and south boundaries of the Main
Property, shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between
proposed buildings and adjacent uses.
Discussion:
As shown in the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative
Site Plan). a minimum building setback of 40 feet shall be maintained from the site's south
boundary (adjacent to Barbee Mill); a minimum building setback of 38 feet shall be maintained
from the site's north boundary (adjacent to the Seattle Seahawk's Training Facility); and, a
minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be maintained from the Lake Washington OHWM.
Landscaping for the Quendall Terminals Project shall meet or exceed the City of Renton's
landscaping regulations in place at the time of complete Applications (February 2010). While not
required by the 2010 landscape regulations, landscaping shall be provided along the site's
south boundary that shall be a minimum ten-foot (10? wide, partially sight-obscuring visual
barrier for the length of the boundary, except the area along the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline
setback area. A minimum five-foot (57 wide, partially sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier
shall be provided along the site's north boundary for the length of the boundary, except the area
along the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred A/ternative Site
Plan). The fina/landscape requirements for the project shall be determined by the City through
Site Plan review.
E3. Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, fagade modulation, building materials, etc.) shall
be incorporated into the deSign of each building and are intended to enhance the
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses.
E4. As shown in the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred
Alternative Site Plan), building heights shall be modulated to reduce potential
heighUbulklscale impacts on adjacent development (i.e., Barbee Mill); Building SW4
located adjacent to the southwest property line shall be 4 stories high; other buildings
shall be 5 to 6 stories high.
Quenda/l Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
14
E5. A fire mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed development
at the time of building permit issuance and as required by the Renton Municipal Code to
help offset the impacts of the project on the City's fire emergency services.
Discussion:
The City will review the Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit Applications for the Quendall Terminals project determined to be complete (February
2010); information and analysis provided in the Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (2010), Quendall
Terminals EIS Addendum (2012), and Quendall Terminals Final EIS (2013), and additional
information that the City may request to ensure that the potential land use impacts of the project
(i.e., height/bulk/scale impacts) are adequately mitigated.
• The Master Plan review process provides the opportunity for the City to analyze the
overall Quendall Terminals Project concept and phasing, as well as review how the
major project elements work together to implement the City goals and policies.
• The Binding Site Plan process creates or alters existing lot lines on the Quendall
Terminals site, subject to the development standards of the underlying zoning district
(the COR zone in this case).
• The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requirements ensure that proposed
development is appropriate for the shoreline location. This permit includes provisions
for allowed uses in the shoreline jurisdiction, as well as shoreline bulk standards that
establish the minimum dimensional requirements for development including all
structures and substantial alteration of natural topography.
The Quendall Terminals site is located in the City of Renton's Urban Design District C, and the
proposed mixed-use development will be subject to the urban design regulations for this District
in place on February 5, 2010. These design regulations are applied through the governing land
uses process (i.e., the Master Plan and Site Plan review processes), at the appropriate level of
review for the particular approvals.
• The Site Plan review process will be required at a later date, prior to building and
construction permit issuance. Site Plan review will provide the opportunity for
detailed analysis of the arrangement of project elements to mitigate negative impacts
where necessary to ensure project compatibility with the physical characteristics of
the immediate site and surrounding area. Through Site Plan review, the City will
analyze elements including: site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian
and vehicular environment, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and
buffering, parking and loading facilities, and illumination to ensure compatibility with
potential future development. The Site Plan review is intended to build upon and be
consistent with the Master Plan review.
Compliance with Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Site Plan Approvals is also reviewed and
enforced through the building and construction review process.
As shown on the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative
Site Plan, and EIS Addendum Figures 2-5 through 2-9), and as required by Ihe Urban Design
regula lions for Urban DeSign District C in which the site is located (RMC 4-3-100 1.1.c):
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
15
• All buildings shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the buildings
and add visual interest.
• All buildings shall be at1iculated with one or more of the following:
-Defined entry features;
Window treatment;
-Bay windows andlor balconies;
-Roof/ine features; or
Other features approved by the Administrator of the Depat1ment of Community
and Economic Development.
• Single-purpose residential buildings (i. e., proposed buildings SE 1, SE 2, SW 2, SW
3, SW 4, NE 2, and NW 2) shall feature building modulation.
Quendal/ Terminals building SW 4 shall be no more than 4 stories high; buildings SE 2, SW 3,
NE 2, and NW 2 shall be no more than 5 stories high; and, buildings NE 1, SE 1, NW 1, SW 1,
and SW 2 shall be no more than 6 stories high (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative Site
Plan).
As shown on EIS Addendum Figures 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, and 2-9, Quendall Terminals exterior
building materials could include, but would not be limited to, brick, stucco, masonry, and precast
concrete, to the greatest extent possible. Metal siding shall be minimized.
Policy Nexus
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Master Plan
and Site Plan Review (RMC 4-9-200); City of Renton Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards
(RMC 4-2); City of Renton Urban Design Regulations (RMC 4-3-100); City of Renton
Landscaping Standards (RMC 4-4-070); City of Renton Parking, Loading, and Driveway
Regulations (RMC 4-4-080); City of Renton Ordinance #5670 -Fire Protection Impacts Fee;
City of Renton Binding Site Plan (RMC 4-7-230); and, City of Renton Shoreline Permits (RMC 4-
9-190).
F. AesthetlcslViews
Refer to DEIS Section 3.7 and EIS Addendum Section 4.6 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on aest/letics/views; also refer
to FEIS Section 2-4 for a summary of the aestheticslview analysis. The mitigation measures
below address the identified aesthetics and view-related impacts of the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
F1. Building design shall include a variety of details and materials that are intended to create
a human scale and provide a visually interesting streetscape and fayade, such as
horizontal plan modulation, projecting vertical elements, and alternating fayade materials
and details.
F2. Street-level, under-building parking areas shall be screened from sidewalks and streets
by retail and commercial uses along certain fayades. Where this parking extends to the
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
16
exterior of the building, elements, such as architectural fagade components, trellises,
berms, and landscaping shall be used for screening.
Discussion:
See the discussion following mitigation measures E3 through E5 above regarding building
design. The Quendall Terminals mixed-use development shall be subject to the urban design
regulations for Urban Design District C. These regulations include specific provisions related to
the pedestrian environment (per RMC 4-3-100 E.2.b), including:
• Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented
uses. feature "pedestrian-oriented facades," and have clear connections to the
sidewalk. Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where
pedestrian-oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking
between the building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited.
• Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented
uses.
• Nonresidential buildings may be located directly abutting any street as long as they
feature a pedestrian-oriented far;ade.
• Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential
buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10) and feature
substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building.
• If buildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades, they shall have substantial
landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least
ten feet (10) in width as measured from the sidewalk.
Proposed buildings NE 1, SE 1, NW 1, and SW 1 shall contain retail and restaurant uses which
shall screen street-level, underbuilding parking from the sidewalk and street (Street "B'J. The
street-level. underbuilding parking shall be screened by landscaping where this parking extends
to the exterior of the building. An example of how this requirement could be met is shown in a
detail of the Preferred Alternative (see EIS Addendum Figure 2-10, "Green Wall" Far;ade
Section -Preferred Alternative) where the bases of the parking structure have grids to support
vines to create "green walls". Pursuant to RMC 4-3-1 OOE. 2, this landscape area could be
increased to 10 feet if the building does not feature a pedestrian-oriented far;ade. Landscaped
berms shall also be provided (e.g., along the westernmost buildings to screen views of the
underbuilding parking from Lake Washington and Mercer Island). The design details of the
subject project will be reviewed for consistency with the Urban Design Regulations in place on
February 5, 20 to, at the time of specific Site Plan review for each phase of the proposed
development. At this time, the proposed Preferred Alternative does not provide enough detail to
verify compliance with all design standards.
F3. Public view corridors toward Lake Washington shall be provided along the main
easUwest roadway onsite (Street "8") and along the private driveways at the north and
south ends of the site. Public views of the lake shall also be provided from the publically
accessible trail in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area in the western portion of
the Main Property, if the trail is not prohibited by EPA or any NRD settlement. If EPA's
-
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
17
ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side
of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road.
Additional views of the lake shall be provided for project residents from semi-private
landscaped courtyard areas between the new buildings onsite.
Discussion
As shown on the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative
Site Plan), the following public view corridors shall be provided along proposed on-site
roadways;
• Street "B"; minimum 74-feet-wide
• Private Drive "0"; minimum 40-feet-wide
• Private Drive "E"; minimum 38-feet-wide
F4. New landscaping shall be provided in the upland area of the Main Property that is
intended to enhance the visual character of the site. Landscaping shall include new
trees, shrubs, and groundcovers of various sizes and species.
F5. Proposed landscaping along the north and south property lines shall be designed and
constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent
uses.
Discussion:
Landscaping for the Quendall Terminals Project shall meet or exceed the City of Renton
landscaping regulations in place at the time Applications were determined to be complete
(February 2010). Landscaping under the Preferred Alternative is intended to improve the
aesthetic quality of the built environment; improve and soften the appearance of parking areas;
increase privacy and protection from visual or physical intrusion; reduce noise and glare; and,
generally enhance the overall image and appearance of the City and quality of life for residents,
employees, and visitors of the project. As shown on the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see
FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative Site Plan), areas on the site that shall be landscaped
include:
• Street frontage areas;
• Right-of-way on public streets (e.g., along new public Streets "A," "B," and "C"
onsite);
• Along the north and south site property lines (i. e., adjacent to the Barbee Mill
residential development and Seahawks Training Facility);
• Pervious site areas throughout the site (except critical areas, such as the wetland
and riparian habitat in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area on the Main
Property and on the Isolated Property); and,
• Parking lots (i.e., surface parking lots in the northwest and south portions of the site)
and structured parking garages when abutting a public street.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
18
The final landscape requirements for the project shall be determined by the City through Site
Plan review.
F6. The natural vegetation in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area andlor other site
areas established or protected by EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement shall be retained
with proposed site development.
F7. Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting shall be directed
downward and away from surrounding buildings, properties and the shoreline of Lake
Washington to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses and fish.
Discussion:
Remediation and potential restoration of the site shall include retaininglre-establishing and/or
expanding wetlands, associated buffers, and other habitat required by EPA or any NRD
settlement in the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback area and in the Isolated Property. No
development shall occur in these areas, except for the trail/emergency access road proposed in
the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, if the trail is not prohibited by EPA's ROD or any
NRD settlement. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be
relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsile, and could be combined with the
fire access road.
Limits on the height of light structures, limits on light levels of fixtures, and shielding and
screening of display and exterior lights shall be used in the Quendall Terminals development to
reduce the visibility of lights from adjacent areas (i.e., Barbee Mill), prevent hazards for public
traffic (i.e., on Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard), and limit impacts on fish in the
lake.
F8. As indicated in the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred
Alternative Site Plan), building setbacks shall be provided adjacent to Lake Washington
and along the south site boundaries, to enhance the aesthetic character of development
and retain views of Lake Washington.
Discussion:
A minimum building setback of 100 feet shall be maintained adjacent to the Lake Washington
shoreline, in anticipation of EPA S ROD and any potential NRD settlement, and consistent with
the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011), as recommended by EPA. A
minimum building setback of 40 feet shall be maintained from the site's south boundary
(adjacent to Barbee Mill).
F9. Suilding height modulation shall be provided across the site to enhance the aesthetic
character of development and retain some views of Lake Washington.
FlO. No surface parking shall be located at the terminus of Street "S" in order to enhance the
aesthetic character of the development, particularly from the shoreline trail, if the trail is
located within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback and not prohibited by EPA's ROD
or any NRD settlement. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail within the
minimum 100-foot shoreline setback, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
19
F11. During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake
Washington OHWM shall be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the
COR zone (125 feet allowed height x Y, = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton's
2011 Shoreline Master Program, which will help maintain views toward the lake.
F12. As determined by the City's responsible public official, the amount of required parking
may be reduced, relocated, andlor redesigned (i.e., through implementation of
transportation demand management (TDM) measures or other means) so that additional
areas of the street-level, under-building parking can be setback from the exterior of the
building, particularly along Streets "A", "C," and the lake side of the development. This
will allow other uses, including retail, restaurant, commercial, and residential uses, and
plaza areas to occupy these areas and enhance the aesthetic character at the ground
level.
Discussion:
See the discussion following mitigation measures £3 through £5 above regarding building
design and height.
As indicated in the Transportation section of this Mitigation Document, the applicant shall
prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TOM) plan to the satisfaction of the City of
Renton. This plan shall include measures intended to reduce the needed parking onsite. In
conjunction with the TOM Plan, the applicant shall prepare a Parking Management Plan if
shared parking will occur onsite, and/or if preferential parking or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
parking is proposed onsite. Based on the TOM Plan and the Parking Management Plan, and at
the City reviewing official's discretion, the site plan for the project could be modified to reduce,
relocate, and/or redesign the parking so that additional retail, restaurant, commercial, and
residential uses, and plaza areas could occupy the street-level of the development, as required
by RMC 4-3-100£,2.
F13. Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, shall be
considered as part of the fa9ade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts
to surrounding uses.
Discussion:
The architectural design of the proposed buildings shall limit the use of highly reflective
materials (e.g., expanses of metal siding and glass windows) and incorporate low reflectivity
materials (e.g., brick, stucco, and wood) on building facades to the greatest extent possible, and
as shown in £IS Addendum Figures 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, and 2-9. Per the City of Renton Shoreline
Master Program, building sutiaces on or adjacent to water (i.e., buildings NW1,.NW2, SW1,
SW2, SW3, and SW4 in the western portion of the site adjacent to Lake Washington) shall
employ materials that limit reflected light.
Shading devices over glazed areas shall also be considered in the building design to minimize
glare that could aggravate neighbors (i.e., Barbee Mill), disrupt views from afar (i.e., Mercer
Island), and temporarily blind motorists or cyclists (i.e., on Ripley Lane and Lake Washington
Boulevard).
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
20
F14. Design features such as: public art, special landscape treatment, additional open
space/plazas, landmark building form, special paving/pedestrian scale lighting, and/or
prominent architectural features shall be provided as part of development to further
enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site.
Discussion:
The project shall include design features and/or architectural elements to further enhance the
gateway location of the site which are distinctive within the context of Urban Design District C,
but also compatible with the District in form and scale. These urban design requirements will be
applied through the Master Plan and Site Plan review processes.
F15. Vertical andlor horizontal modulation shall be provided along the west or lake side of the
buildings to provide a human scale and break up the larger structures which will be
adjacent to the shoreline area and pedestrian environment.
Discussion:
See the discussion following mitigation measures £3 through £5 above regarding building
design and height.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Master Plan
and Site Plan Review (RMC 4-9-200); City of Renton Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards
(RMC 4-2); City of Renton Urban Design Regulations (RMC 4-3-100); City of Renton
Landscaping Standards (RMC 4-4-070); City of Renton Exterior On-site Lighting Standards
(RMC 4-4-075); City of Renton Parking. Loading and Driveway Regulations (RMC 4-4-080); City
of Renton Shoreline Permits (RMC 4-9-190); and. City of Renton Shoreline Management Plan
(1983. as amended, and 2011).
G. Parks and Recreation
Refer to DEIS Section 3.8 and EIS Addendum Section 4.7 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on parks and recreation. The
mitigation measures below address the identified parks and recreation-related impacts from the
project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
Measures to Improve Public Open Space and Related AreaslFees 2
G 1. A parks mitigationlimpact fee shall be determined and paid for each multifamily unit in
the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance
with the City of Renton Municipal Code.
G2. As shown on the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred
Alternative Site Plan). approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas"
2 Hours of public access shall meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation.
Quenda/l Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
21
and "Other Related Areas" shall be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open
Space Areas" shall include the approximately O.S-acre trail within the minimum 100-foot
shoreline setback area, and approximately 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. If
EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the
west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire
access road. It is the City's intent that the natural area along the trail be used for
retained/re-established and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers, and all other
habitat restoration areas required as part of EPA's ROD for the remediation project or
any NRD settlement. The "Other Related Areas" onsite shall include street-level
landscaping, landscaped courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas, and the Isolated
Property. These areas mayor may not meet the City's standards, regulations, and
procedures for public open space. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement result in
alterations to the plans for the Preferred Alternative, including the "Natural Public Open
Space Areas" or "Other Related Areas," the City could re-evaluate the plans.
Discussion
Approximately 3.7 acres of "Natural Public Open Space" shall be provided onsite, including the
approximately O.S-acre trail through the 100-foot shoreline setback area (or an alternate location
on the west side of the westernmost building onsite) that shall be physically accessible to the
general public, and the approximately 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail that shall be
visually accessible to the general public at certain times of the day (the hours of public use [i.e.,
not the residents' use}) of the trail shall be determined by the City's Community Services
Administrator). The "Other Related Areas" onsite mayor may not be considered public open
space. The City shall determine whether the project has met the City's standards, regulations
and procedures for public open space during Master Plan review.
G3. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, shall be provided along the west side of
Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N along the site. These sidewalks shall
connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities
in the area.
G4. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by
EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement, public parking shall be provided in the same general
area as the retail/restaurant parking; the applicant shall specifically identify this parking
prior to site plan approval. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail
shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be
combined with the fire access road; public parking shall be provided for the relocated
trail as described above. Public parking spaces shall be provided as required by the
Renton Municipal Code and the Shoreline Master Program and shall be identified as
public by sign age or other means approved by the City.
GS. Signage, detours, and safety measures shall be put in place to detour bicyclists from
using the Lake Washington Loop trail at the time of construction.
GS. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA
. or any NRD settlement, the connection between the trail and Lake Washington
Boulevard shall be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e., lS-foot wide) that are
part of public rights-of-way along the Street "B" corridor. If EPA's ROD or any NRD
settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. The
Quendal/ Terminals 22
Mitigation Document
August 2015
connection of the relocated trail to Lake Washington Boulevard shall also be enhanced
by providing wider sidewalks (i.e., 15-foot wide), as described above.
G7. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA
or any NRD settlement, the hours of public use (i.e., not the residents' use) of the trail
shall be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. If EPA's ROD or
any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; the
hours of public use (i.e., not the residents' use) of the trail shall be determined by the
City's Community Services Administrator.
Discussion:
See the discussion following mitigation measures H1 through H5 below regarding on and off-
site pedestrian facilities. The trails and sidewalks provided on the Quendall Terminals site shall
connect the minimum 1 ~O-foot shoreline setback area with Lake Washington Boulevard and
other areas beyond the site (including the May Creek trail with a future connection to Cougar
Mountain), and enhance the overall network of trails in the area.
The allowed hours of public use (i.e., not the residents' use) of the shoreline trail (to be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator) shall be indicated through signage.
The signage shall indicate the public's right of access and hours of access, and shall be
installed and maintained by the owner. Such signs shall be posted in conspicuous locations
near the shoreline trail and at the nearest connection to an off-site public right-of-way (i.e.,
Ripley Lane or Lake Washington Boulevard).
GB. Approximately 1.B acres of indoor and/or outdoor area shall be provided onsite for active
recreation (e.g., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms,
active recreation in courtyards etc.), as approved by the City's responsible public official.
Discussion:
City of Renton Park and Open Space Facility LOS Standards
Pursuant to the Quendall Terminals DEIS page 3.8-6 through 3.8-14, the project would result in
an increased demand on neighborhood and regional parks and recreation facilities. DEIS Table
3.8-3 shows and page 3.8-8 describes the amounts of park and recreation facilities that would
be needed in the City of Renton, based on the City's LOS standards and the projected
residential population under the EIS alternatives.
Passive and Active Recreation
Passive recreation and active recreation are "industry" terms that are applied differently by
locality. The Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (2009), and the 2003 Park, Recreation and
Open Space Implementation Plan, the parks plans in place at the time the Quendall Terminals
Applications were determined to be complete, do not include definitions for active recreation or
passive recreation. The 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan provides the
following definitions for active and passive recreation:
• Active Recreation: Predominately muscle-powered activities such as jogging, cycling,
field and court sports, etc.; they commonly depend on developed sites.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
23
• Passive Recreation: Activities that require very little use of muscle power, such as
walking, nature viewing, photography, or picnicking.
Common Open Space/Recreation Areas
Per the site's Urban Design District C regulations (RMC 4-3-100.H.2.a) in place at the time of
complete Applications, common open space and/or recreation areas shall be provided on the
Quendall Terminals site as follows:
• The location, layout, and proposed type of common open space shall be subject to
approval by the Director (and approved through the Master Plan and/or Site Plan
review process).
• The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the
elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following
elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units:
Courtyards, plazas or multipurpose open spaces;
Upper level common decks, patios, terraces or roof gardens;
-Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the
public street system;
-Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming
pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or,
Children's play spaces.
These common open space and/or recreation area requirements will be applied through the
governing land uses process (i.e., the Master Plan and Site Plan review processes).
G9. A crosswalk including pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the
crosswalk shall be provided across Lake Washington Boulevard in order to connect the
proposed development to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. The
crosswalk shall be controlled by Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), if the
City determines that such lighting is warranted.
G10. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA
or any NRD settlement, the trail and other recreation areas shall be enhanced with site
amenities, such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc., and
approved by the City's Community Services Administrator. If EPA's ROD or any NRD
settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; the trail
and other recreation areas shall be enhanced with site amenities, such as tables, litter
receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc. and approved by the City's Community
Services Administrator.
G 11. The trail shall connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. If EPA's
ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west
side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and it could be combined with the fire access
road; the trail shall connect to Barbee Mill residential development to the south.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mltlgat/on Document
August 2015
24
Discussion:
A crosswalk including pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the crosswalk
shall be installed in Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the site and connecting to the May
Creek Trail. The crosswalk shall be controlled by RRFBs, if the City determines that such
lighting is warranted, to alen drivers to the crosswalk and enhance safety for pedestrians.
Crosswalks controlled by RRFBs consist of pedestrian warning signs and flashing LED beacons
mounted on poles on each side of the roadway crossing. The RRFBs are activated when a
pedestrian pushes a button also mounted on the pole.
Provided it is allowed by EPA or any NRD settlement, the trail through the 100-foot shoreline
setback area (or an altemate location on the west side of the westernmost building onsite) shall
connect to the Barbee Mill residential development at the site boundary where the existing
easement connects to the Barbee Mill development in the southwest corner of the Quendall
Terminals site and the corresponding nonhwest corner of the Barbee Mill development.
Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents
G 12. As part of the total open space, semi-private landscaped courtyards on top of the
parking garages shail be provided as shared open space for residents of the site. These
areas shail help to meet the demand for recreation facilities from project residents.
G13. Street level landscaping, plazas, and sidewalks shail be provided. These areas will help
meet the project's demand for passive recreation facilities.
Discussion:
See the discussion following Mitigation Measures G2 and G8 above regarding required open
space and recreation areas.
Policy Nexus
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Master Plan
and Site Plan Review (RMC 4-9-200); City of Renton Commercial Development Standards
(RMC 4-2-120); Parks Impacts Fee (RMC 4-1-190); City of Renton Street Standards (RMC 4-6-
060); and, City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations ( 1983, as amended, and
2011 ).
H. Transportation
Refer to DEIS Section 3.9 and EIS Addendum Section 4.8 for a detailed discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendail Terminals Project on transportation; also refer to
FEIS Section 2-1 for additional analysis of transportation impacts. The mitigation measures, Hi
-H15 below address the identified transportation-related impacts from the project.
If the applicant or future developer(s) of the project decides to add additional retail uses along
the street frontages onsite, the proposed traffic mitigation (Hi -H15) listed below would also
accommodate such additional retail space.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
25
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
With or Without Planned 1·405 Improvements
H1. A traffic mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed
development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of
Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways.
H2. TOM measures shall be implemented to reduce the number of vehicle trips and thus
provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing impacts at study intersections.
H3. Infrastructure improvements within the site shall include full curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
and landscape strips (where applicable) as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter,
sidewalk, landscape strips, bike lanes, pavement width, and utilities) along the west side
of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions
for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site
when planned public transit becomes available.
H4. If approved by EPA and any NRO settlement, a pedestrian trail shall be provided onsite
through the minimum 1 DO-foot shoreline setback area that shall be accessible to the
public and shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site
sidewalk system. If EPA's ROO or any NRO settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall
be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be
combined with the fire access road; this trail shall connect to Lake Washington
Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk system.
H5. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the
development, the applicant shall install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington
Boulevard south of N 41" Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to
utilize the 1-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic
management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create
either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but not
limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed
tables, and/or speed humps. Final design of traffic calming elements shall be approved
by the City.
Discussion:
To mitigate system-wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity transportation facilities and
to reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project, the followings shall be
implemented regardless of planned improvements by WSDOT to the 1-405 corridor and NE 44'h
Street interchange:
• Traffic impact fees shall be determined by the City of Renton and paid at the time of
building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code.
The applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TOM) plan to
the satisfaction of the City of Renton. The goal of the plan shall be to incorporate site
design features and implement operational programs that reduce the project's
reliance on single-occupancy vehiCle trips generated by the project. Specific site
design features could include, but would not be limited to: on-site bicycle facilities,
Quendall Terminals 26
Mitigation Document
August 2015
bike lockers, public shower facilities, pedestrian amenities, crossing treatments,
covered walkways, and pedestrian-scale illumination treatments. Operational
programs could include: preferential parking for vanpool, carpool, ridesharelcarshare
programs, unbundled parking from tenant leases, flex car parking programs, shuttle
bus systems, ride-matching services, reduced transit pass programs for tenants/on-
site employees, on-site building transportation coordinator, and installation of a
commuter information center. The overall goal of the TOM plan shall be to reduce the
site peak hour vehicle trip generation rates by up to 15 percent lower than those
documented in the Quendall Terminal EIS Addendum and FEIS.
• As shown on the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred
Alternative Site Plan), sidewalks onsite shall be provided as follows:
-Street "A ": a minimum of twelve feet (12J wide on one side;
-Street "B"; a minimum of fifteen feet (15J wide on both sides;
-Private Drive "0": a minimum offive feet (5J wide on one side; and
-Private Drive "E": a minimum of five feet (5J on one side adjacent to building
NW2.
• Street "C"; The sidewalk for Street C onsite may be required to be widened to twelve
feet (12J on both sides to accommodate the commercial uses along the parking
garages and the associated pedestrian activity at street level.
• Sidewalks offsite shall be as provided follows:
-Lake Washington Boulevard: a minimum of eight feet (8J wide on the west
side of the street, per the City's requirements for a Commercial Mixed
Use/Neighborhood Collector Arterial.
-Riplev Lane N: a minimum of 6 feet (6) wide in front of the site, per the City's
requirements for a Commercial/Mixed-Use Access Road.
• To address traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the
development, the applicant shall install traffic calming treatments on Lake
Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips generated
by the project to use the 1-405 corridor. The applicant shall prepare and submit a
preliminary traffic calming proposal to the City for review and approval. Upon any
revisions, the City and applicant shall conduct a joint public neighborhood meeting to
notify and take public comment to refine the calming measures prior to
implementation. The arterial calming treatments could be installed prior to other site
accesS/off-site traffic mitigation improvements, but shall be installed no later than in
conjunction with roadway/intersection improvements along Lake Washington
Boulevard.
With or Without Planned 1·405 Improvements
H6. The parking supply under the Preferred Alternative shall meet the minimum off·street
parking requirements of the City of Renton.
H7. Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of TOM
measures for proposed residential uses shall be implemented to reduce parking demand
during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply.
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
27
Discussion:
The proposed 1,337 parking spaces exceed the spaces required by the City's parking
regulations (1,334 spaces are required per RMC 4.4·080 F.10.e). Based on the TOM Plan (and
the Parking Management Plan, if prepared), and at the City responsible public official's
discretion, the site plan for the project could be modified to reduce the required parking through
a parking modification (per RMC 4·4·080 F.10.d). The Planning/BuildinglPublic Works
Department may authorize a modification from minimum or maximum parking requirements for
a specific development should conditions warrant. as described in RMC 4·9·025 02.
In conjunction with the TOM Plan, the applicant shall prepare a Parking Management Plan if
shared parking would occur onsite, and lor if preferential parking or HOV parking is proposed
onsite. If prepared, the Parking Management Plan shall identify any shared agreements
required, dedicated stalls, or management techniques that will be implemented onsite that could
generate off· site parking demands.
With or Without Planned 1-405 Improvements
H8. 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 and any NRD settlement, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian
trail. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the
minimum 1 ~O-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.
H9. In order to promote a multimodal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall
Terminals site shall include site amenities (i.e., planting strips, street lighting, etc.) and
access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1-405/NE 44th
Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the
future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid
Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44'h Street interchange).
H10. A paved bicycle lane shall be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley
Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley
Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi·use path
could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane/Lake Washington
Boulevard to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals
site access point on Ripley Lane.
Discussion:
Per the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (2009), bicycle lanes are to be located on either
side of Ripley Lane N and Lake Washington Boulevard. A one-way paved bicycle lane shall be
provided that is a minimum of five (5) feet wide to the curb face where the roadway has a curb,
or four (4) feet where no curb exists. If constructed adjacent to Ripely Lane NILake Washington
Boulevard as a multi·use trail, the recommended width is 12 feet with 2 feet clear on both sides
of the trail. The corridor would be required to be designed consistent with King County plans for
the East Side Rail Corridor, if approved. The bike lane or multi-use trail shall be provided from
Quendal/ TermInals 28
Mitigation Document
August 2015
the end of the current trail to and including the site frontage along Ripley Lane N and Lake
Washington Boulevard.
With Planned 1-405 Improvements
H11. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43,d Street) and Ripley
Lane N. The eastbound and westbound through lanes planned by WSDOT shall be
extended beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This shall result in
two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Boulevard from the 1-405
interchange past the Barbee Mill access (N 43'" Street). Ultimately, the City of Renton
shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination
with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail
right-of-way), and adjacent private development.
H12. Intersection #3 -Barbee Mill Access {N 43,d Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard. A
traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection. At the Barbee Mill Access {N 43'·
Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection the eastbound approach shall be
widened to include a separate left-turn only lane and the northbound approach shall be
widened to include a separate left-turn only lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall
determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with
WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-
of-way), and adjacent private development. If the traffic signal and eastbound left turn
lane at N 43'" Street have not been constructed prior to the WSDOT improvements at
the NE 44th StreeUI-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this
signal to the intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. Relocating the
traffic signal to Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard could reduce/eliminate potential
impacts of traffic queues on N 43'" Street between Lake Washington Boulevard. and
Road A, and with the existing rail crossing (should it be re-activated for rail service or
converted to a trail corridor). An engineering study will be completed at that time to
support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either N
43'" Street or Ripley Lane.
Discussion:
With planned improvements by WSDOT to 1-405 and the NE 44"' Street interchange, to address
project traffic impacts on transportation facilities the applicant shall construct additional site
access improvements and roadway widening along Lake Washington Boulevard as follows:
• The applicant shall prepare a preliminary channelization plan for review by the City of
Renton that shall widen Lake Washington Boulevard to extend roadway
improvements beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This
channelization shall result in two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington
Boulevard from the 1-405 interchange past the Barbee Mill access at NE 4:JO Street.
Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration for the
improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange
design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private
development. Upon approval of the channelization plan, the applicant shall prepare
construction documents for jOint review by the City, WSDOT, and other affected
agencies (i.e., King County), as directed by the City. The developer shall provide
right of way dedication on the frontage of the subject site. The developer would be
required to coordinate with the owners of other properties to acquire any other right
Quendall Terminals 29
Mitigation Document
August 2015
of way that is needed to address the improvements required to mitigate the impacts
of the project. The developer and the City could coordinate to assist in the
acquisition process, if necessary.
Without Planned 1·405 Improvements
H13. Traffic Signals. Traffic signals shall be installed at the intersections of the 1·405
northbound and southbound ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Barbee
Mill Access (N 43'· Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard. The City will consider moving
the location of this signal to the intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard
as part of a future WSDOT improvement project to the NE 44th Street interchange.
Relocating the traffic signal to Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard could
reduce/eliminate potential longer-range impacts of traffic queues on N 43'· Street
between Lake Washington Boulevard. and Road A, and with the existing rail crossing
(should it be re-activated for rail service or converted to a trail corridor). An engineering
study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the
installation of the traffic signal at either N 43'· Street or Ripley Lane.
H14. Intersection #1 • 1·405 Northbound Ramps/NE 44th Street. The southbound and
northbound approaches shall be widened so that a separate left turn lane and shared
thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of
the intersection with the additional widening improvements shall be coordinated with
WSDOT.
H15. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43,d Street) and 1-405
Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill
access and the 1-405 southbound ramps shall be constructed. Additional eastbound and
westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the
traffic signals required at the southbound ramp and Barbee Mill Access (N 43'" Street)
along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43"' Street)/Lake
Washington Boulevard intersection the west bound approach on the Barbee Mill Access
shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only lane and the north bound approach
on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only
lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the
improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange
design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-of·way), and adjacent private
development.
Discussion:
Without any planned improvements by WSDOT to /-405 and the NE 44th Street interchange, to
address existing deficiencies in transportation facilities and project traffic impacts, the applicant
shall be required to construct a number of intersection, roadway widening, and traffic control
improvements as follows:
• The applicant shall prepare a preliminary channelization plan for review by the City of
Renton initially and then WSDOT that encompasses roadway improvements that
shall begin southwest of the Hawk's Landing (future driveway) entrance to the NE
44'h Street and 1-405 northbound ramps intersection east of 1·405 (see FEIS Figure
2-1, Lake Washington Boulevard Conceptual Improvements -without 1-405
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
30
Improvements), The channelization plan shall be prepared to WSDOT NW Region
requirements and consider signalization of the Lake Washington Boulevard and
Barbee Mill Access (N 43,d Street) intersection or Lake Washington Boulevard and
Ripley Lane intersection, as well as the 1-405 northbound/southbound ramp
junctions. Coordination with adjacent land owners that have current or future access
permitted onto Lake Washington Boulevard shall also be conducted by the applicant
prior to preparation and submittal of final channelization plans for approval.
Consideration of pedestrian crossings and bicycle facilities, as required by the City,
shall also be incorporated into the channelization plan. Upon approval of the
channelization plan, the applicant shall prepare construction documents for joint
review by the City, WSDOT, and other affected agencies (i.e., King County), as
directed by the City. The developer shall provide right of way dedication on the
frontage of the subject site. The developer would be required to coordinate with the
owners of other properties to acquire any other right of way acquisition that is
needed to address the improvements required to mitigate the impacts of the project.
The developer and the City could coordinate to assist in the acquisition process, if
necessary.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Urban Design
Regulations (RMC 4-3-100); City of Renton Ordinance #5670 -Transportation Impacts Fee;
City of Renton Street Standards (RMC 4-6-060); City of Renton Parking, Loading, and Driveway
Standards (4-4-080) and, City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090).
I. Cultural Resources
Refer to EIS Addendum Section 4.9 for a detailed discussion of Affected Environment and the
Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project on cultural resources; also refer to FEIS Section 2-6
for a summary of the cultural resources impacts analysis. The mitigation measures established
below address the identified cultural resource-related impacts from the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
11. Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring shall be conducted during construction
activities on the site (clearing and grading of the upland portion, construction of deep
building foundations, and excavation of utilities). During construction, a monitoring plan
and inadvertent discovery plan shall be developed as part of the project (see Appendix F
to the Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum for a copy of the proposed monitoring plan
and inadvertent discovery plan).
12. In the unlikely event that ground-disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent
discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities shall be halted in the
immediate area and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) shall be contacted. Work shall be halted until such time as further
investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded.
13. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, construction shall
be halted in the area, the discovery shall be covered and secured against further
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
31
disturbance, and contact shall be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP, and
authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes.
Discussion:
As described in E/S Addendum Appendix F, archaeological monitoring shall entail having an
archaeologist present during construction excavations below-fill to observe subsurface
conditions and identify any buried archaeological material that may be encountered.
Archaeological monitoring shall seek to identify potential buried surfaces, anthropogenic
sediments, and archaeological features such as shell middens, hearth, or artifact-bearing strata.
The monitoring archaeologist shall inspect project excavations and recovered sediments for
indications of such archaeological resources. Archaeological monitoring of construction
excavation shall proceed until it can be determined with a greater level of confidence that
human remains or other cultural resources are not likely to be impacted by construction
excavation for the project. Upon completion of monitoring, the archaeologist shall prepare a
report on the methods and results of the work, and recommendations for any necessary
additional archaeological investigations.
Upon discovery of a potential or actual archaeological site, or cultural resources as defined by
the RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and
Resources, the applicant, their employees, contractors, and sub-contractors shall:
• Immediately cease or halt ground-disturbing, construction or other activities around the
area of the discovery and secure the area with a perimeter of not less than thirty (30)
feet until all procedures are completed and the parties agree that activities can resume.
• Notify the Local Government Archaeologist at DAHP and the Tribes of the discovery as
soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after the discovery.
• Arrange for the parties to conduct a joint viewing of the discovery within 48 hours of the
notification, or at the earliest possible time thereafter.
• Consult with the Tribes and DAHP on the transfer and final disposition of artifacts.
• If ground-breaking activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of
construction, then all activity must cease that may cause further disturbance to those
remains and the area of the find must be secured and protected from further
disturbance. The findings of human skeletal remains shall be reported to the King
County Coroner's Office and King County Sheriff's Office in the most expeditious
manner possible.
• The King County Coroner's Office will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal
remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-
forensic. If the county coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will
report the finding to DAHP who will then take jurisdiction of the remains.
• The applicant or its authorized representative shall keep and maintain as confidential all
information regarding any discovered cultural resources.
QuendalJ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
32
" .
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review Procedures (RMC 4-9-070); and, Revised Code of
Washington -Archaeological Sites and Resources (RCW 27.53).
J. Construetion Impaets
Refer to DEIS Section 3.5 and FEIS Chapter 2 -Key Topic Areas for a discussion of Affected
Environment and the Impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project during construction on air
quality and noise. The mitigation measures below address the air quality and noise-related
construction impacts of the project.
Mitigation Measures and Discussion
Air Quality
J 1. Site development and construction activities shall comply with applicable Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations regarding demolition activities and fugitive dust
emissions. If approved by the EPA, wetting of exposed soils, covering or wetting
transported earth materials, washing of truck tires and undercarriages prior to travel on
public streets, and prompt cleanup of any materials tracked or spilled onto public streets
shall be provided.
J2. The EPA cleanup/remediation process for the site and associated institutional control
requirements shall ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and
vapors shall not occur during or following construction. An OMMP shall be implemented
to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, and other site disturbances
without prior EPA approval.
Discussion:
Implementation of BMPs will reduce air emissions related to the construction phase of the
project. Possible management practices for reducing the potential for air quality impacts during
construction include measures for reducing both exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. The
Washington Associated General Contractors brochure "Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from
Construction Projects" and the PSCAA suggest a number of methods for controlling dust and
reducing the potential exposure of people to emissions from diesel equipment. Some of the
possible control measures that could be implemented to reduce potential air quality impacts
from construction activities for the Quendall Terminals project include:
• Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition.
• Require all off-road equipment to have emission reduction equipment (e.g., require
participation in Puget Sound Region Diesel Solutions, a program designed to reduce air
pollution from diesel, by project sponsors and contractors).
• Use car-pooling or other trip-reduction strategies for construction workers.
• Implement restrictions on construction truck and other vehicle idling (e.g., limit idling to a
maximum of 5 minutes).
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
33
• Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions and deposition
of particulate matter.
• Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that would be exposed for long periods.
• Cover all trucks transporting materials, wet materials in trucks, or provide adequate
freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed), to reduce
particulate matter emissions and deposition during transport.
• Provide wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off
site by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways.
• Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris.
• Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to
reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction.
Noise
J3. Per the City of Renton's construction standards related to permitted hours of work (RMC
4-4-030C), commercial and multifamily construction activities within 300 feet of
residential areas shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through
Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours of 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM and no
work shall be permitted on Sundays. The City of Renton Development Services Director
shall be required to approve any work outside of these construction hours via a variance.
J4. Noise from construction shall be governed by the timing restrictions and the noise limits
included in the King County noise code requirements (KCC Section 12.88.040). This rule
defines maximum permissible sound levels based on the zoning of the source and
receiving properties and sets maximum levels and durations of allowable day1ime
construction noise.
Discussion:
Certain practices can reduce the extent to which people are affected by construction noise and
ensure that construction noise levels stay within the applicable daytime sound level limits.
Examples of practices that could be implemented during project construction include:
• Use properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine enclosures
and turning off idle equipment.
• Make construction contracts specify that mufflers be in good working order and that
engine enclosures be used on equipment when the engine is the dominant source of
noise.
• Locate stationary equipment as far away from sensitive receiving locations as possible.
Where this is not feasible, or where noise impacts are still significant, place portable
noise barriers around the equipment, with the opening directed away from sensitive
receiving locations.
Quendall Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
34
.'
•
• To the extent feasible, substitute hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as
jack hammers, rock drills, and pavement breakers to reduce construction and demolition
noise, Electric pumps could be specified if pumps are required.
• Explore the feasibility of using broad-band or ambient sensing vehicle back-up alarms,
which are typically less noticeable than traditional pure-tone alarms,
• Locate construction staging areas expected to be in use for more than a few weeks as
far as possible from sensitive receivers, particularly residences (i.e., adjacent to the
Barbee Mill development).
• Use quiet equipment and temporary noise barriers to shield sensitive uses, and orient
work areas to minimize noise transmission to sensitive off-site locations.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Development Guidelines and Standards -Construction Standards (RMC 4-4-
030C); and, King County Environmental Sound Levels -Construction Equipment and Operation
(KCC Section 12,88.040).
Quendal/ Terminals
Mitigation Document
August 2015
35
City of Renton
TREE RETENTION
WORKSHEET
1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. __ 4.:.,:6::,::3:....· __ trees
2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation:
Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2
Trees in proposed public streets
Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts
Trees in critical areas3 and buffers
Total number of excluded trees:
3. Subtract line 2 from line 1:
2.
3.
____ trees
____ trees
____ trees
____ trees
______ trees
______ trees
4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4 , multiply line 3 by:
0.3 in zones Re, R-1, R-4, or R-8
0.1 in all other residential zones
0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. ______ trees
5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain4 :
5. ______ trees
6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. ______ trees
(If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required).
7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches:
7. inches ------
8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement:
(Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. ______ inches
9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 :
per tree
(if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number)
9.
1 Measured at chest height
______ trees
'Note:
The Quendall Terminals site will undergo environmental remediation and mitigation after Master
Site Plan submittal and prior to final design and construction. The remediation/mitigation work is
under the direction of EPA and will include significant removal of on-site trees and placement of
fill. The assumed existing conditions for Master Site Plan design are the post remediation/
mitigation conditions. Therefore this tree retention worksheet is not applicable to the project.
X:\109000-]09250\109118 (Quendall TClminals)\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\City ofRenlon\Submittal
Documents\ T reeRetention W arks heet .doc 12/08
Quendall Terminals
PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Renton Planning DiVision
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, If applicable:
Quendall Terminals
2. Name of applicant:
Campbell Mathewson
Executive Vice President
Century Pacific, L. P.
3. Addl'888 and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Campbell Mathewson
Executive Vice President
Century PaCifiC, L.P
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 757-8893
cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com
4. Date checkliet prepared:
November 2009
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Renton. Washington
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, If applicable):
SEPA I Master Plan Approval I Shorelines
EPA Timeline -Feasibility Study
November 2009 -February 2010
Early 2011
S~e Remediation and Cap
BuUdlng & Infrastructure Construction
2011 following EPA selected site remediation
2 years following site remediation
7. Do you hava any plana for future additions, expansion, or furthar activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No plans for future additions or expansion are anticipated with this proposal. Development activity
is expected to include remediaticn/mitigation of site contaminants along with final deSign.
permitting. and construction of the proposed Master Plan.
C:INrPortbJ\CREAlMAlHS\8558_,.OOC -, -02108
•
Quendall Terminals
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
A Wetland Assessment. Standard Lake Study, Habitat Data Report, and Conceptual Restoration
Plan have been prepared for the Quendall Terminals property. These have been prepared in
accordance with City criteria (RMC Section 4-3-050) to support the development proposed and
evaluated in this SEPA checklist. Prior to selection of a remediation remedy by EPA, the Quendall
Terminals owners (Allino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company) will submit a Remedial
Investigation (RI) Report and a Feasibility Study (FS) Report to the EPA. The RI Report will
summarize the resu its of environmental investigations on the property and is anticipaled to be
submitted to the EPA in summer 2010. The FS Report is anticipated 10 be submitted to EPA in
early 2011, after which, EPA will select a preferred remedy.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approva .. of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Is the lead agency for all remediation, site
remediation and mitigation actions which are to be performed at the Quendall Terminals site
under Superfund. The remediation actions selected by EPA will comply with substantive elements
of SEPA and other applicable, relevant and appropriate environmental reviews and permitting
requirements, though the remediation ections ere exempt from procedural requirements of SEPA.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, If
known.
City of Renton Land Use approvals and permits:
Master Plan Approval
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Critical Areas Review
Environmental Review (SEPA)
Binding Site Plan Review
Remaining site remediation and mitigation will be performed under Consent Decnses between
EPA and the Quendall Terminals ownership as part of the initial work on the property. As a nssult,
certain state and local permits are preempted although substantive requirements of those slatutes
and regu lations will be satisfied by the remediation and mitigation approval.
11. Give brief, complete dll&cription of your proposal, Including the proposed uses and the
size of tha proJect and site.
Proposed Uses
A mixed use development with the following:
800 residential units
245,000 SF office
21,600 SF retail
9,000 SF restaurant
Size of the She
C:lNrPortbiICRCAIIMTHSIli06S_1.DOC ·2-02108
Quendall Terminals
The project site is approximately 21.46 acres (934,874 square feet) in size. This includes the main
parcel and an isolated parcel (50,052 Square feet) east of Ripley Lane that will be improved as a
mitigation site.
Parking
2,171 cars in structures and on grade
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient Infonnatlop fOr a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address; if any. and section.
townshiP. and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the
range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal dMcription. site plan. vicinity map. and
topographic map. If reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
pennit appllclltions related to this checklist.
Location
The property is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in the northem pcrtion of Renton,
Washington. It is located within the Southwest Yo of Section 29, TownShip 24 NOrth, Range 5
East, King County. The main site occupies approximately 20.3 acres adjacent to Lake
Washington and has approximately 1,583 feel of shoreline. The site is located 3.5 miles south-
southwest of the junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90. The legal description is provided
below.
Site Plan, Vicinity Map, and Topographic Map
Please refer to the attached site plan, vicinity map, and topographic survey for additional detail.
Interstate 405 provides regiOnal vehicle access to the site via the 44"' Street/Lake Washington
Boulevard interchange. Direct site access is provided by Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley
Lane, both located to the east of the site.
Legal Description
THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5
EAST, WM., AND SHORELAND 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 SAlD SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 69'56'36" 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 29"44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A
POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH
29'44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN
DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56'26'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 69°24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59'24'56"
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
C:lNrPortbIICREAIMATHSIB558_1.DOC • 3 • 02108
Quendall Terminals
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.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
i. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other. '
The site is located on the shore of Lake Washington and is generally flat
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)
Site Slopes are generally 0-5% with localized slopes up to 2H:1V at debris piles and up to
1 H: 1V at the bank of the lake.
c. What 9"neral types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, grayol,
poat, muck)? H you know the c .... lflcallon of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
Site soils consist of highly heterogeneous shallow alluvial and lacustrine silts, sands and
peat underlain by a coarser sand-gravel alluvium. The shallow alluvial deposits are
oYenain by years of fill deposits.
Refer to the geotechnical study submitted with this Environmental Checklist for additional
detail.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable solis in the immediate vicinity?
H so, describe.
Surface and near surface conditions are especially variable across the site. Soils from the
surface to a depth of 25 feet contain Fill and Shallow Alluvium soilS which are relatively
weak with variable compressibility. permeability and contain a low beanng capacity.
Refer to the geotechnical study submitted with this Environmental Checklist for additional
detail.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantilles of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Filling and grading will proceed pursuant to the Consent Decrees and Cleanup Action
Plan as subject to review and approval by the EPA.
Filling will also be required to achieve proposed site grades. It is assumed !hat fill will be
imported.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of claarlng, construction, or UIl8? H so, genarally
descrlba.
C:lNrPortbIICREAlMAlHS1655S_ 1.DOC -4·
Quendall Terminals
The relatively flat grade of the site will minimize the potential for erosion as a result of site
construction. The near-surface soils are considered to have moderate to high moisture
senSItiVity If disturbed by construction actiVity. Soils with high moisture senSitivity tend to
degrade easily upon exposure to weather. While these soils have the potential for erosion
during wet weather conditions, mitigation will be accomplished with the use of appropriate
best management practices (BMPs).
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 75% of the site is considered impervious surface which includes buildings,
roads and sidewalks.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control enosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
2. AIR
Approved best management practices (BMPs) shall be specified and used during
construction to minimize soil erosion and environmental impacts as a result of
development activity.
•. What types of emissions to the air would result from the propoaal (I,e., duet,
automobile, odors, Industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
Construction activities may generate dust Construction equipment and hauling vehicles
will create emissions from internal combustion engines.
b. Are there any off ... ite sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If
so, generally describe.
There are no known off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect this proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, If any:
Dust suppression techniques, including water sprinkling, will be used during construction
as necessary. Stockpiles will be covered to the extent practicable to minimize
construction-related dust. Emissions impacts during construction will be minimized
through effICient use of equipment and minimizing equipment idling.
3. WATER
a. Surface Water:
1) Is therv any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (Including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes,
describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what sInIam or river It flows
into,
The project site includes approximately 1,583 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington.
2) Will the project require any work over, In, or adJacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
The following work is anticipated within 200 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline:
C:\NrPo~REAIMATHSI6558_1,DOC ·5-02108
Quendall Terminals
Activities related to shoreline restoration, contaminant remediation and mitigation,
including capping of the site.
Construction of mixed-use buildings, roads, retaining walls, hardscapeJlandscape areas.
3) Estimate the amount offill and dredge material that would be placed In or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the araa of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source offill material.
Earthwork impacts to surface waters and watiends will be determined through the EPA
directed site remediation effort that precedes development. No additional filling is
proposed by the Master Plan.
4) WIll the propoeal require surface water withdrawals or diverelons? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities If known.
The proposal will not require surface water withdrawals or diversions.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
The proposal does not lie within a 1 DO-year flood plain.
6) Does the propoeal Involve any discharges of waate materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
The proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters.
b. Ground Water.
1) Will ground water be. withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general desCription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
The project does not propose groundwater withdrawal or discharge.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged Into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, If any (for example: Domestk; sewage; Industrial, containing ths
following chemicals •.. ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,
the number of such systems, the number of hous1!6 to be served (If applicable), or
the number of anlmels or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
No waste materials as identified above are anticipated.
c. Water Runoff (including stonn water):
1) Describe the source of Nnoff (Including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, If any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? WIll this
water now Into other waters, If 50, describe.
Stormwaler runoff will be collected from impervious surfaces and will be conveyed to
Lake Washington through a piped storm drainage system. Poliution-generating
impervious surfaces will be treated prior to discharge 10 Lake Washington in accordance
wllh City of Renton and Washington Slate Department of Ecology (WSDOE) stormwater
regulations. Best management practices will be used in accordance with WSDOE.
C:lNrPortbIlCREAIMATHS\6558_1.00c -6· 02108
Quendall Terminals
2) Could waste material enter ground or aurface watera? If so, generally describe.
Waste material is not anticipated to enter ground or surface waters.
d. Proposed messures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
Runoff from pollution-generating impervious surfaces will be treated prior to discharge to
Lake Washington. Best management practices will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during construction and at project completion. Stormwater conveyance and
treatment systems will be designed in accordance with City of Renton and WSDOE
requirements.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the sHe:
_x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_x_ shrubs
_x_ grass
_ pasture
_ crop or gnain
_x_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
_x_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
_ other types of vegetation
Please refer to the Wetland Assessment, Standard Lake Study, Habitat Data Report.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Site vegetation planting and removal will be determined per the future EPA approved site
remediation, mitigation and shoreline restoration plan.
c. Li5t threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered species were observed or are known to occur on or near
the project sne.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants. or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
As part of the development project, native and regional climate zoned omamental plants
wilt be installed as landscaping throughout the development. The intent is to create a
landscape that is functional, aesthetically pleasing, diverse, and water efficient. Plant
material will be selected for hardiness, size, texture and color.
The development will be adjacent to a riparian buffer along Lake Washington that
averages 100-feet in width. The buffer will be enhanced with native vegetation as a result
of remediation-related impacts to existing wetlands through the EPA Revegetation will
focus on species diverstty, species density allowing for varied light penetration, and the
creation of different successive stages along the lake. Willow and water-tolerant shrub
vegetation along the shoreline and in existing and restored wetland habitat would provide
shade for aquatic species. Declduous-dominated forests would include open areas
where sunlight can penetrate to the forest floor. Coniferous-dominated forests would
provide important habitat for upland species. The proposed development will not impact
C:lNrPortbIlCR~IMATHS\6568_1.00c -7 . 02106
Quendall Terminals
any of the areas of enhanced vegetation within the 100-1001 average width riparian buffer
along Lake Washington.
Please refer to the Wetland Assessment, Standard Lake Study, Habitat Data Report and
Conceptual Restoration Plan prepared by Anchor QEA.
5. ANIMALS
I. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or naar the site or are
known m be on or near the slta:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other _______ _
Mammals: deer. bear. elk, beever, other=--:-'":':" _____ _
Fish: bass, .almon, trout, henring, shellflsh, other _____ _
Please refer to the Wetland Assessment, Standard Lake Study, Habitat Data Report and
Conceptual Restoration .Plan prepared by Anchor QEA.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (0. mykiss), and
bull trout (Salvelinus connuentus) use Lake Washington as part of their migration corridor.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
Yes, ~ lies within the PaCific flyway. Also, anadromous salmonids, steelhead, and bull
trout migrate through Lake Washington.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wlldllfe, If any:
Measures to improve and restons wildlife habitat will be conducted as pert of remediation
activities prior to development of the property. The riperian buffer and the
creation/restoration of existing wetland hab~t will provide detritus inputs, insect drop, and
woody debris inputs for aquatic species to support prey resources and provide cover for
juvenile salmon. In addnlon, woody debris and substrate enhancement of the shoreline
would support these aquatic ecological functions in the short term.
6. ENERGY AND NATU.RAL RESOU.RCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, 011, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the complated proJecfs energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
hesting, manufacturing, etc.
Electricity is antiCipated to be used lor heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy
demands. Natural gas is anticipated to be used primarily for heating and cooking. Oil and
woodstoves are not anticipated to be energy sources for the site.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
The project will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are Included In the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures m reduce or control energy impacts, If
any:
C;\NrPOr!bIlCREAIMATHSI555IU .DOC -8-
Quendall Terminals
Specific conselVation measures have not been identified at this time but are anticipated to
be included on a limited basis as building programming is developed.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, Including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of
this proposal? If so, describe.
The site is contaminated with hazardous substances as a result of past Industrial uses.
As part of this development, a site remediation/mitigation plan will be executed to prevent
the exposure and spread of hazardous substances to humans and the surrounding
environment Proposed measures to prevent environmental health hazards include
minimal disturbance to contaminated soils and capping of the site.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Emergency selVices Will be provided by the City of Renton. No special emergency
serviceS are anticipated.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
As part of this development. a site remediation/mitigation plan will be executed to prevent
the exposure and spread of hazardous substances to humans and the surrounding
environment Proposed measures to prevent environmental hea~h hazards include
minimal disturbance to contaminated soils and capping of the site.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist In the area which may affect your project ('or example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
There are no known noises in the area that may affect the project. Traffic noise from
Interstate 405, which is located .approximately 500 feet east of the site's east boundary, is
not expected to adversely affect the project.
2) What types and levels of noise would be craated by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term besis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would coma from the site.
Short-Tenn
Construction equipment and activity will generate noise during daylight hours. During
initial construction, noise will be generated outside. Once the buildings are enclosed,
construction noise will be contained within the buildings. Normal construction noise is not
anticipated to have a significant impact to adjacent uses. Impact-type noises and other
high-noise activities will be limited and will occur during restricted hours to minimize
impact to adjacent uses. Hours of construction operation are anticipated to be 7:00 AM-
5:00 PM, Monday-Friday. Adjoining propertY owners Will be notified in advance of any
weekend work that may take place.
Long-Tenn
Low-speed vehicle traffic noise is anticipated in the long-term and is not anticipated to
adversely impact adjacent uses.
C:lNrPortb~CREAIMA1HS\6558_1.DOC -9· 02108
Quendall Terminals
3) Proposed measu .... to reduce or control noise Impacts, if any:
Exterior construction hours are anticipated to be 7:00 AM-5:00 PM, Monday-Friday.
Adjoining properly owners will be notified in advance of any weekend work that may take
place. Impact-type noises and other high-noise activities will be limned and will occur
during restricted hours to minimize impact to adjacent uses. Contact wtth adjacent
neighbors who may be adversely impacted will be made and information provided when
loud nOises, if any, will occur.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What Is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is currently vacant.
Adjacent uses:
Seahawks Training Faciltty, a football training faciltty, to the north
Barbee Mill, a residential development, to the south
Pan Abode, an existing cedar home manufacturing facility, to the southeast. Future
planning includes a hotel
Lake Washington Blvd, Ripley Lane, and Interstate 405 are to the east
Lake Washington is located to the west
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
The site has not been used for agriculture.
c. Describe Iny structu .... on the site.
A wooden platform with metal stairs, a shack, a one-story brick building of approximately
835 square feet, and a sewer pump station are located at the east edge of the project
sne. Various small docks, structures, and pilings are located at the west edge of the
project site along Lake Washington.
d. Will any structu .... be demolished? H so, what?
No, site is vacant, with exception of the sewer pump station which is to remain.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The site is zoned (COR) CommerciaUOfliceiResidentiel per the Ctty of Renton.
f. What Is the current comprehensive plan designation of the slta?
The ana currently has the designation COR-Commeroial-Offiee-Residential.
g. If applicable. what is the current shoreline malller program designation of tha alte?
The current shoreline master program designation of the site is ·urban."
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
C:\NrPortbIlCREAIMA n-IS15558_1.DOC -10 •
Quendall Terminals
Areas on the site are currently identified as Critical Areas by the City of Renton, based on
the proximity to Lake Washington and the presence of wetlands, However, existing
wetlands will be impacted as part of remediation activities that will be conducted as part of
a separate project prior to development The riparian buffer and wetlands along the Lake
Washington shoreline will be enhanced and restored as part of remediation-related
activities. Following remediation activities, no environmentally sensitive or Critical Areas
will be present within the development area, but the riparian buffer along Lake
Washington would qualifY as an environmentally sensitive area that contains wetlands
and shoreline buffers.
I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
The office space will most likely accommodate up to about 1,000 wor1<ers . .The retail and
restaurants would have 40 to 50 employees, and the apartments are estimated to have
1,200 to 1,300 residents. This would be with 100% occupancy which is rarely achieved,
so the totals may be up to 10% less than noted with normal vacancy rates.
J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
The completed project will not displace people since the site is currently vacant.
It. PropoalHl measures to avoId or reduce displacement Impacts, If any:
Not applicable-see response to line j, above.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
Landscape buffers and potential fencing will be used to provide a visual separation and
buffer between the project and adjacent sites,
9. HOUSING
a, Approximately how many unite would be provided, If any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-Income housing.
Approximately 800 middle-to high-income units will be provided,
b, Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
No units will be eliminated, as the site is currentiy vacant.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable-see response to line c, above.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not Including antennas;
what Is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed.
C;\NrPortbftCREAIMA TliS\S5S8_ 1.DOC -11 -02/08
Quendall Terminals
We expect the tallest building to be 5 stories over 2 floors of parking. Assuming there is
some roof modulation, we would estimate the tallest building would be approximately 85
to 90 It from grade to top of roof or parapet
The parking structures will be concrete w~h some structure exposed, some painted and
w~ some walls or structure clad w~ brick or other masonry.
The office building will be concrete and glass in the upper floors and concrete, brick or
other masonry around the base and retail ~hops.
The residential portions will have a combination of brick or other masonry, stucco,
arcMectural factory finished metal panels with aluminum framed windows and metal
railings at outdoor decks and balconies.
b. What views In the Immediate vicinity would be altered or ollstnK:ted?
The Site is cumently vacant so construction of the proposed development will create
potential partial obstructions from certain vantage points around the site such as surface
streets and 1-405 to the east, adjacent residential development to the south and the
Seahawks facility to the north. The design of the project will maintain view corridors
between the proposed buildings.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetiC impacts, if any:
The proposed buildings will not be taller than allowed per the zoning requirements; this
will minimize potential for any view obstructions. The buildings will have a variety of
materials and textures and modulation of wall surfaces or other grills, screens or trellises
that will add visual interest Roof lines will be varied for modulation and interest as well.
Plaza or courtyard areas over the residential garages will feature landscape planters and
pavers for color, texture and pattern. There may be small water features incorporated in
the final landscaped courtyard designs. The shoreline zone will be landscaped during the
site remediation process. Other streetscape landscaping, sidewalks. perimeter
landscaping and street trees will be designed to enhance the building designs, provide a
pleasant sidewalk experience and buffer between the Quendall development and the
adjacent properties.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the propo&al produce? What time of day would it
mainly ocour?
Sources of light and glare will include interior lights shining through windows, street lights
along roads, outdoor pedestrian lights along sldewalkslhardscape areas, and lighted
signage' at retaiVrestaurant areas. Light and glare from these sources will occur from
sundown until sunrise and are not expected to be Significant
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or Interfere with
views?
Light or glare from the completed project is not expected to be a safety hazard or interfere
with views.
C;\NrPo~b~CREAIMA TliS\S558_ 1.DOC -12 -02108
Quendall Terminals
c. What existing off .. ite flources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
There are no known existing off-site sources of light or glare thst msy affect the proposal.
The Seahswks Training Fscilily located to the north of the project srt .. does not have
permsnen! field lighting.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare Impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
12. RECREATION
a. What deaignated and informal recreational opportunities are in the Immediate
vicinity?
Lake Washington borders the west side of the project site and provides informal
recreational opportunities such as boating. swimming. fishing. and other lake-related
recreational activities. Other potential recrea~on opportunities have not been identified at
this time and will be addressed with the future EPA site remediation I mitigation action
plan.
II. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
The proposed project will not displace any existing recreational uses.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control Impacts on ",creation, Including
recreation opportunltiee to be provided by the project or applicant, If any:
Not appllcable-see response to line b. sbove.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or olljects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local
preservation regillters known tD be on or next to the lIite? If 110. generally d8llcribe.
There are no known places or objects on or next to. the site that are listed on or proposed
for nstionsl, stale, or local preservation regislers.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
sclentlfic, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the alte.
A Cultural Resource Assessment (Larson, 1997) was performed for the project site in
1997. This assessment did nol identity any cultural resources eligible for listing on the
Nstionsl Register of Historic Places. The report concludes that the historic mouth of Msy
Creek was likely Iocaled al the Port Quendall Log Yard and that a Duwamish sile may
have been located there. All portions of the Port Quendall Log Yard are identified as an
area that may contain archeological deposits.
Please refer to Ihe Culturel Resource Assessment prepared by Larson Anthropological
Archaeological Services (Msrch, 1997).
c. Propoeed measurea to reduce or control impacts, if any:
MonitOring for archeological materials will be included iflwhere native site soils are
disturbed. However, previous geotechnical explorations have indicated that the project
-13· 02106
Quendall Terminals
site is overlain with fill, and the project's grading approach includes minimal disturbance to
existing site soils due to the presence of hazardous substances. A fill cap will be added
to the site as part of remediation/mitigation efforts, and buildings will use piling foundation
systems.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public _treet. and highways "Ning ths sits, and d88cribe propoHd
access to the existing street system. Show on site plane, If any.
The site is principally served by the following three roads:
Interstate 405 -Located approximately 500 feet east of the site.
Lake Washington Blvd -Located at the southeast comer of the site.
Ripley Lane -Located at the eastern edge of the s~e.
Interstate 405 provides regional access to the project site via the Lake Washington Blvd I
44" Street Interchange. Lake Washington Blvd provides access at the southeast comer
of the site where ~ runs east to Interstate 405 or south to the City of Renton. At the
southeast comer of the s~e, Ripley Lane runs north from Lake Washington Blvd and
serves the east side of the site.
Greater deteil on all transportation and parking issues can be found in the Transportation
Impact Analysis prepared by The Transpo Group.
b. Is site currently served by publiC transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
The site is not currently served by public tranSit The nearest transit stop is located
approximately 0.9 miles east-northeast at 116th Ave SE and SE 76th St(Metro Route 219).
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
The completed project would have parking for approximately 2,171 cars in structures and
on grade. The project would not eliminate any parking.
d. WIll the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to exlsUng
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (Indicate
whether public or private?
Yes. In addition to the improvements to the 1-405/NE 44th S!raet interchange identified as
part of the planned WSDOT 1-405 Renton to Bellevue improvement project, several
additional improvements are needed to mitigate project impacts. These include:
• A southbound left-tum iane, ill dedicated westbound right-turn lane, and an eastbound
left-tum lane would be needed at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersection
• A northbound left-tum lane at the Main Project AocesslBarbee Mills/Conner Homes
Access intersection with Lake Washington Blvd, and
• A westbound left-tum lane would be needed at the Hawks Landing Access/l.ake
Washington Blvd intersection.
Note: Improvements listed are based on full build-out, initial phased development will not
require aU improvements.
-14-02108
Quendall Terminals
e. Will the project use (or cx:cur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
The project will not use water, rail, or air transportation. The project site is in the
immediate vicinity of water transportation (Lake Washington borders the site to the west)
and an existing BNSF railroad track which borders the site to the east and is no longer
used for rail transport.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, Indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 8.570 net new off-site daily
trips, with approximately 837 occurring during the AM peak hour (446 inbound trips and
391 outbound trips), and 905 occurring during the PM peak hour trips (410 inbound trips
and 495 outbound trips),
g. Proposed measu res to reduce or control transportation impacte, if any:
Consistent with the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Transpo and attached to
this submittal, traffic mitigation measures considered include additional tum lanes,
channelization and traffic calming measures, In addition, a transporlation management
plan (TMP) for the site will be prepared,
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, heahh care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
An increased need for publiC services is anticipated as a result of the project,
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct Impacte on public "rvices, if any.
Coordination of the development plan and future phasing with public service personnel
Coordination and timing of future development will assist public services in determining
when additional demand will be needed as result of development.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle or underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natural ga6.
water. refuse service. telephone. sanHarY .ewer, septic .ystem, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or In the Immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
The following utilities are proposed for !he project
Water -City of Renton
Sewer -City of Renton
Electricity -Puget Sound Energy
Natural Gas -Puget Sound Energy
C:\NrPortbl\CREAIMA Tl1S\65SB_1,DOC -15 • 02108
Quendall Terminals
Phone. DSl. and Fiber-Optic Communications -Qwesl
C. SIGNATURE
I. the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and
complete. It is understood that the lead agency may w~hdraw any declaration of non-significance
that ~ might issue in .reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or
willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent
Name Printed: campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, LP.
Date: November 12, 2009
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Not Used
C:\NrPorlbI\CREA\MATH~_1.DOC -16-02/08
Quendall Terminals
Renton, Washington
Drainage Report
November 2009 I Preliminary Report
Consu!:If'!) L IIp,nfl'r::;
CenturyPacHlc, LP
Quendall Terminals
Drainage Report
November 2009
Prepared for:
CenturyPacific, LP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Prepared by:
Tom Jones
Kris Koski, Ell
KPFF Consulting Engineers
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 622-5822
KPFF Job No. 109118.10
Property OWners:
Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Company
I
CenturyPaclflc, LP
Quendali Terminals
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Project Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1
Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 1
Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1
Predeveloped Site Conditions ........................................................................................................ 1
Developed Site Conditions ............................................................................................................. 2
Conditions and Requirements Summary ...................................................................................... 3
Off.Slte Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 4
Upstream Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 4
Downstream Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 5
Row Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ....................................................... 5
Flow Control ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Water Quality ................................................................................................................................... 5
Conveyance System Analysis and Design .................................................................................... 5
Special Reports and Studies ......................................................................................................... 6
Other Permits ................................................................................................................................ 6
Eroslon and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Analysis and Design .................................................. 6
Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant ........................................... 7
10. Operations and Maintenance Manual .......................................................................................... 7
11/
CenturyPacIfIc, LP
Quendall Terminals
1. Project Overview
This Technical Information Report (TIR) addresses the conceptual design Of the storm drainage
conveyance and water quality facilities for Quendall Terminals Master Site Plan entitlement. Site
drainage will be conveyed to on-site water quality treatment facilities prior to discharge to Lake
Washington_ See Figure 6A (Appendix A) for the TIR Worksheet.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Quendall Terminals project is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North within the City of
Renton in King County, Washington. The project is located west of Ripley Lane North and northwest of
the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Ripley Lane North. The project is located in
a portion of Section 29, Township 24 N, Range 5 E, W.M. See Figure 1A in Appendix A for the project
location.
An additional parcel located east of the main project site across Ripley Lane North is included in
project planning considerations but is not part ofthis drainage report. No improvements are planned
for this additional parcel.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Quendall Terminals is a proposed mixed-use development including five stories of residential or office
space above two levels of above-grade parking or retail and restaurant space. The development
project anticipates entitlement of the following:
• Residential
• Office
• Retail
• Restaurant
• Parking
800 Units
245,000 Square Feet
21,600 Square Feet
9,000 Square Feet
2,215 Spaces
PREDEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
The existing site is vacant and is under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The site is partially vegetated with areas of grass, shrubs, brush, and trees where the site has been
undisturbed for an extended amount of time. Other areas used more recently contain bare soil and
debriS from log yard operations. Debris piles from log yard operations are located on the site. The Site
is contaminated with hazardous substances as a result of past industrial uses, including a creosote
processing facility.
1
CenturyP.cHlc, LP
Quendall Terminals
2. Conditions and Requirements
Summary
This report supports City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan Approval. This report is
intended to be amended in conjunction with future construction documents. Future report
amendments will be in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual
(KCSWDM).
The 2009 KCSWDM outlines eight core requirements and five special requirements that must be
addressed. A summary of the requirements is shown in Table 2-1. The table shows which
requirements are applicable to this project and where requirements are addressed within this report.
Table 2-1: Conditions and Requirements Summary
Conditions and ReqUirements Summary See Section
Core Requirement No.1 Discharge at the Natural Location Required 2
Core Requirement No.2 Off-Site Analysis Required 3
Core Requirement No.3 Flow Control Exempt 4
Core Requirement No.4 Conveyance System Required 5
Core Requirement NO.5 Erosion and Sediment Control Required 8
Core Requirement NO.6 Maintenance and Operations N/A 10
Core Requirement NO.7 Financial Guarantees and Liability N/A 9
Core Requirement No.8 Water Quality Required 4
Special Requirement No.1 Other Adopted Area-5peclflc Requirements N/A 2
Special Requirement No.2 Flood Hazard Area Delineation N/A 2
Special Requirement NO.3 Flood Protection facilities N/A 2
Special Requirement No_ 4 Source Control Required 2
Special Requirement NO.5 Oil Control N/A 2
3
CenturyP_clflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
Runoff from the proposed s~e will be collected and conveyed via a piped storm drainage system and
discharge to Lake Washington. The water level in Lake Washington is maintained at the Hiram M.
Chittenden Locks. Outfalls at the lake will require armoring to prevent erosion.
4. Flow Control and Water Quality
Facility Analysis and Design
FLOW CONTROL
The project is exempt from flow control requirements by the "direct discharge exemption" as defined in
Section 1.2.3.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM. The project will feature a piped conveyance system of
adequate capacity that discharges directly to Lake Washington.
WATER QUALITY
Runoff from pollution-generating surfaces will be collected and conveyed to water quality treatment
facilities for treatment prior to discharge to Lake Washington. A water quality design flow of 60
percent of the developed 2-year peak flow rate will be used in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM.
The water quality treatment facilities will discharge to Lake Washington. Flows greater than the water
quality design flow rate will bypass the water quality facilities and discharge directly to Lake
Washington. See Figure 46 for water quality calculations, Figure 16 for the water quality facility layout,
and Figure 56 for Storm Filter product information, Appendix 6.
5. Conveyance System Analysis and
Design
The proposed conveyance system will be designed to convey and contain (at minimum) the 25-year
peak flow, assuming developed conditions for on-slte tributary areas. Potential overflow from a 100-
year runoff event is not antiCipated to create or aggravate a severe flooding problem or severe erosion
problem. There is no upstream tributary area draining to the site or the proposed storm drainage
system. Outfalls at the discharge points of the stormwater systems will be designed to prevent
erosion.
5
CenturyPaclflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
Prior to this development. a site remediation/mitigation plan will be executed under the direction of
the EPA.
8. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(ESC) Analysis and Design
A temporary sediment and erosion control plan designed by a professional civil engineer will be
included with the project·s construction documents (to be produced in the future) conforming to the
requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM.
9. Bond Quantities, Facility
Summaries, and Declaration of
Covenant
Bond quantities and facility summaries are not required for Master Site Plan Approval. These items
will be provided with the project"s future construction documents.
10. Operations and Maintenance
Manual
An operations and maintenance manual is not required for Master Site Plan Approval. This item will be
provided with the final project design.
7
CenturyPaclflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
Appendix A
Site and Project Information
Figure lA: Project Location
Figure 2A: Existing Site Conditions
Figure 3A: Proposed Site Conditions
Figure 4A: NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5A: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
Figure SA: TIR Worksheet
Appendix A
KPFF Consulting Engineers 11/2009
VICINITY MAP
NTS
Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 1A: Project Location
I
I
~
i
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED SITE
TOTAL BASIN: 20.19 A.C
IWPERVlQUS: IS.58 AC (771.:)
PERVIOUS; ".Sl ~C {23lt:}
IWPERVIOUS
STREns: 901: IIo4PERVIOUS
lJ.K[ SHORE AREA: 0% IIoIPERVIOlIS
,:~~ l
'1· I ... rh
I
. .
'._ it
LAHO USE, SHOREUIfE &: WASTER PLAN PERWIT Al'PUCA11OtI FIG 3~ DRAINAGE REPORT -PROPOSED CONDmOICS
l.ro.. -
Soil Map-King County Area, Washington
(Quendall Terminals)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Intereal IAOI) -, Area Df Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Units
Special Point Features
<-"J Blowout
IKI Borrow Pit
li( Clay Spot
• Closed Depression
X Gravel PIt
.". Gravelly Spot
0 Landfill
A Lava Flow
.... Marsh or swamp
~. Mme or Quarry
I!!I Miscellaneous Water .. Perennial Water
v Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot ... Severely Eroded Spot
0 Sinkhole
p Slide or Slip -Sodic Spot .. Spoil Area
<:) Stony SPOt
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
(1) Very Stony Spot
'f Wet Spot
• Other
Special line F •• tures
",,-Gully
.' . Short Steep Slope
~, Other
Political Features
• ClUes
Water Features • Oceans
Streams and Canals
Transportation ..... Ralls
....... Interstate Highways
~ US Routes
Major Roads
......-Local Roads
Map Scale: 1 :2,070 if printed on B size (11" )( 17") sheet
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24.000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websollsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date{s) listed below,
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area Data:
King County Area, Washington
Version 5, Jun 12. 2009
Dale(s} aenal images were photographed: 7/2412006
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident
Figure 4A: NRCS Soils Map
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative 5011 Survey
9/1/2009
Page 2 of 3
Areas of SOO-year flood; areas of 100-
year flood with average depths of less
. than 1 foot or with drainage areas less
kn5F!' 1 l;pol )1'---" I ='ll than 1 square mile; and areas
rP" -" \ protected by levees from 100-year
\
\
floor.
• PANe. NOT PRINTED· OPEN WATER AREA ALL IN I" PANEL NOT PRINTED· AREA IN ZONE X 1
-PANe. NOT PRINTED· ArEA IN ZONE 0
.... PANe. NOT PRINTED • PANe. 53033C1490 IS SHO'MJ
MAP INDEX
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
(8EElI8TING OF~mE8 TABU!)
MAP INDEX
PNELSPIINTED: ...... 43, ....... , ...........
• , a, "",, tao, 1M, Itl, 21" n •• , 127,_ 310, :131, -,_Dt,I4O, ___ • __
_ , m, m.m.3111.-'~_,_,401._
4'tO, "a" ., ... t., ... -. ... e. lOl, "'_,
... at, ...... _ .... ,I1t,. .. ,I10, ... ... 140 .... -. __ 111'.111,., ........ _, -t'" 110 .... _ ...... "' •• ,-. ....
701. 701, 7'0,71" 71" 717, 71" 711, Toll, ne. nT,
Toll, "', 7a, 7a, 7 ..... ",, 711, -.... ,110, ta.
....... IIT, .......... " .... ta. .... IIT, ... ... m. m,I7I.,I7I,II1. ___ •• ,
•• 111,112. IN ...... 1001, tooa. 1ODI. 101M, 1001.
1001, 100a. 101», 1011. tolD., , •• to3I,'-' '"'"
-. ......... , ' .......... 077, 1071, ..... '_ 'OIl, ,_ ..... ' .... '_ .... , _'Ill, , ....
tIlT, ,.,IIt, ,-.,211. 'I ........ 1217,'.
~,1-"_.1-' UtI. 1310, MI7.,-., ....
...e, ,-,'111. '-' 1_
MAP NUMBER
53033CINDOA
MAP REVISED
APRL 19,2005
FodonI Enaerpacf Mon_eatAa-q
Figure SA: FEMA Map
KPFF
I
KING COUNTY. WASHINGTOI\, SURI-ACE WATER DES1GI\ MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring Required: @NO
Describe: N/A
Start Date: N/A for Master Site Plan
Completion Date: N/A
Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community Plan : -:-_---,~_:_----=-:--=...,..,-_:_::---
Special District Overlays: Overlay Design District C
Drainage Basin: Lake Washington
Stormwater Requirements: 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual
Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS
11/2009
DRiver/Stream _________ _ D Steep Slope ________ _
IE! Lake Lake Washington D Erosion Hazard _______ _
IE! Wetlands __________ _ D Landslide Hazard _______ _
D Closed Depression _______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard _______ _
D Floodplain _________ _ ~ Seismic Hazard Liquefaction
D Other ___________ _ D Habitat Protection _______ _ D __________________ _
Part 10 SOILS
Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential
Bellingham Silt Loam 0-5% t~~ical LQw
Norma Sandy Loam 0-5% !v~ical Low
.
IE! High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Sale Source Aquifer
D Other D Seeps/Springs
D Additional Sheets Attached
Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 6A: TIR Worksheet
I
I
KPFF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, SURFACE \VATER DESIGN MANUAL 11/2009
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Oil Control High-use Site: Yes I (No)
Treatment BMP: ___ '-" __________ _
Maintenance Agreement: Yes I ®
with whom?
Other Drainage Structures
Describe:
Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION
~ Clearing Limits W Stabilize Exposed Surfaces
W Cover Measures ~ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
W Perimeter Protection ! ~ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure
~ Traffic Area Stabilization
i Operation of Permanent Facilities
~ Sediment Retention D Flag Limits of SAO and open space
lID Surface Water Collection
preservation areas
D Other 1&1 Dewatering Control
lID Dust Control
D Flow Control
Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch)
Flow Control Type/Description I Water Quality Type/Description
D Detention D Biofiltration
D Infiltration IZI Wetpool Presettling Vault
D Regional Facility IZI Media Filtration Storm Filters
D Shared Facility D Oil Control
D Flow Control D Spill Control
BMPs D Flow Control BMPs D Other D Other
Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 6A: TIR Worksheet
CenturyPaclflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
Appendix B
Calculations and Proposed Strom Drainage System
Figure 18: Conceptual Storm Drainage Plan
Figure 28: Isopluvial Maps (2-Year, 25-Year, 100-Year, and Annual Runoff)
Figure 38: Conveyance Calculations
Figure 48: Water Quality Calculations
Figure 58: Storm Filter Product Information
AppendlxB
I
I
I
!
.------_ ••• -_ •. lu----. -----
. ""./'.>-.~.-" " .••
i
i
\
~
}
, _____ <;UIIH1OI!
""_ ..... -
-----------"P'O"'--c--rrr=-
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOtI
I.AND USE, SHOREUN£ I WASTER PlAN PEIMT APPUCATION
CONCEPTUAl STORItI DRAltfAGE ,\ND GRADING
SECTlOl\ 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS
WESTERN
KING COUNTY
2-Year 24-Hour
Precipitation
in Inches
1/912009
FIGURE 3.2.1.A 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLL"VIALS
------3.5
o 2 4MHas
; ; :
Figure 28: Isopluvial Maps
2009 Surface Water Design Manual
3-14
-~.
,-.1 ~ i-'
-,
-"::" I -.. I " -"":'1= .:.. . -.--.:; ... _Q .... ! -~ --I" _,I
~j ., ~ .. ~ ~ _ ...... ," fitt5i •• Jl"{ ..... '~
"'-~-"&_-...... ---..
--I-r "~"'1"""'"
'I --!--~ I
..... ,~O "--'---:1 '--~, • "-"0
--, ,
-_-.-1
i~i~ :}iF~i~-~~ir~t1§1it~~.;,~ :~ ~
".,,"-" "~ -,,".. ,""" .. ~-..... "'"'" .--'" ~
'" """ """,-:
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:sd line #l.tsf
project Location:sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of peak
(CFS)
0.572 6 8/27/01 18:00
0.399 8 9/17/02 17:45
1.11 2 12/08/02 17:15
0.460 7 8/23/04 14:30
0.613 5 10/28/04 16:00
0.647 4 10/27/05 10:45
0.780 3 10/25/06 22:45
1.48 1 1/09/08 6: 30
computed Peaks
Quendall Terminals
1112009
SD Line #1.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- -peaks Rank Return prob
(CFS) period
1.48 1 100.00 0.990
1.11 2 25.00 0.960
0.780 3 10.00 0.900
0.647 4 5.00 0.800
0.613 5 3.00 0.667
0.572 6 2.00 0.500
0.460 7 1.30 0.231
0.399 8 1.10 0.091
1.36 50.00 0.980
page 1
Storm Drainage Report Figure 4B: WQ Cales
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:sd line #3.tsf
project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak
(CFS)
1.20 6 8/27/01 18:00
0.838 8 9/17/02 17:45
2.30 2 12/08/02 17:15
0.966 7 8/23/04 14:30
1.28 5 10/28/04 16:00
1. 35 4 10/27/05 10:45
1.63 3 10/25/06 22:45
3.03 1 1/09/08 6:30
computed Peaks
Quendall Terminals
11/2009
SD Line #3.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob
(CFS) period
3.03 1 100.00 0.990
2.30 2 25.00 0.960
1.63 3 10.00 0.900
1.35 4 5.00 0.800
1.28 5 3.00 0.667
1. 20 6 2.00 0.500
0.966 7 1. 30 0.231
0.838 8 1.10 0.091
2.79 50.00 0.980
Page 1
Storm Drainage Report Figure 48: WQ Cales
GENERAL NOTE5
I) STORMFILTER BY CONTECH STORMWATER SOLUTIONS; PORTLAND, OR (800) 548-4GG7; SCARBOROUGH, ME (877)
907-8G7G; LINTHICUM, MD (8GG) 740-3318.
2) FILTER CARTRlDGE(S) TO BE SIPHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. STANDARD DETAIL SHOWS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
CARTRIDGES. ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE SFECIFIED ON SITE PLANS OR IN DATA TABLE BELOW.
3) PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C478. DETAIL REFUECTS DESIGN INTENT
ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONfiGURATION OF 5TRUCTURE WILL BE SHOWIN ON PRODUCTION SHOP DRAWING.
4) STRUCTURE AND ACCESS COVERS TO MEET AASHTO H-20 LOAD RATING.
5) FOR LOW DROP CARTRIDGE, DROP REQUIRED 15 I .8', FOR 18" CARTRIDGE, DROP REQUIRED IS 2.3', FOR 27" CARTRIDGE DR-OF
REQUIRED IS 3.05'. MINIMUM ANGLE BETWEEN INlET AND OUTlET IS 45".
G) INlET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECAST MANHOLE STORMFILTER EQUIPPED
WITH A DUAL DIAMETER HDFE OUTlET STUB AND SAND COLLAR. EIGHT INCH DIAMETER OUTlET SECTION MAY BE SEPARATED
FROM OUTlET STUB AT MOUDED-IN CUT LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A 12 INCH OUTlET PIPE. CONNECTION TO DOWNSTRE.AM
PIPING TO BE MADE USING A FLEXIBLE COUPLING OR ECCENTRIC REDUCER, AS REQUIRED. COUPLING BY flERNCO OR EQUAL
AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR.
7) PROVIDE MINIMUM CUEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS. IF A SHALLOWER SYSTEM 15 REQUIRED, CONTACT CONTECH
5TORMWATER SOWTION5 FOR OTHER OPTIONS.
8) ANTI-flOTATION BALLA5T TO BE 5PECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. BALLAST TO BE 5ET
AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE 5TRUCTURE.
9) ALL STORMFILTERS REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE
INFORMATION .
./'"", 030' FRAME ~.-. --'.... AND COVER (STD) !/IJr ~ '\,
I-:-~ A ' I ~ 7" I
\ .. I
\ ...' I
\ I
, nov ' RATe xx !1i ~ (CSF. PERLI TE. ZPGI )()()()()(
~ ~ON )OOCXX' \ I , ~ I , ", '/
,..... "....,/~ DAl, ~E. ~N I ~
.... ...,..-----. Plf :xxx xxx lOC'
<X.X xxx 8" /I 2"
MANHOLE STORMFIL TER -TOP VIEW CD (e~CO~' ~ )()~;
\_ f\
"'-\
SAND COLLAR
GROUT
01 2" OUTlET STUB
MOLDED-IN CUT UNE
08' OUTlET STUB
OUTlET PIPE
(BY CONTRACTOR)
COUPLING
(BY CONTRACTOR)
(5EE NOTE G)
BALLA5T
(SEE NOTE 8)
(BY CONTECH STORMWATER SOUJTIONS)
THE 5TORMWATER MANPG:MENT
St.orml"iIt&"ll
MANHOLE STORMFIL TER -OUTLET DETAIL ED
ClIIIIIl __ lIIormwaler SOlutions 2
u.s, PAn::NT No. 5.322,G29,
No. 5.707,527. No, '.027.'3~
No. '.'4~,04a. No. 5,'24,57'.
ANO OTHER U.S. AND I"ORfIGN
f'ATENf5 PfNDlNG
oontschstonnwater.com
PRECAST 96" MANHOLE STORMFIL TER
TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA
STANDARD DETAIL
ORA1MNG
2
212
OATE:6f181OB I SCAlE: NONE I FILE NAME::MHSF14-962PC-DTL I DRAWN: JHR I CHECKED: OK
Quendall Terminals
Renton, Washington
Sewer Report
November 2009 I Preliminary Report
L;O:)~L.'!l!ny E!'{Irrl~'~~'!l
CenturyPacfflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
Sewer Report
November 2009
Prepared for:
CenturyPacific, LP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Prepared by:
Tom Jones
Kris Koski, EIT
KPFF Consulting Engineers
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 622-5822
KPFF Job No. 109118.10
Property Owners:
Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Company
DPIIII3 V/14/1O
CenturyPacmc, LP
Quendall Terminals
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction ................••...........•..•..•.•.....•.•........••....•.....•.•......•..............•.•...•.•.••• 1
Predeveloped Site Conditions ........................................................................... 1
Developed Site Conditions ................................................................................ 2
Basis of Design ................................................................................................. 2
Design Criteria •.•.•...•........•..•...•....•.•.•.•.•...•...•.................•..............................•.••• 3
Points of Connection ........................................................................................... 3
Existing Baxter Lift Station .................................................................................. 4
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Proposed Development .................................................................................. 1
Table 5-1: Design Criteria ................................................................................................. 3
Table 5·2: Building Area Summary and Sanitary Sewer Flows ...................................... 3
Table 5-3: Lift Station Design Assumptions for Quendall Terminals ............................ .4
Appendix
Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2: Existing Site Conditions
Figure 3: Site Plan
Figure 4: Proposed Sewer Plan
Figure 5: Calculations
Figure 5: Baxter Lift Station Sewer Report
II
CenturyPaclflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
1. Introduction
Quendall Terminals is a proposed mixed-use development in Renton, Washington. The development
includes five stories of residential or office space above two levels of above-grade parking or retail and
restaurant space. The development project anticipates entitlement of the following:
Table 1-1: Proposed Development
Use Quantity/ Area
Residential 800 Units
Office 245.000 Square Feet
Retail 21.600 Square Feet
Restaurant 9,000 Square Feet
Parking 2,215 Spaces
Note: All areas shown are gross bUlldmg areas (GBA).
The project site is located west of Interstate 405 near the northern city limits of Renton. The site is
bounded by the Sea hawks Training Facility to the north. BNSF railroad tracks to the east. and the
Barbee Mill residential community to the south. Ripley Lane is located east of the BNSF railroad
tracks and Lake Washington Boulevard is located southeast of the project site. See Figure 1 in the
Appendix for the site location.
This report is intended to support City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan Approval.
The scope of this report is to address the sanitary sewer system for the proposed development.
Design criteria will be outlined and a sewerage approach will be evaluated.
2. Predeveloped Site Conditions
The existing site is vacant and is the former location of a log sorting and storage yard. The main site is
approximately 20.30 acres in size, and the parcel east of the main project site across Ripley Lane
North is approximately 1.15 acres In size. An existing 12-inch sanitary sewer main runs from south to
north along the east side of the site within a 60-foot roadway and utility easement. The invert
elevation of the existing sewer pipe is generally 10 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. The
existing Baxter Lift Station serves Quendall Terminals as well as the Seahawks Training Facility to the
north and Barbee Mill to the South. There are no other sewers located on the project site. An 84-inch
Metro sewer main is located approximately 100 feet east of the site's east property line. See Figure 2
in the Appendix for existing site conditions.
1
CenturyPactflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
3. Developed Site Conditions
The proposed site improvements include a mixed-use development consisting of residential, office,
retail, and restaurant uses, as well as new public and private streets and parking. Sewer mains will be
constructed within the proposed public streets. Sewage from the buildings will discharge to the new
sewer mains via side sewers. The new sewer mains will discharge to the existing 12-inch sewer main
at the east side of the project site at a new manhole constructed over the existing main. No
improvements are planned for the 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley Lane. See Figures 3 and 4 in the
Appendix for proposed site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively.
4. Basis of Design
An on-site sanitary sewer system will collect and convey flows from Quendall Terminals. Adjacent sites
are already developed and served by separate sanitary sewer systems. This report has utilized
programmed project areas and Department of Ecology (DOE) criteria to establish projected sewer flows
without provisions for future growth or connections. See Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for proposed
site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively.
Gross building areas have been used for this report.
An allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day (gpad) has been made for infiltration and inflow since the
proposed sanitary sewer system is expected to be below seasonal high groundwater elevations.
The 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley Lane has not been Included In the infiltration calculation.
A peaking factor of 4.0 was included in the design flows. This factor should account for the daily and
seasonal fluctuations in waste generation. This factor should also mitigate the impact of the varying
flow generations for the different uses proposed with this project.
The sanitary sewer system was designed to convey the estimated peak flows by gravity to the project
discharge location at a new manhole installed on an existing CitY of Renton sanitary sewer pipe. The
sewer capacities were established using Manning's Equation, with an On" factor of 0.013. Sewer lines
have been designed using the minimum slope requirements of the Washington State DOE. The pipe
slopes used in the final design and future construction documents may be greater than the minimum
slope to accommodate potential settlement, depending on the recommendation of the geotechnical
engineer.
2
CanturyPacfflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
5. Design Criteria
Table 5-1: Design Criteria
Use Unit Flow -Galions per Day Peak Factor (gpd)
Residential Per Unit 175 4
Office Per Square Foot 0.2 4
Retail Per Square Foot 0.3 4
Restaurant Per Seat 50 4
1/1 Per Acre 1,100 1
Table 5-2: Building Area Summary and Sanitary Sewer Flows
Use Unit SIze Total Flow -Gallons
per Minute (gpm)
Residential Unit 800 389
Office Square Feet 245,000 136
Retail Square Feet 21,600 18
Restaurant" Seat 396 55
1/1 Acre 20.3 16
Total 614
~Assumes 1 seat per 22.7 square feet
See Figure 5 in the Appendix for calculations.
POINTS OF CONNECTION
Points of connection are available along an existing City of Renton 12-inch concrete sanitary sewer line
that flows south to north within a 60-foot roadway and utility easement along the east side of the
project site to the existing Baxter Lift Station. The point of connection for the proposed development
will be a new manhole constructed over the existing sanitary sewer pipe.
3
CenturyPactflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
EXISTING BAXTER LIFT STATION
The Baxter Lift Station is an existing sewer lift station located at the northeast corner of the project site
within a sanitary sewer easement. The lift station was designed in 2006 and was constructed in
2009. The lift station was designed for an overall peak flow of 594 gpm for the Seahawks Training
Facility, Barbee Mill community, and the Quendall Terminals site. The lift station was designed and
constructed with the following assumptions for future development of the Quendall Terminals site:
Table 5-3' Lift Station Design Assumptions for Quendall Terminals (per Figure 6)
Developable Acres 5 Tributary Area 5,0 Acres
Flow Rate 2,800gpad
Number of Units 75 Tributary Area 3,0 Acres
Persons/Unit 2.4
Flow Rate 100 gpad
Average Sewerage Flow 22.2 gpm Design 1/1 Rate 1,500 gpad
Peaking Factor 4
Design Sewage Flow 88.9 gpm Design Ifl Flow 8.3gpm
Total Design Flow 97.2 gpm Total Design Flow Q peak hourly
The sewer lift station was designed for a flow of 97.2 gpm from the Quendall project site. The
anticipated flow from the Quendall project site is 614 gpm. The sewer lift station capacity will need to
be increased by approximately 517 gpm to 1,111 gpm to accommodate development of the Quendall
Terminals site. Per discussion with the City of Renton Public Works, the existing lift station has the
ability to be modified to increase capacity by changing pump impellers and increasing the wet well
capacity. See Figure 6 in the Appendix for Baxter Lift Station design details and Figure 7 for a record
of discussion with the City.
4
CenturyPactflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
Appendix
Figures
Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2: Existing Site Conditions
Figure 3: Site Plan
Figure 4: Proposed Sewer Plan
Figure 5: calculations
Figure 6: Baxter Lift Station Sewer Report
Figure 7: Telephone Record (Lift Station Flows)
Appendix
KPFF Consulting Engineers November, 2009
VICINITY MAP
NTS
Quendall Terminals Sewer Report Figure 1: Project Location
!
!
I
I
__ -,...~ LAKE WASHINGTON
88.,823 SO FT
20.3 AC
" •
/.' ~ i
I
'I
/ D' BAXTER SEWER un STAll00
If---
I
• I
i <
------------~.----.-.~~ ..... ~:",",:=~: :--C: -~~-.~.; --------_. ----
m=m .~~~~~ti::~f~.~f ... j.
-
EXISTlfG SfTI CONomONS FIG 2
,", '.
····0'·'" .. !
. I .i« .. :
,
,r··· -~~:....:
r--o , .
• j
.• I
!
.
. ~ . ; :;.
::0:; .
~ ~ .
-,' :
~ ~ : , .
i ::. FIG 3 ,.
!
I
j
I
I
! ;
I ,
\ -..
\
-~-~
, I.../IKE 'IIASHIHGTOH
" /<>aI"''o:><~~''''''
"-
HW lR1BUTARY
....... ""'"" .wo ""'" ._bO 1Ol<Iol'<,", ~1I'I1lO. WOlIHIOIj
PROPOSED SEWER PLAN FIG 4
KPFF Consulting Engineers
BUILDING USE AND DISCHARGE POINT PER TRIBUTARY AREA
Trib. Area ID Resid. Office Retail Rest Discharge To
[UNITS] [SF] [SF] [SF]
NE Trib. Area 0 117500 4BOO 0 Reach 3
SE Trib. Area 175 107500 4500 0 Reach 2
SW Trib Area 1 360 0 0 0 Reach :2
SW Trib. Area 2 90 100UO 6300 4500 Reach 4
[
NW Trib. Area 1 100 0 0 0 Reach 3 i
NW Trib. Area 2 75 10000 6000 4500 Reach 4 I
Total
-"-600 245000 21600 ~ Reach 1
------
BUILDING USE PER REACH
Reach ID Resid. Office Retail Rest Rest.
[UNITS] [SF] [SF] [SF] (SEATSJJ
Reach 1 600 245000 21600 9000 396
Reach 2 535 107500 4500 0 0
Reach 3 100 117500 4800 0 0
Reach 4 165 20000 12300 9000 396
INFIL TRA TlON/INFLOW
Site Size [AC! I Flow [GPD/AC]
1100
PIPE CALCULATIONS
Reach JD Upstrm. MH Downstrm, MH lenglh Inner Dia Upslrm. IE
[FT] [IN] [F1]
REACH 1
SSMH #2 SSMH #1 335 12 19.23
REACH 2
SSMH #38-2 SSMH #35-1 276 8 21.88
SSMH #35·' SSMH #2 278 8 20.67
REACH 3
SSMH #3N SSMH #2 340 8 20.92
REACH 4
$SMH#3W SSMH #2 271 8 20.64
Quendall Terminals
Downslrm. IE
[FT]
18.49
20.77
19.56
19.56
19.56
UNIT FLOW AND PEAK FACTOR PER BUILDING USE
u,. Unit Flow1 [GPO] Peak Factor
Residential 175 [per unit~J 4
OffIce 0.2 [per sq ttJ ,
Rata'll 03 [per sq ttl 4
Restaurant, 50 [per seal] 4
III~ 11~ ~crel 1
NOTES
11 Unit flows inctude normal infiltration
Assumes 1.75 residents per uM
13 Restaurant conversion: 1 seat ~ 22.7 square feet of restaurant
Infiltration due 10 high groundwater
FLOW PER REACH
Reach 10 Resid Office Retail Rest. III
[GPM) [GPM] IGPM] [GPM] [GPM]
Reach 1 389 136 18 55 16
Reach 2 260 60 4 0 4
Reach 3 49 65 4 0 4
Reach 4 80 11 10 55 4
Slope " Q~oIl Qr."~ Odol'<JI'1 %Cap.
[FTIFT] ]CFS] [GPM] [GPM]
0.0022 0.013 1.68 754 614 81%
0.0040 0.013 0.77 344 328 95%
0.0040 0.013 0.77 344 328 95%
0.0040 0.013 0.77 344 122 35%
0.0040 0.013 0.76 343 161 47%
Sewer Report
November, 2009
Total
IGPMI
614
328
122
161
Vft~ Origin of Flow
[FPS]
REACH 2, REACH 3. REACH 4
2.14
SE Trib. Area. SW Trib. Area 1
2.19
2.19
NE Trib. Area, NW Trib. Area 1
2.20
SW Trib. Area 2. NW Trib. Area 2
2.19
Figure 5: Calcu[ations
KPFF Consulting Engineers 11/2009
hllp:IJvNrw.rh2, COOl
mail!.IOlC~Th2,rom
1.800.720.8052'
W":STERN WASHINGTON
12100 NE 195111 51.. Su~c 100
B[)lhcll, WA geOn
(leI) 41'5.951.5400
(fax) 425.398-27701
~5~ We:>l Hortoll Road
BelNn!)liam, iNA 9S27.6
(I.CQ ]60.676.0816
(fax) ]60.675.0637
On~ P.'!ci/ir. Building
621 P.aciflt Avertue, Suilt: 104
Tawma. 'Nil 98402
(U':!I) 253.2n lO~9
E:ASTERN WASHINGTON
300 SlmDil &reel SF., Sllil!! 5
(tel) 509.8&6.290~
lfa.) 509.886.2313
J(ITSA,P P'ENINSULA
wo U~p SlfeCl, Suite 101
Port OKhard. WA 983&1
(lei) 360.816.1960
(fn) ]60.876.7093
Quendall Terminals
August 30, 2006
Mi'. GOl'don Wagster
Omeg::t Contractors
P.O. Box 430
Duvall, WA 98019·0430
Sl'!lt 'Via: f.-Mail tlltd US Mat!
Subject: Baxter Lift Station Replacl'Illcnt Project
Sewage Flows for Proposed Lift Station
Dear GOl"<ly:
\Y/c have complctlxl Oll!: flow calculations fot' the propust:J lift station ~l1at
would replace the City-o\vm:d Baxter Lift Station, and 5t![Ve the proposed
Connor Homes Development, the future Seahnwl< F~cl1it}' and the 8 acres of
l11ixcll density property that fits between the two facilities. RH2 Engineering h::l.5
follO\ved the recommended Renton design standards and the Dep~tt1nent of
Ecology g.uideline's for lift station !iizing to c~\kulat~ the expected peak hour fl<)w
at the station when all propcrtJcs are completely built out. The.: results of the
caJcl,.ll~Hjons ,1I:C as follows.
• \X'hen the Seah .. '1wk foorball team is not using their prop()fied facility the
peak hour flow will be .,07 gl'm.
• When the; Scahawk football team is u~ing their propo:.;cd practice facility
the peak hour flow will be 594 gpm.
\Vith such a high \lariabihty is expected peak hout flow to the rift :.;t'ltion we !'Ire
1'ccommclH.ling that you consider using ,t triplex pumping system that could
match the projected 594 gpm flowmte ,,~th two pump. operating at the 'nme
time. A single pump in operation would be expected to pump the pl'Ojectcd 307
grm.
A copy of the calculations has been attached for yOU! rcyicw.
Sewer Report Figure 6: Baxter Lift
J:\dlta\OC1\106.l'o!l!'.O~25l16-1Ir..(;\\Station Sewer Report
KPFF Consulting Engineers 11/2009
~Jt. Cordon \XlagstcT
,\Ub"-lSt .)0, 20[)6
Fag!:: 2
If you h:l\"c any que!'itions or we can be of further m;sistance please do not hesitmc to cuntact
us. \'l./e. appreciate the opportunity to as~ist you with this project and we look forward to
working \vlth yuu on the de:sign and construction of the f~cihty.
Sincerely,
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
t ... rnrk ~vfiller, PE
Project j\hn~lgcr
MM/<p/cc
Enclosure: FIO\v Calcuilltions EXPIRES 7/15/07
cc: ['vll'. Dnvc ChrlStcl1:'>en, City uf Renton
Quendali Terminals Sewer Report Figure 6: Baxter Lift
J 1.,j11~\(}Cr-.1r",.[))jI'(I&!~U':;"IIl-IStation Sewer Report
KPFF Consulting Engineers
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
BAXTER LIFT STATION -FLOW CALCULATIONS
Pro,lect
Job No.:
Designer:
Date:
Version:
Baxter Lift Station
OC1208·0B1
Marl< Miller, P.r:.
August 30, 2006
Final
IDESlGN FLOW CALCULATIONS
loevelopment Calculations· Barhe NUll (Connor Homes)
Number or Unils 140
PersonsJUnil 2.7 per Renton guidelines
(galfpersonlday) Flow Rate 100
Average Sewage
Flow:
Peaking Factor:
Design Sewage Flow:
26.3 9pm
4 (based on basin size)
105.0 gpm
Tributary Area:
Des;gn III Rate:
DeSign lit Flow:
19.3 Acres
1500 galfacre/day
20.1 gpm
Total Design Flow:! 125.1 Igpm Total Design Flow: a peak hourly (max, rate of wastewaler flow)
Notes:
1 ·21 of the 161 dweBings in the de\,lelopmenl will flow to Lake Wa. NO.2.
2
ISeahaWk Faclll~ I
Notes:
Notes:
Number of Employees 75 Tributary Area: 3.0 Acres
Flow Rate 15 (galfperson/day) Design III Rale: 1500 gClllacre/day
Average Sewage Flow: 2.3 gpm
Peaking Faclor: '.0
Design Sewage Flow
w/o Team present: 12.5
"Design Sewage Flow: 300.0 gpm Design III Flow '.1 9.o n1
Total Design Flow:j 303.1 jgpm Total Design Flow: Q peak hourty (max. rate of wastewater flow)
1 "Design sewage flow was given by Mechanical Engineer with Flak and Kurtz
2 Average Sewage Flow is calculated based on an 8 hi" per day nO'N duration
Flow 2800 (gals/acre/cay (gpad»
Number of Units 75 Tributary Area:
PersonsfUnit 2.4 per Renton guidelines
Flow Rate 100 (gallperson}(l'ay)
Average Sewage 22.2 gpm Design III Rate·
Flow:
peaking Factor: 4 (based on basin size)
Design Sewage Flow: 88.9 gpm Design 111 Flow:
Acres
3.0 Acres
1500 gaVacre/day
8.3 gpm
Total Oeslgn Flow:1 97.2 igpm Total Design Flow: Q peak hOurly (max. rale of wastewater flow)
1 8 acres between Barbee Mill and Seahawk. Faci1ily is eJq:lected to be mixed use density
2
gpm averages
4 (based on basin size)
2003 • Presenl
11/2009
813012006.11:36 AM
Quendall Terminals
1 012
Sewer Report Figure 6: Baxter Lift
Station Sewer Report
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Notes:
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
BAXTER LIFT STATION -FLOW CALCULATIONS
DeSign Sewa!je Flow: 72.0 gpm
Total DeSI9" Flow:i 72.0 fgpm
1 Existing 11ft station pump capacity is 200 9pm.
2
Total Design Flow: Q peak hourty (max, rale of wastewater flow)
IContrlbutlon Flow from Exlstlns Baxter Lift Station
Notes:
Average Sewage Fiow: 0,0 gpm
Peaking Fador: 4 (baSed on basI'! site)
Design Sew3ge Flow: 0.0 gpm
Total Design Flow: I 0.0 Igpm
1 Currently no services exist on the Baxter LS.
2 The Misty Cove LS pumps to Baxter al approximately 200 gpm
gpm
Flow: 31.6 gpm
Peaking Factor: 4 (based on population)
Design Sewage Flow: 275 gpm
SeahaWk Pea~ FlOW 300.0 gpm
Currently no services exist on the Baxter lS with the exceptlon of
Misty Cove.
Tolal Design Flow_ Q peak. hourly (max. rate of wastewater flOw)
Barbee + i j + Seahawk offseason
Barbee + Sea hawk + Mixed Density
Total Design FIOWQ' 307 Expected design flow with Seahawks in Ihe offseason
Total DeSign Flo
w/Seahawk: 594 Fxpected deSign ftowwilh Seahawks practice at the facility,
11/2009
813012006,11:36 AM
Quendall Terminals
20f2
Sewer Report Fig ure 6: Baxter Lift
Station Sewer Report
COflSi.1!!l!Jfj [nglf)(]er,~
Notes
By: Tom Jones
Telephone
Record Date: 6116109
TIme Begin: TIme End:
WIth: Dave Christensen
Company: City of Renton Public Works
Address:
Phone: Fax:
Reganllng: Quendall Sewer Capacity, Anticipated Sewer Rows
KPFF Project #: 109116
CC: Campbell Mathewson, Mart<. Veldee
Conversation:
I called Dave to discuss the existing Baxter Sewer Pump Station capacity and its ability to handle the
anticipated flows from the Quendall Terminals development currently being planned.
Existing Baxter Pump Station:
• The existing sewer pump station was designed to include conservative flows from the Quendall sne
(hotel & office only 100gpm). The conservative approach was based on the information at the time
related to traffic constraints that would limn development for the sne.
• The current location of the Baxter Pump Station is wnhin the center of the access drive between the
Seahawks and Quendall, which will require street access between the two sites to "meander" around
the PS. Dave indicated when the PS was planned the access between these two snas did not exist.
Proposed Quendall Flows:
• KPFF has run estimated peak flows based on the 517/09 and 6/16109 Lance Mueller layouts in the
range of 500gpm based on a peaking factor of 4.0. The City uses a peaking factor of 2.0 for individual
site masterplans where specific site density is being planned and the change in peak flow (change is
use/density) is not anticipated to be a major divergence in the future over the original masterplan. A
2.0 peaking factor would provide an estimated sewer demand of 250gpm less the 100gpm available
results in a 150gpm capacity defim.
• Dave indicated the existing pump station has the ability to be modified to increase the existing pump
station capacity by 300+..gpm. This would include changing pump impellers and adding additional wet
well capacity, relatively minor modifications (less than $100k) that would be a Quendall developer
cost.
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle. WA 98101 (206) 622-5822 Fax (206) 622-8130
Seattle Tacoma Portland Everett San Francisco Oakland Sacramento Los Angeles irvine San DIego Phoenix St. louis
Figure 7
• Other availabte options are installing larger pumps but Dave did not believe that would be necessary
as the existing pumps were specifically chosen to allow impeller modifications as they anticipated the
need for additional capacity in the future.
Fees:
• Ouendall has recently been assessed a capacity charge of $166k for their 'fair share" of the Baxter
Pump Station. This assessment was based on 111gpm of capacity, I asked Dave if future
assessments would be required if the flows exceeded the 111gpm. Dave indicated there would be NO
additional capacity charge assessments for the Ouendall site only mechanical pump station upgrades
to increase the pump station capacity to meet our proposed site demand.
KPFF Consufting Engineers Page 2 Telephone Record November 17. 2009
Figure 7
i
.,
I
,r
',:.
A A
\
LARSON
ANTHROP.OlOGICAl
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SERVICES
. ~.O. BOX 70106
SeATTlE
WASHINGTON
s
98107 ~ I
TEL 1206J 782 0980
FAX: [206J 783 2459
,
.j .,
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
JAG DEVELOPMENT, KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
by
Bradley Bowden
Leonard A. Forsman
Lynn L. Larson
Dennis E. Lewarch
Submitted to:
CNA Architecture
777·108th Avenue NE #400
Bellevue. Washington 980()4..S118
Larson Anthropological! Archaeological Services
LAAS Technical Report #97·7
P.O. Box 70106
Seattle, Washington 98107
March 27. 1997
, I
"
I
I
:1
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
ABSTRACT
Larson Anthropological and Archaeological Services (LAAS) conducted a cultural resource
assessment for the proposed JAG Development Project in February and March of 1997.
Examination of archival sources revealed that the Duwamish village, Sbal't', was located at
the former mouth of May Creek and is probably within the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property
or on the Port Quendall property (Harrington~. 1909; Waterman ca. 1920), The site was
identified as a place where fish were dried and May Creek was noted as a spawning area for
"redfish" (either sockeye salmon or lake-locked kokanee salmon) (Harrington ca, 1909;
Waterman ca. 1920). The fieldwork involved a series of opportunistic subsurface shovel
probes designed to determine if buried archaeological deposits exist in the project area. Most
, of the proposed JAG Development project area was either paved with asphalt, covered with
fill, or access was not permitted because the area contained hazardous and dangerous
materials. Shovel probes were excavated in locations that appeared to be the least disturbed
based on an examination of historic and modern maps and consultation with Mark Larsen
(personal communication, 1997) of Remediation Technologies, Incorporated. One possibly
fire modified rock (FMR) was identified in a shovel probe at the north end of the Pan Abode
Cedar Homes property, near the old channel of May Creek." The possible FMR was recovered
from 90 to 100 centimeters below the surface in what appeared to be alluvial deposits. No
other cultural materials or fearures were identified.
The LAAS field reconnaissance was unable to determine if any materials or features related to
the Duwamish village, Sbal't", are present within the proposed JAG Development project area
because less than 10 percent of the project area was examined for subsurface archaeological
remains, It is recommended that a professional archaeologist monitor areas with a high
probability for cultural resources if future subsurface activities related to the proposed JAG
Development Project are planned for those areas. An archaeological monitor should be
present during any further investigation or preCODstruction remediation related to the
potentially hazardous and dangerous materials at the site as well as any ground disturbing
activities associated with construction in high probability areas at the proposed JAG
Development.
ii
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Table of Coments .... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ..... , ..... " iii
List of Figures ................................................. iii
Acknowledgments ............................................... iv
Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Project Description .............................................. 1
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . ..... " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 6
Previous Cultural Resource Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . 6
Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . ... 9
History ..................................................... 12
Field Reconnaissam;e ............................................. 15
Field Methods ................................................ 15
Field Results .............. , ........... , ......... -, -. . . . . . . . . .. 16
Conclusions and Recommendations ................... -. . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
High Probability Areas ................ _ .... __ . _ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Low Probability Areas ...... , _ ................................. 20
Bibliography .................. -.................. , .. , .......... 21
Appendix 1: Agencies and Individuals Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 27
Appendix 2: Tribal Correspondence ................................... 29
Appendix 3: Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet .........,.............. 32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project area location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 2
Figure 2. Project area map showing individual properties and shovel probe locations ..... 3
Figure 3. Historic features, shoreline changes, and former beds of May Creek in proposed
JAG Development Project vicinity ................. , .......... " 5
Figure 4. Recommended monitoring areas in the JAG Development Project area ...... 18
iii
·1 .,
I
I
i
!
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Several individuals contributed to the completion of this cultural resource assessment; the
project would not nave been as successful without them. Jim Spitze, CNA Architecture, was
extremely helpful in facilitating access to the proposed JAG Development property and in
providing necessary documents that LAAS needed to complete this report. Mark Larsen,
Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, also helped in securing access to the proposed JAG
Development property and provided useful information regarding the history of the various
properties that are part of the proposed project. Joe Gibbons and Mike Paulson, Remediation
Technologies, Incorporated, also deserve t1tanks for monitoring fieldwork at the proposed JAG
Development-project area. Joe Gibbons and Mike Paulson not only related infOl.1nation about
hazardous and dangerous materials in the project area but also offered data regarding the soil
and fill episodes in various locations of the proposed JAG Development Project area. Finally,
Stan Greene,. Renton Historical Society and Museum, gave us access to historical information
. and photographs of the May Creek and Kennydale region. His cooperation and assistance was
greatly appreciated.
iv
!
! , ,
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
INTRODUCTION
Larson Anthropologicitl/ Archaeological Services (LAAS) was retained by CNA Architecture
in December 1996 to conduct a cultural resource assessment of the proposed JAG
Development Project. The proposed JAG Development Project would occupy a 60-acre parcel
on the eastern shore of Lake Washington, west of Interstate 405 at Exit 7, NE 44th Street,
North Renton. The proposed JAG Development project area is comprised of four properties:
the Barbee Mill, the Port Quendall Log Yard, the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property, and the
Baxter Property. The Baxter Property has been divided into the South Baxter Property and the
North Baxter Property. The North Baxter Property contains the northernmost portion of the
Baxter property along the shore of Lake Washington and a small wedge of property east of the
shoreline properties, called the north Baxter Property East Wedge. The project area is in
Sections 19 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Bellevue South Quadrangle, King
County, Washington (Figures 1 and 2).
The cultural resource assessment consisted of an archival and literature review, field
reconnaissance, consultation with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Duwamish, and preparation
of this report. Published and unpublished environmental, ethnographic, historic, and
archaeological documents were gathered and reviewed. Environmental, ethnographic, and
historic information was collected from Special Collections, Allen Library, University of
Washington; Renton Historical Society and Museum; and the Renton Library. Archaeological
site forms and project reports were obtained from the Washington State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation.
Field reconnaissance consisted of the excavation of subsurface shovel probes to determine the
potential for buried archaeological deposits in the proposed JAG Development project area.
No cultural resources were identified that may be eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. However, fill and development of the area precluded investigation of at
least 90 percent of the project area. Because ethnographic literature suggests portions of the
project area have a high probability for cultural resources, we recommend that a professional
archaeologist monitor subsurface activities, e.g. geotechnical testing, remediation of hazardous
and dangerous waste, and construction, clearing, grading, and excavation in areas of the
proposed JAG Development Project with a high probability for cultural resources.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed JAG Development would be a mixed-use area containing office space,
conference facilities, restaurants, a marina, recreational spaces, retail shops, a hotel, parking
areas, and residential properties (CNA Architecture 1997). The proposed development is
projected to begin by 1999 and be completed by approximately 2010 (CNA Architecture
1997).
1
,
!
.1
..
'f
-:, ,
,' . .'.
. ,
. .. .. ,
C,g,,,mon
Pol",
" " . ~.,
Figure 1. Project ueaJocatiou.
I'
2
r
N
---Shoreline
o 0.5
I I
Miles
B.S. Map from USGS Bellevue
South. Washington. 19a3.
t
N
o
I
Feet
1000
I
Project Area Boundaries
~1 Shovel Probe #1 location
...," : / ..
.: "~ ,,'. South Baxter
.•. "/.,:-Property
.~r·· /
v.···· \
J:'..-.#o.t, r
~-'" ",.~
w'" \
.".
f , ,
I
l
,
) .... -..,
;:o! \ ,it
~,i II
2 North Baxter Property '"1"--" __ _
C East Wedge 2: 1-"-
:-~.r--'o:o;:,
I
II
Pan Abode
Cedar Homes Property
... 0
r , I
'i,
• • {
\
Ba •• Map From USGS Bellevue
South, Washington, 1983
Figure 2. Project area map showing individual properties and shovel probe locations.
3
'I' "
I '!
JAG Development Cultural Resource Asses'sment
ENVIRONMENT
The proposed JAG Development project area is on the eastern shore of Lake Washington in a
small valley where May Creek enterS the lake. Prior to historic manipulation of the channel,
May Creek dropped from a narrow meandering stream in upland locations to a braided stream
at the mouth which formed a delta, Historic and modem maps of the area show that the mouth
of May Creek naturally moved over time but was also altered to its present course by 1940
(Figure 3) (Kroll Map Company 1940), ' Most of the proposed JAG Development project area
was probably inundated Or subject to periodic flooding prior to the completion of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal in 1916 (Chrzastowski 1983), The mean water level of Lake
Washington was almost nine feet higher than its current level before the Lake Washington Ship
Canal was built (Chrzastowski 1983:3), The mean water level of the Jake probably fluctuated
as much as seven feet, however, due to seasonal and periodic fluctuation in rainfall prior to
completion of the Lake Washington Ship Canal (Chrzastowski 1983:3), An article in the Town
Crier (1917) describes archaeological and botanical remains along the shoreline of Lake
Washington at the mouth of May Creek after the Lake Washington Ship Canal was completed
and the water level had dropped, This corroborates Chrzastowski's (1983) statement
regarding the lake's fluctuation long before the Lake Washington Ship Canal was built,
Periodic advance and retreat of glaciers over the last 37,000 years is largely responsible for
the topography and soils present in the Puget Sound basin, The glacial event responsible for
the current topography of the Seattle area was the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation
(Mullineaux 1970:27). The Vashon glacier originated in British Columbia and brought rocks
and minerals typicaJ of that area southward into the Puget Sound area (Mullineaux 1970:27)
The Vashon glacier began a retreat approximately 1'4000 BP (years before present) and
allowed marine waters into Puget Sound (Crandell 1963), The glacier had fully retreated
approximately 13000 BP leaving deposits collectively known as the Vashon Drift (Galster and
Laprade 1991:252). Lake Washington is one of several glacially scoured lakes in the Seattle
area (Galster and Laprade 1991:247), The Lake Washington vicinity was a glacially scoured
trough prior to 14000 BP. Marine water filled what was to become Lake Washington as the
Vashon Stade retreated northward around 13500 BP. The Cedar River deposited an alluvial
fan across the south end of the marine embayment to form Lake Washington by 13400 BP
(Dragovich et al. 1994; Lecpold et al. 1982; MulIineax 1970),
The shoreline of Lake Washington also fluctuated several times over the past 7,000 years
because of earthquakes (Karlin and Abella 1992, 1993). Large earthquakes triggered
underwater slumping on steep submerged trough walls and landslides on shoreline bluffs,
Over 14 earthquake events were identified in cores from the lake bottom (Karlin and Abella
1992, 1993). The sediment record coincides with dates obtained from submerged forests that
slid into the lake as pan of landslide debris, A forest that slid into Lake Washington during an
1100 BP earthquake along the Seattle Fault, is off the southeast corner of Mercer Island, just
west of the proposed JAG Development project area. The landslides and underwater slumping
4
i , ,
_ •• _ Shoreline Boundary
(United Slates Surveyor General 1864)
---May Creek
(Untted States Surveyor General 1864)
•••••••••••••• Trail
(Untted Slates Surveyor Goneral1864)
_.-.-Shoreline Boundary
(United States Army Corps of Englne.rs 1920)
-----May Creek
(United Slat •• Army Co"," of Engineers 1920)
- - -Farmer Railroad
L 10.8 , -
If
I I-
I
(Uni!ed States Army Corps at Engineers 1920) !
•••••••••• Present May Creek
:;tf##i-r 'Marsh
~:*?.. (United Stale4 Army Corps or engineers 1920)
, '01 >' -,.' "/ 192~ Sh~rellne
(;' - , i, : -, ' ____ , /' / ... t:. J ,-, ..;..;; .... " -_:~_/" /" 1864 Shoreline ~~~naalJ.-;;-;;
/ /",'-. . i'
~ fif/'-/ S --:-:
.... (
i
I
) ........
" !
/
, ,
<0
. ~ .
i
Historic features, shoreline
JAG Development Project vicinity,
5
•
• .. .. -
f
I
. .,)
t o 1000
I I I N L----.F~~~t~--~
Bas. Map Irom USGS Bellevue
South. Washington. 1983
proposed
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
caused large amplitude changes in the lake level (Karlin and Abella 1992: 1619). Sudden
landslides coupled with ground subsidence from an earthquake probably produced large waves
that scoured the Lake Washington shoreline, causing additional landslides and'depositing
sediment. Large waves and earthquake-induced elevation changes in ground surface elevations
probably modified the outfall of Lake Washillgton at the Black River, south of the proposed
JAG Development project area. The proposed JAG Development project area is
approximately three miles south of the Seattle Fault and would have been uplifted during an
earthquake about 1,100 years ago.
The geological history of the proposed JAG Development project area is complex. Changing
ground surface elevations and fluctuating leyels of Lake Washington caused the project area to
be exposed above the Lake Washington shoreline, washed by waves, and/or inundated by
rising lake levels. Hunter-fisher-gatherer sites in the area were alternately raised and/or
inundated.' Cultural deposits were probably covered by landslide debris and/or silt during
periods of submergence. The contemporary ground surface of the project area is probably at a
higher elevation than prior to 1,100 years ago, when the area was uplifted during an
earthquake. This suggests that pre-ll 00 BP shorelines may exist inland from the
contemporary shoreline in the eastern portion of the project area. Pre-llOO BP hunter-fisher-
gatherer occupations may occur in the eastern portion of the project area and may be buried
beneath landslide debris or alluvial deposits.
Prior to European contact, the Puget Sound basin was home to animals typical of the Pacific
Northwest inland forest environment such as deer (Odocoiieus spp.), elk (Cervus canadensis),
black bear (Ursus americanus), coyote (Canis larrans), fox (Vuipes), mountain lion (ji'elis
concoior), bobcat (Lyrrx rufus), raccoon (Procyon 1000r), mink. (Mustela vison), river otter
(Lutra canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra ziethica). Various
species of salmon were also abundant in the Puger Sound basin and were a large part of the
diet of native inhabitants of the region. The Puget Sound basin is part of the Western hemlock
(Tsuga heterophylla) physiographic zone. The overstory vegetation includes Douglas fir,
bigleaf maple, Western red cedar and red alder. Understory vegetation of particular
importance to the native inhabitants of the Puget Sound area included a variety of berries such
as salmonbeoy, blackberry, strawberry, and red elderberry, camas and other lilies, ferns, and
numerous other plants used for economic purposes (Gunther 1981).
CULTURAL BACKGROUND
PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES •
Most of the property on Lake Washington has been privately owned for several decades,
consequently, few archaeological studies have been conducted along the lake. An
archaeological site has never been recorded on Lake Washington despite many references to
Duwamish villages along the shores of the lake in historical documents (Harrington ca. 1909;
6
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
Waterman ca. 1920). Residential and commercial development of the Renton area has
prompted several archaeological projects, however, and the data from those surveys and
excavations offers evidence of the nature of hunter-fisher-gatherer archaeological sites in the
region.
The Sbabidid Site (45KI51) is on the west side of Hardie Avenue SW in Renton along a
reomant chalUlel of the Black River and was recorded by the Office of Public Archaeology
(OPA), University of Washington, as part of a survey for the Earlington Woods PlaMed Unit
Development (Chatters 1981:1). The site contained the remains of at least three structures and
midden deposits which dated from AD 1790 to AD 1856 although radiocarbon dates were not
obtained for several portions of the site (Cqatters 1981:1). Archaeological deposits were
buried approxinuitely one meter below the surface and backhoe trenches were excavated to
help determine the depth of buried deposits (Chatters 1981:31). The precise nature of the site
has been disputed (Butler 1990), but it appers that the site was either a Duwamish" village or a
fishing camp. Subsequent monitoring by Reid (1991: 22) during the construction of the
Earlington Woods Development revealed the presence of seven additional midden areas at the
Sbabidid Site. The Ozbolt property, adjacent and north of the Sbabidid Site, was surveyed by
LAAS in 1988 but no cultural resources were identified despite site maps for the Sbabidid site
that suggest midden deposits were recorded on this properry' (Larson 1988:1,13). The survey
was conducted using surface reconnaissance and shovel testing and Larson (1988: 1,13)
attributed the absence of cultural materials identified during this survey to their probable depth
below the fill. BOAS conducted a cultural resource assessment of the Ozbolt property in 1990
and produced a letter report that indicated the presence Df a possible burial on the property
(Stump 1990: 1). Trade beads, buttons, twisted cedar thread, a fragment of cloth, fragments of
woven cedar bark, cedar wood, and a human bone fragment were identified in a subsurface
survey Df the property (Stump 1990:1). LAAS later surveyed the Ozbolt property for a
proposed apartment complex and relocated the northernmost midden deposits identified by
Chatters (1981) and additional midden deposits in the eastern portion of the property (Lewarch
et al. 1996: 16).
The Tualdad Altu Site (45KI59) was recorded by OPA in 1980 when archaeologists surveyed
the plalUled development of the Black River Corporate Park located downstream from the
Sbabidid Site on the former Black River (Chatters 1988:2). Chatters (1988:50) believed the
site was occupied approximately 1600 BP (before present) but corrected radiocarbon dates for
the Tualdad Aim Site suggest that the site was occupied approximately 1400 BP (Lewarch et
al. 1996:3-5). The Tualdad Altu Site is buried below more than one meter of sterile alluvium
(Chatters 1988:37,47). Chatters (1988:134) believed that the pattern of artifacts, hearths, and
midden deposits at the Tualdad Altu Site represented a similar way of life to that of the
occupants of the Sbabidid Site ~pite approximately 1600 years between occupations.
45KI439 was recorded by LAAS in 1994 and is approximately 200 feet east of the Sbabidid
Site on the east side of Hardie Avenue SW in Renton (Lewarch et al. 1994:Appendix 2). The
site was identified in backhoe trenches and is approximately one meter below the surface
(Lewarch 1994:1). Four hearths containing fire modified rock, midden deposits three to eight
7
";
. ,
I
.'
i.
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
centimeters thick, calcined bone, charcoal, and historic period midden deposits were identified
in tliree trenches (Lewarch 1994:7). The site was identified in association with archaeological
montioring of the proposed location of a Fred Meyer Corporation store (Lewarch 1994: 1) .
The site is deeper than proposed construction would have ta1<en place so no impacts to the site
were expected and no further evaluation of the site was undertaken (Lewarch 1994:10).
The Marymoor Site (45KI9) is on the Sammamish River one half mile from its source at the
north end of Lake. Sammamish (Greengo 1966:6). The Sammamish River and Lake
Sammamish were occupied by the Sammamish band of the Duwamish (Greengo 1966:2). The
Marymoor Site was excavated by Robert Greengo (1966) and students from the University of
Washington in 1964 (Greengo 1966:vi). The site contained numerous lithic tools recovered
. from two layers of midden deposits. A Cascade Phase lithic assemblage with leaf-shaped
Cascade points, large stemmed points, and basalt cobble tools was mixed with later cultural
materials such as small projectile points. Two radiocarbon dates from the site had corrected
age ranges between 1648 and 2741 BP (Lewarch et a1. 1995:Table 1.2). Site deposits were
probably mixed during one or more earthquake events that liquefied sand beneath cultural
strata and forced the sand through cracks to the ground surface (Lewarch et a1. 1995: 1-23).
Marymoor occupations probably date between 3500 BP and 1000 BP based on stratigraphy,
radiocarbon dates, and diagnostic artifacts (Lewarch et a!. 19'95:1-23). The Marymoor Site
may have been a hunting camp whose inhabitants also lived along the shore of Lake
Washington at other times of the year (Forsman and Larson 1995:7).
Other archaeological surveys have been conducted near the proposed JAG Development
project area that failed to identify archaeOlogical sites. OPA conducted a survey of an
extension of sanitary sewers along May Creek which terminated at May Creek's intersection
with Interstate 405. No archaeological remains were identified but Lorenz (1976: 1) noted that
an ethnohistoric village was reponed at the mouth of May Creek. Archaeological and Historic
Services (ARS) , Eastern Washington University, conducted a pedestrian survey of State Road
900 in the upper May Creek Valley but no archaeological resources were ideniified (Robinson
1990:1). AHS conducted two surveys for highway development along Interstate 405 in the
Bellevue area but determined that prior disturbance due to original highway construction had
significantly disturbed native soils and no intact archaeological deposits would be encountered
(Robinson 1982a, 1982b). AHS also conducted a survey of a proposed park and ride lot in
northeast Renton approximately .7 miles southwest of May Creek but no archaeological
resources were identified (Robinson 1983:3).
The Sbabidid Site, the Tualdad Altu Site, and 45KI439 are within five miles of the.proposed
JAG Development project area and were probably occupied by the Duwamish. Sites such as
these and the May Creek village location, Sbal'tU, were identified by Harrington (ca: 1909)
and Waterman (ca. 1920) along the shores of Lake Washington and in upland locations in
several places. Archaeological features and artifacts such as those found at the Sbabidid Site,
the Tuladad Altu site, 45KI439, and the Marymoor Site may also be present within the
proposed JAG Development project area and may be deeply buried below the surface.
8
I
•. 1
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
ETHNOGRAPHY
The proposed JAG Development project area is within the territory of the Duwamish, a Salish-
speaking group who lived in the general vicinity of Seattle. The Duwamish lived ill a series of
villages, loosely allied through kinship and political alliances, that consisted of individual or
multiple cedar longhouses on Elliott Bay, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Salmon Bay, and on
the Duwamish, Green (formerly White), and Cedar Rivers (Duwamish et al. 1933; Harrington
ca. 1909; Larson 1986; Waterman ca. 1920). The Duwamish, who were named for a group
that lived all the Cedar River known as the Dua 'bs, prospered by efficiently procuring food
resources from the rivers, lakes, and marine waters within their territory.
The DuwamiSh were primarily dependent on salmon for food and seasonally harvested and
processed various salmon species as the fish returned to local bays, lakes, streams, and rivers
during spawning migrations. Salmon were harvested in these waters with nets, weirs, traps,
hook. and line, seines and spears. Some of the salmon were consumed fresh, but most were
dried in smokehouses for winter storage or trade. Other marine fishes such as trout, flounder,
octopus, and cod were taken for similar purposes. Lake Washington hosted an especially
abundant variety of freshwater, non-salmonid species including chub, squawfish, bass, perch
and suckers. ShellfIsh, such as clams, mussels, and crabs, were also taken from local Puget
Sound shorelines; and freshwater mus,sels were gathered from lakes and streams. Waterfowl
were snared in aerial duck nets or hunted from canoes. Plant resources, especially berries and
roots, were harvested in the warmer months and processed for winter consumption. Wapato
and camas were two important plant resources used by the local native groups living on or
visiting Lake Washington (Indian Claims Commission 1955:16, 25; Lewarch et al.
1996:3.16). Wapato is a potato-like tuber that grows in flooded areas and camas isa lily-like
flowering bulb that grows in prairie environments. A visitor to Lake Washington witnessed
Duwamish canoers carrying strings of dried clams and cakes made from roots while he was
transported across Lake Washington in 1871 (Cawley 1994:3). This observation demonstrates
the accuracy of later ethnographic research and shows the tenacity of local native culture
several decades after initial contact with non-Indians,
The Duwamish focused their late sununer and fall seasonal food gathering and preservation
activities towards support of their extended residence in the winter houses. Winter
ceremonials, social events, repair and maintenance of fishing equipment, and leisure were the
main activities reserved for the winter season. Several of the winter settlements on Lake
Washington were inhabited by people that spoke the Duwamish language and intermarried
with the neighboring Duwamish villages. Despite the cultural similarities this group
maintained a separate identity from their Duwamish kin and neighbors (Smith 1940: 16) and
have been collectively referred to as: the S'Ke'tehI'mish, meaning people of the Skatelbs
village near the former outlet of Lake Washington at its southerly end (Gibbs 1877; Larson
1986); the Xa'teo'abc meaning "Lake Washington Indians" (Ballard 1929:38; Harrington ca.
1909:Fram.e 314; Smith 1940:17); or simply the Lake Indians (paige 1856b). The Duwarnish
9
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessme1;lt
of Lake Washington lived in winter houses at Kirkland, Juanita, Yarrow Point, Mercer
Slough, Union Bay, Thornton Creek, Bryn Mawr, May Creek and McAleer Creek (Duwamish
et al. 1933; Harrington ca, 1909:314, -421; Larson 1986:31-37; Waterman ca. 1920).
The original shoreline of Lake Washington and the original mouth of May Creek are within
the proposed JAG Development project area (United States Surveyor General 1864). May
Creek was known to the Duwamish of Lake Washington as Sbal't" meaning "place where
things are dr'ied" (Waterman 1922: 191). The name referred to the "great quantities of
redfish" that were harvested at a point ofland which was the mouth of May Creek (Waterman
1922: 191). "Redfish" were the run of sockeye salmon that were taken here each year. It is
unclear if the "redfish" noted by Waterman (1922: 191) are the resident "lake sahnon"
recorded by Sinith (1940:236) or a "select race" of sockeye salmon that migrated to outside
marine waters (Williams et al. 1975:8.601). May Creek was the site of a Duwamish village
consisting of "two medium houses" known as Shub-alugh each measuring "8 by 16 fathoms"
(48 feet by 96 feet) (Duwamish et al. 1933). This name, which is an anglicized approximation
of the term 5bal'l:" recorded by Waterman (1922:191), originates from testimony given by
Duwamish informants for the 11;ldian Claims Commission in 1927 (Duwamis\l et al. 1933),
Harrington (ca. 1909:Frame 421) recorded a group of Duwal)1ish called the Subaltuabs, who
took their name from May Creek, an obvious reference to the people who lived in the May
Creek village.
The Subaltuabs probably caught the sockeye and the smaller resident salmon using a
combination of traps, w!;irs, and dipnets. The marine run of sockeye salmon were probably
smoked in the customary way, either in a cedar planked smokehouse or dried on racks using a
combination of sunlight and a small, smoky fire (Smith 1940:238). "Lake salmon" spawned
in the small drainages of Lake Washington, such as May Creek (Smith 1940:236), Tbey were
cleaned with the backbone left in, smoked and stored for later use.
The Subaltuabs of May Creek had strong contacts with. the neighboring villages of Skatelbs,
Tuwe'b-qo and the other Duwamish villages at the confluence of the Black and Cedar Rivers.
This connection is also suggested by a historic trail from the Black River to the mouth of May
Creek, documented by U.S. territorial government surveyors in 1864 and 1865 (Figure 3)
(United States Surveyor Genera! 1864, 1865). The largest concentration of Duwamish viJIages
was on the Black and Cedar Rivers, giving the May Creek villagers incentive to maintain the
trail as an overland route between villages for economic and social purposes. The trail was
also part of a system that included the trail over Naches Pass used by the Klickitat and other
plateau groups for trade missions with the Duwamish and other Puget Sound groups. The
Puget Sound groups also used the trail to gain access to upland hunting and berrying grounds
(Prater 1981:9-11).
The Subaltuabs lived at their homes on May Creek continuously until events related to the
increased Euroametican settlement of the Seattle area began to affect aboriginal settlement
patterns. Introduced diseases, such as smallpox, were the first effects of non-native contact
felt by the Duwarnish, In addition, settlers began to occupy gathering sites and fishing placeS,
10
. i
JAG Development Cultural Resource ASsessment
causing the Duwamish great concern about the increasing population of non-natives in their
territory (Lewarch et aL 1996:5.162). The United States Government attempted to address
their fears by negotiating treaties with the Duwamish and other Puget Sound tribes in 1855,
The Treaty of Point Elliot was signed in January of 1855 by Chief Seattle for the Suquamish
and Duwarnish Tribes (Lane 1975 :22-23). Original surveys of the area record the village on
the Black River but fail to note any houses on May Creek (United States Surveyor General
1864, 1865). The absence of houses at May Creek in the 1860s suggests that the Subaltuabs
had moved from their winter village and perhaps resettled at other Duwamish villages or on
nearby reservations such as the Muckleshoot or Port Madison Indian Reservations.
The Subaltuabs and the other "Lake Indians." were considered part of the larger Duwarnish
Tribe by the United States Government. The Treaty assigned the Duwarnish to live on the
Port Madison Indian Reservation on the Kitsap Peninsula, far from their aboriginal territory.
Some Duwamish moved to the Port Madison Indian Reservation while others found the nocion
of living in Suquamish territory unsatisfactory and stayed in their homes on the Cedar and
Black Rivers. The treaty tenns and occupation of usual and accustomed fishing and gathering
places motivated some of the more aggressive tribal groups to engage in skirmishes with
regular army troops and volunteers. These were called the Indian War of 1855-56.. Federal
officials were fearful that the Duwamish would engage in hostile activities. They were
especially concerned about the Duwamish on Lake Washington, because they had marital and
trade ties to the plateau groups like the Yakama, who maintained a strong stance against the
military. Indian agency officials attempted to restrain the Duwarnish from joining the conflict
through removal to a temporary reservation in Seattle and by monitoring their movements. It
appears that the Subaltuabs remained at or near their village at May Creek for several months
after the Indian Wax ended according to the local Indian Agent in his December 1856 letters.
He stated that "on the eastern shore of the Lake there are three large houses containing 38
persons" (Paige 1856a) and "the band of Lake Indians are encamped on the east side of the
Lake near the South end" (paige 1856b).
Most of the Subaltuabs and the other "Lake Indians" eventually moved to either the Port
Madison or Muckleshoot Indian Reservations with other Duwarnish people. Relocation 10 the
reservations was probably complete by 1930, after it became obvious to the remaining
Duwarnish that a reservation was not going to be established for their exclusive use. Today,
the Muckleshoot Tribe exercises Treaty fishing rights in Lake Washington as successors to the
aboriginal rights of the "Lake Indians" and other Duwamish groups.
The types of hunter-fisher-gatherer resources expected in the JAG Development project area
would primarily relate to food gathering activities and permanent winter settlement. Remnants
of weirs, traps, smOkehouses, and drying racks built for harvesting the annual sockeye runs
may be preserved beneath the ground surface. Middens and fire hearths from fish processing
and consumption of marine and freshwater resources may also be present. The project area
may also contain house posts, post molds, depressions and other remnants of former winter
11
., ,
·i
·1 ,
. !
JAG Development Cultural R~source Assessment
houses. Projectile points, scrapers, debitage, and adze blades related to hunting and
processing land game, fIsh processing, and winter house maintenance and construction may
also be expected.
HISTORY
Isaac Ebey was the tirst non-native to observe Lake Washington while he ascended the
Duwamish River in 1850, in search of a homestead (Bagley 1929:1:27). After following the
Black River into Lake Washington, Ebey described the lake as "surrounded principally with
woodland, consisting of cedar, fIr, ash, oak, etc ... the water is clear and very deep" (Bagley
1929: 1 :27). Ebey named the body of water Lake Geneva, a short-lived appellation (McDonald
1979: 15-19) .. Lake Washington was permanently renamed Lake Washington in 1854
(McDonald 1979: 15-19). Lake Washington was also known as Lake Dawamish (sic) in early
United States territorial surveys (United States Surveyor Genera11864, 1865). Ebey may have
passed May Creek, called Honeydew Creek in the 1860s (United States Surveyor General
1864), during his investigation of Lake Washington.
The proposed JAG Development project area was first settled by James Madison Colman in
1875 (Bagley 1929:1:413: Fawcett 1979). Colman, who is iuso listed as James Manning
Colman by a local historian (McDonald 1979:75), should not be confused with James Murray
Colman, who was a prominent Seattle sawmill operator, railroad fmancier and coal mine
developer. James Murray Colman originally came to Puget Sound in 1861 to operate the Port
Madison Mill (Bagley 1929:2:48-55). James Murray Colman was very active in the
development of the Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad, a line that went from Seattle to the
Newcastle coal mines 2.2 miles east of the project area. The historical occurrence of two
J. M. Colmans in close proximity to each other has caused the men to be mistakenly
identified. The J. M. Colman of May Creek will be referred to as J. Madison Colman to
avoid further confusion.
J. Madison Colman, who was bam in Kentucky, came to Seattle from his home in Georgia by
ship with his wife Clarissa in approximately 1875 (Fawcett 1979; McDonald 1979:75).
Shortly after his arrival, J. Madison Colman acquired a 160-acre parcel of land bisected by
May Creek, formerly the homestead of Jeremiah Sullivan, who, in turn, had acquired the
property from the United States Government in 1873 (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated
1996: 1.1). He cleared one acre of his property and built a house where he lived with his wife
and four children (McDonald 1979:75-77). J. Madison Colman was elected to a position as
King County Commissioner in 1880 and 1882 (McDonald 1979:77). He was murdered in
1886 while rowing to Seattle to testify in a land claim dispute. The suspect in the murder was
a neighbor that Colman had accused of illegally obtaining title to his lands. The suspect was
tried three times and finally convicted, however, his sentence was later overturned (Bagley
1929:1:4l3-414; McDonald 1979:77-78). Coleman Point at Kennydale, approximately one-
half mile south of the project area, was named for J. Madison Colman (McDonald 1979:75).
12
· i
I .,
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
J. Madison Colman's widow, Clarissa, maintained ownership of the homestead after his death
but the property remained unused for several years. Lands near the northern boundary of the
project area were used for access to coal fields in the Newcastle Hills. The 1864 survey of the
area in which the JAG Development project area is located shows an unfinished wagon road
one-quarter mile northeast of the project boundary. The road runs east to west from the
shoreline of Lake Washington parallel to the northern boundary, but is entirely outside the
project area. This road was built to haul coal to Lake Washington from Newcastle for
shipment to Seattle (Bagley 1929:1:285; United States Surveyor General 1864). In 1902, the
timber on the Colman property, which still encompassed the entire project area, was sold
(Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:1.1). A year later, the Northern Pacific
Railroad acquired a right-of-way through the Colman property for construction of a railroad
spur along the eastern shore of Lake Washington that connected Woodinville and Renton. The
Lake Washington Belt Line Railroad had attempted to build the same spur .in 1590, but this
railroad was only partially completed (McDonald 1979:53). The Lake'Washington Belt Line
Railroad was intended to unite iron ore from the Cascades with coal from near the Carbon
River for processing purposes. The railroad route along the eastern shore was later built by
the Northern Pacific Company around 1905 (O'Hare 1905; Slll.uson 1976:182; Way 1989:37-
38) with five stations along Lake Washington: Kirkland, Houghton, Northrilp, Wilburton, and
May Creek (Scott and Turbeville 1983:53).
The Colman family began selling parts of their 160-acre homestead after 1908. In 1916, Peter
Reilly purchased a waterfront portion of the original Colman property (Remediation
Technologies, Incorporated 1996:1.1). This parcel of land became the Quendall Terminals
Property where Reilly estaplished the Republic Creosote Company in 1917; later. the company
was known as the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation (McDonald 1979:78; Remediation
Technologies. Incorporated 1996:3.1). take Wasfimgton was lowered just a few months after
Reilly purchased his parcel when the Lake Washington Ship Canal and the Hiram Chittenden
Locks were constructed in the summer of 1916, The project was initiated to provide improved
navigation to Puget Sound, to help control flooding, and to provide moorage for Naval ships
(Ballard News Tribune 1988:88; Chrzastowskl1983:7). Lowering Lake Washington's water
level expanded Reilly's holdings to over 29 acres (Kroll Map Company 1926). The Quendall
area received its name from a mistaken creosote order from England addressed to a plant at
Port Quendall and a variation of the name is still used on modern maps and by current owners
(McDonald 1979:78). The Reilly Tar Company used the tar by-products generated by the
Lake UnionGas Works to produce creosote and other refined products (McDonald 1979:78;
Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:3.2). The plant was operational from 1917 to
1969.
Another parcel of the Colman property, which was eventually owned by the Baxter Company,
was sold in approximately 1914 for establishment of a shingle production facility (Remediation
Technologies, Incorporated 1996:4.1). The property was owned by Sound Timber Company
in 1926 which owned and operated the shingle mill (Kroll Map Company 1926). The shingle
mill was just outside the project area and was demolished between 1936 and 1946
(Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:4.1). The remaining property was owned by
13
1
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
Peter Reilly and two other individuals, a Mr. Falk and Emil Gaupholm, who built residences
on the property, according to Remediation Technologies, Incorporated (1996:2.l). The
property was owned by J. B. Polk in.1936 (Metsker 1936) but was sold to Mr. Rydeen by
1940 (Kroll Map Company 1940). The property may have changed hands many times over
the years or county -atlases were not frequently or reliably updated resulting in the
contradictions between tirle records and county atlases. The property was finally leased to the
Baxter Company in 1955 which established a wood treatment facility where logs were
debarked and treated for use for telephone poles and pilings (McDonald 1979:78; Remediation
Technologies, Incorporated 1996:4.2). A few years later the Baxter Company purchased the
property. The majority of facility operations has recently been transferred to another site in
Arlington, Washington.
The last parcel of the Colman property within the proposed JAG Development project area
was held by the Colman family through 1940. From 1926 to 1936 the land was owned by
James Colman, possibly one of J. Madison Colman's descendants, or the name is a reflection
of the persistence of the deceased Colman's name in land records (Kroll Map Company 1926).
In 1940, the land was owned by George Lathrop Coleman (sic), a son of 1. Madison Colman
(Fawcett 1979). The land was sold by the Colmans to the B.arbee Marine Yards in 1943, a
company that built ships for the military during World War II (Remediation Technologies,
Incorporated 1996:2.2). A sawmill was built on-site to process wood for shipbuilding. After
the war ended, the Barbee Mill abandoned shipbuilding and concentrated on sawmill
operations.' The Barbee Mill is in operation today.
Most of the remaining lands around the project area were sold by the CoImans to C. D.
Hillman, a real estate developer who established the Garden of Eden tracts in the early 1900s.
The Garden of Eden tracts were the stimulus for the development of Kennydale, named for
Hillman's brother-in-law and best salesperson (Kroll Map Company 1926; McDonald'
1979:78; Slauson 1976:180-181). Hillman's development attracted several families which
established homes and small farms. Many others were employed in Jogging .local timber that
was transported to Lake Washington on the May Creek Lumber Company's log railroad along
May Creek (Slauson 1976: 180-181). The first road along the lake shore was built in 1918 and
is now known as Lake Washington Boulevard (Slauson 1976:181). Interstate 405 was
completed in the early 1960s as part of the expanding interstate highway network.
Historic archaeological resources which may be expected in the JAG Development project area
would be associated with early residential and industrial development. Types of resources
would be structural remnants of early creosote refinery-structures and equipment, remains of
the first Northern Pacific Railway tracks, evidence of the May Creek Lumber Company's
logging railroad, andlor other early sawmill activity. Indications of these occupations would
be railroad timbers and trackage, historic refuse, machinery parts and components, and
roadbeds. Evidence of early residential development would be indicated by house foundations,
root cellars, structural remnants, and historic artifact assemblages.
14
. ,
!
JAG Development Cultural Resource AsSessment
FffiLD RECONNAISSANCE
FIELD METHODS
The proposed JAG Development properties are currently developed as the Barbee Mill, Port
Quendall Log Yard, the Baxter Property, and the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property. The
Baxter Property is divided into two parcels; one of the parcels contains two areas. The North
Baxter Property includes the northern end of the Baxter Property and a small wedge of
property east of Ripley Lane (Hazelwood Lane) and west ofInterstate 405 called the North
Baxter Property East Wedge (Figure 2). The South Baxter Property contains the area where
the Baxter WotJd Treating facility was located (Figure 2). These properties were historically
occupied and recently modified to such an extent that few surfaces or exposures of native soil
were available throughout the proposed JAG Development site for field investigation. The
Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property and the Barbee Mill Properties are paved with asphalt and
subsurface investigation was only possible at the extreme margins of the properties. The
Baxter Property is currently undeveloped but the southern portion of the property was a wood
treating plant between 1955 and the early 1960s (RemediatioI,l Technologies, Incorporated
1996:4-2). Contamination of the soil on the South Baxter Property from creosote forbade
subsurface archaeological investigation (Mike Paulson, persona! communication 1997).
Creosote and other chemicals were rnanufacmred on the Port Quendall Property between the
late 19105 and late 1960s and could not be shovel-probed due to contamination of the soil
(Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:3-5; Mike Paulson, personal communication
1997). The North Baxter Property and the North Baxter Property East Wedge were the only
large parcels that were available for subsurface investigation.
The field reconnaissance was conducted by LAAS archaeologist Bradley Bowden on March 4,
5, and 7, 1997. Joe Gibbons and Mike Paulson of Remediation Technologies, Incorporated,
monitored Bradley Bowden's movements throughout the project area to insure that no
potentially hazardous' materials were encountered during the field reconnaissance. Joe
Gibbons monitored fieldwork on March 4, between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and on March
5, between 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., and Mike Paulson monitored fieldwork on March 4,
between 10:30 a.m. and 4:30 p..m. and on March 7, between 8:30 a.m. and 2:30p.m. Shovel
probes were placed in areas of the proposed JAG Development parcels that appeared to exhibit
minimal dismrbance based on historic maps and information relating to the previous and
current use of the properties. Reconnaissance was focused primarily on the eastern portion of
the JAG Development project area because most of the western portion of the properties was
under water prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and because no soil
contamination was in these areas.
Shovel probes were approximately 35 centimeters in, diameter and were an average of 80
centimeters deep. Two shovel probes were excavated to depths below one meter and two
shovel probes were terminated between 20 and 30 centimeters below the surface because large
cobbles related to fill episodes were encountered. The shoveled portion of the probes was
15
1
'I ,
I . ' ','
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
terminated at approximately 65 centimeters below the surface and a frve and one quarter-inch
(13 centimeter) diameter auger was used to complete the probe, All sediments excavated in
the shovel probes were passed through 1/4" and 1/8" screen. Field notes, photograph
records, and photographs are stored in LAAS project files.
FIELD RESULTS
One cobble-sized, possibly fire modified rock (FMR), was identified in Shovel Probe #9 on
the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property (Figure 2), This rock was recovered in pebble-sized
stream deposits and may have been broken naturally. The possible FMR was recovered from
soils buried 90 to 100 centimeters below the, surface, No other cultural materials were
identified in Shovel Probe #9, Shovel Probe #12, at the southeast corner of the Port Quendall
Log Yard, contained small charcoal deposits within the soil at a depth of 90 to 100 centimeters
that may have been related to human activities in the area. No other cultural materials or
archaeological sites were identified during the field reconnaissance.
Fill was encountered in all but two of the shovel probes and was between 30 and 90
centimeters in depth. The most shallow fi.ll episodes were noted in the eastern portion of the
North Baxter Property near the railroad tracks. The deepest 'fill episode was in the
southeastern ponion of the Pan Quendall Log Yard, near the old channel of May Creek. Four
of the 12 shovel probes were terminated because the till was impenetrable.
Approximately 10 percent of the proposed JAG Development Project area was shovel-probed
for buried archaeological deposits_ The remaining 90 percent of the project area was not field
assessed because access to buried deposits was not possible. The Barbee Mill and the Pan
Abode Cedar Homes Properties were mostly paved with asphalt or contained existing
structures. Three shovel probes were successfully excavated in these areas, comprising 27
acres of the 60-acre JAG Development Project area. The Port Quendall Log Yard and the
South Baxter Property were identified as having hazardous and dangerous materials on and
below ground surface by Remediation Technologies, Incorporated (Mark Larsen, personal
communication 1997), Access to the majority of these properties was not possible due to
contamination of soils below the surface. One shovel probe was excavated at the extreme
southeast corner of the Port Quendall Log Yard within one meter of a Remediation
Technologies, Incorporated, soil probe that was free of contaminants (Mike Paulson, personal
communication 1997). The Pon Quendall Log Yard Property and the South Baxter Property
comprise 20 acres of the 60-acre JAG Development project area. The North Baxter Property
is divided into two parcels; the larger is adjacent to the South Baxter Property and is 19 acres
in area. Three of four shovel probes in this parcel encountered impenetrable fill and were
terminated before native soils could be observed. The smaller North Baxter Property is the
North Baxter Property East Wedge, a one-acre wedge-shaped parcel east of Ripley
(Hazelwood) Lane and west of Interstate 405 (Figure 2). Three shovel probes were excavated
in this area and native soils were encountered in all three shovel probes.
16
1
·1
.1
I
I
'\
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
Soils that appeared to be native and undisturbed ranged from sand to loam and contained
abundant waterwom pebbles and cobbles. The soil identified in shovel probes in the eastern
portion of the project area tended to be a mixture of sandy loam and sandy silts and contained
moderate amounts of pebbles and small cobbles. These soils appeared to be remnant alluvial
deposits from flooding and movement of May Creek. Soils in the western portion of the
proposed JAG Development project area tended to be fine to coarse sands with abundant
waterworn pebbles and cobbles. These deposits were suggestive of beach deposits associated
with the changing shoreline of Lake Washington.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were
identified in the proposed JAG Development project area during archival review or field
reconnaissance. Literature review indicated that the mouth of May Creek was in the Port
Quendall L()g Yard portion of the proposed JAG Development Ptoject area prior to modem
channelization. Waterman (ca, 1920) identified the Ouwamish site Sbal't" at this location, a
village with two winter houses known as a good place for fishing and drying redfish (sockeye
or kokanee salmon). The village was recorded by two anthropologists shortly after the tum of
the century and was occupied at least until the Treaty of Point Elliot was signed in 1855. No
Duwamish 'village occupations or any type of archaeological sites have been recorded on Lake
Washington. Environmental factors and the location of archaeological sites south of Lake
Washington on the old Black River channel suggest that archaeological remains are probably
extant under fill and or pavement associated with the proposed JAG Development. However,
fIeld reconnaIssance of the proposed JAG Development project area was llIDlted by modem
and historic changes to the area, including fill episodes, asphalt and concrete paving, and
potentially hazardous materials on and below the ground surface. Lake fluctuations from
earthquakes and historic modifications have alternately submerged and uplifted the Lake
WaShington shoreline, burying andlor eroding hunter-fisher-gatherer deposits over time. In
addition, the mouth of May Creek has moved across the landscape leaving alluvial deposits or
scouring earlier surfaces. Predicting the location of high probability areas for cultural
resources becomes a challenge. Nevertheless, it is entirely likely that archaeological remains
are extant on the proposed JAG Development project area.
MONITORING
Monitoring for archaeological materials is recommended in all fu1JJre subsurface activities in
high probabiliry areas within the proposed JAG Development project area. Monitoring should
be included in any future activities relating to the cleanup of the potentially hazardous
. materials in high probability areas of the project area as well as during any construction
activities related to the proposed JAG Development. High probabili~ areas are those that are
most likely to contain archaeological deposits (Figure 4). A professional archaeologist should
be on-site to monitor any subsurface activities to insure that no intact archaeological materials
17
If' 0 1000 \ t •• ! -r. -
I I F~et I :. til: -~---Project Area Boundaries l~· }< ~ ,
----Shoreline ~);.-.. 'SI'
.:'!.'ij'{'PJ!P.1f". Recommended Cultural '-' ,. \ '''&'40'Ji[~1! Resource Monitoring Locations . -. tn" ~
'.:'IFill/" i-:; './ ,.. ; • '._~,\I' . I, '.'.' '/11;,. i '-'.' / ~ I,; . . '" '#/'15'-~-"'>'-'-.. ' North Baxter • I /, / ' .......... /......." P rty
. .' ./ v'.' ..•. / .. :f;L~{L.."",;;,,--"':-Y~~~::--,"";]H+-ffV rope ----"'--:A" ~ .;...
"': :'. South Baxter' •
.; ./ ) Property
-;,~'j;//, ... " .. !
.~ .,"'" . ~
,.. • A.. ~
I' ~._ ........ ::,,~ ........ , j
" -.. -
./ ::01 ....... J';/U/ rT'1 r "
2 North Baxter Property
C 1 .. Z!
East Wedge I / ./
~....1 ........... -:;;. - \
_---t\-o . ~
j
III -r
1 . -0 1\ ,... r.
Pan Abode
Cedar Homes Property
....
.) t-(~·
;-J · ,
I ,
Base Map From USGS Bellevue
South. Washington. 1983
Figure 4. Recommended monitoring areas in the JAG Development project area.
18
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
or features are adversely affected during such activities. If any archaeological materials or
features are identified during monitoring of subsurface activities, the activity should be halted
immediately in areas large enough to maintain the integrity of the remains to allow the
archaeologist to determine the integrity and significance of the materials and! or features. If the
archaeologist determines that a probably significant archaeological site is present, a testing
strategy for evaluation should be developed through consultation with the Washington State
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Tribe. If human
remains are identified during subsurface activities, construction must halt in an area large
enough to maintain integrity of the remains and the Washington State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Tribe contacted immediately.
HIGH PROBABILITY AREAs
Areas that are most likely to contain archaeological deposits within the JAG Development
project area are those that border old channels of May Creek, areas that border the trail shown
on the U. S. Surveyor General map from 1864, areas adjacent to the 1864 shoreline and areas
near the current shoreline in the May Creek mouth vicinity that may have been exposed and
inundated repeatedly over time because of water level flucmations. High probability areas in
the JAG Development project area include all of the Port Quimdall Log Yard, a portion of the
South Baxter Property, the central portion of the North Baxter Property, and northern portions
of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes and Barbee Mill Properties (Figure 4). The Port Quendall
Log Yard contains the old channel of May Creek visible on the 1864 GLO map and the 1920
DNR map (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1920; United States SUrveyor General
1864). It also contains the end of the historic trail shown on the 1864 GLO map. The 1920
DNR map shows a marsh in the eastern portion of the Port Quendall Log Yard where the
mouth ofhlay Creek formed a aelta (FIgure 3). This area was undoubtedly used by the
inhabitants of the Duwamish village Sbal'!" to gather plants such as wapato and to fish. The
South Baxter Property borders the Port Quendall Log Yard on the north and was probably also
occupied by hunter-fisher-gatherers. The 1920 DNR map of the project area shows two small
promontories that were probably fonned when stream-born alluvial deposits entered the lake
(Figure 3). The early historic period shoreline shown in the 1864 United States Surveyor
General Map traverses the North Baxter Property and may have been used by hunter-fisher-
gatherers after 1,100 years ago. Non-village, lacustrine sites may be adjacent to the shoreline.
It is likely that an old channel of May Creek was in the southern portion of the South Baxter
Property and that native inhabitants of the JAG Development project area used the area for
fishing and gathering. The northern portion of the Barbee Mill also borders the Port Quendall
Log Yard and may contain archaeological resources related to the activities mentioned
previously. The northern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Propertycontalns old
chaMels of May Creek that were several meters east of fluctuating lake shorelines. The
property was probably not subject to inundation and may have been occupied when lake levels
were high and the Port Quendal1 Log Yard was under water. The historic trail shown on the
1864 GLO map intersected with May Creek m. the northern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar
Homes Property which suggests that an archaeological site may be in the immediate vicinity.
19
.'
.1
i
.,
.I
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
Low PROBABILITY AREAS
The North Baxter Property and the Noi-th Baxter Property East Wedge were successfully
shovel probed below fill and contained no archaeological deposits, however, areas near the
early historic period shoreline may have undiscovered cultural deposits. Likewise, the
southern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property was successfully shovel probed and
contained 1),0 archaeological deposits. These areas may have been slightly outside the use area
of the inhabitants of the Duwamish village Sbal't". The North Baxter Property East Wedge,
portions of the North Baxter Property away from the early historic period shoreline, and the
southern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property are considered to have a low
probability of containing archaeological deposits, Shovel probes were attempted in the
southern portion of the Barbee Mill but were completely inundated with ground water and
appeared to contain several feet of fill. This portion of the project area may have been under
water prior to historic use of the JAG Development project area and is considered to be a low
probability area as well. The current shoreline of the JAG Development project area is fill
material that was placed from 100 to 1,000 feet west of the 1864 shoreline (Figure 3).
Contemporary offshore bathymetry with water depth in two meter contours (Figures 1 and 3)
shows a broad submarine platform west of the project area to a depth of 10 meters below the
low water elevation of Lake Washing!on. This is probably tfie submarine portion of the May
Creek delta. Higher elevations of this offshore platform may have been exposed during low
stands of Lake Washington during the past 1,100 years, but were probably not available for
hunter-fisher-gatherer use before then, when the landform was probably uplifted during an
earthquake. The curren! shoreline is therefore considered low probability in all areas of the
JAG Development project area. In areas that are considered to be high probability and have
shoreline portions, e.g, the Port Quendall Log Yard, the South Baxter Property, and the
northern portion of the Barbee Mill Property, a 100 foot (approximately 30 meter) area from
the shoreline east should be considered to be low probability.
20
JAG Development CLlltural Resource Assessment
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bagley, Clarence B.
1929 History oj King County, 4 vols. S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, Seattle.
Ballard News Tribune
1988 Passport to Ballard: The Centennial Story, Ballard News Tribune: A Division of
Newspaper Enterprises of Washington State Company, Seattle.
Ballard, Arthur C.
1929 Mytlrology of Southern Puget Sound. University oj Washington Publications in
Anthropology 3(2): 131-150. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Butler, Virginia L.
1990 Fish Remains from the Black River sites (45KI59 and 45KI51-D). Archaeology in
Washington 2:49-65.
Caner, M. J.
1917 Lake Washington's New Beach Line. Town Crier 14 April, 1917.
Cawley, Maninus
1994 Indian Journal oj Rev. R. W. Summers. Guadalupe Translations, Lafayette, Oregon.
Chatters, James C.
1981 Archaeology ojthe Sbabadid Site 45K151, King County, Washington. Office of
Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington.
On file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
1988 Tualdad Altu (45KI59), a 4th Century Village on the Black River. King County,
Washington. First City Equities, Seattle.
Chrzastowski, Michael
1983 Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route oj the Lake Washington Ship
Canal. King County, Washington. Water Resources Investigation Open-File Report
81-1182.
CNA Architecture
1997 Port Quendall Planned Action EIS In/ormation, Proposed Conditions. CNA
Architecture, Seattle.
21
I
1
I
I
j-:-l'
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
Crandell, Dwight R.
1963 Surficial Geology and Geomorphology of the Lake Tapps Quadrangle,
Washington. Geological Survey Professional Paper 388-A.· Department of the
Interior. Washington, D.C.
Dragovich, Joe D., Patrick T. Pringle, and Timothy J. Walsh
1994 Extent and Geometry of the Mid-Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland:
Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleography. Washington Geology
22(3):3-26.
D\lwanilsh et aI. Tribes ofIndians v. The United States of America
1933 Testimony before the Court of Claims of the United States. Proceedings of the
Indian Court of Claims, No. F-275.
Fawcett, Clarissa M.
1979 CoJmanFamily History. Letter from Clarissa M. Fawcett to Renton Museum, 3
March. On file at the Renton Historical Society, Renton, Washington.
Forsman, Leonard and Lynn Larson
1995 Regional Wastewater Services Plan Cultural Resource Management Overview Draft
T~chnical Memorandum. LAAS Technical Report 95-12. Submitted to CH2M Hill,
Bellevue, Washington.
Galster, Richard W. And William 1'. Laprade
1991. Geology of Seattle Washington, United States of America. Bulletin of the
Association of Engineering Geologists, Volume XXVIII. Number 3:235-302.
Gibbs, George
1877 Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Contributions to North
American Ethnology 1(2):157-361. John Wesley Powell, editor. U. S. Geographical
and Geological Survey of the Rocley Mountain Region. Reprinted. Shorey Books,
Seattle, 1970.
Greengo, Robert E.
1966 Archaeological Excavations at the Marymoor Site (45Kl9). A Report to the National
Park Service Region 4, Order Invoice Voucher 34-703 Sammamish Flood Control
Project. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Gunther, Erna
1981 Ethnobotany o/Western Washington, the Knowledge and Use of Indigenous Plants iJy
Native Americans. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
22
I . I
j
I .i
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
Harrington, John P,
ca. John P. Harrington Papers. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian
1909 Instirution. Reel 15, 1907-1957, on microfilm at Suzzallo Library, University of
Washington, Seattle,
Indian Claims Commission
1955 Defendant's Request for Findings of Fact, Objections to Findings of Fact requested
by Petitioner, and Brief, Docket No, 109, The Duwamish Tribe of Indians v. The
United States of America. Indian Clalms Commission. Washington. D.C. Frederick
W. Post collection. Box 23. On file Suquamish Tribal Archives, Suquamish.
Washington,
, .
Karlin, Robert E. and Sally B. Abella
1992 Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound Region Recorded in Sediments of Lake
Washington, U,S,A. Science 258:1617-1620.
1993 A History Of Past Eanhquakes Recorded in Lake Washington Sediments, Paper
presented in the U.S, Geological survey and Quaterpary Research Center. University
of Washington Conference on Large Earthquakes and Active Faults in the Puget
Sound Region.
Kroll Map Company
1926 Kroll's Atlas of King County. Kroll Map Company, Seante.
1940 Kroll's Atlas of King County. Kroll Map Company, Seattle,
Lane, Barbara
1975 Identity and Treaty Status of the Duwamish Tribe of Indians, Report prepared for the
US Department of the Interior and the Duwarnish Tribe. Ms, on file at Special
Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle.
Larson, Lynn L.
1986 Ethnographic and Historic Duwarnish Land Use. On file at Larson Anthropological/
ArchaeolOgical Services. Seattle.
1988 Cultural Resource Investigation of a Proposed Warehouse in Renton, King County,
Washington. Submitted to Public Storage, Incorporated, Renton, Washington. Letter
report on file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia.
Leopold, Estella B., Rudy J, Niekman, John I. Hedges, and John R. Ertel
1982 Pollen and Lignin Records of Late Quaternary Vegetation, Lake Washington.
Science 218: 1305-1307.
23
1
" ,
'1
. ,
I •
, .:
JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment
Lewarch, Dennis E.
1994 Cultural Resources Field Assessment of the Fred Meyer Corporation Building Project
Area, Renton, King County, .Washington. Submitted to Fred Meyer Corporation,
Portland, Oregon. Letter report on me Washington State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Olympia.
Lewarch. Dennis E., Lynn L. Larson, and Leonard A. Forsman
1995 Introduction. In The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington, 4,000 Years of
Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Sourhern Puget Sound, 2 vols, pp. 1-1-1-39 .
Edited by Lynn L. Larson and Dennis E. Lewarch. Larson Anthropological/
Archaeological Services, Seattle. Submitted to the King County Department of
Metropolitan Services, Seattle.
Lewarch, Dennis E., Lynn L. Larson, Leonard A. Forsman, Guy F. Moura, Eric W. Bangs,
and Paula Mohr Johnson
1996 King County Depaitment of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Division,
Alki Transfer/CSa Project Allentown Site (45K1431) and White Lake Site (45KI438
and 45KI438A) Data Recovery .. LAAS Technical Report #95-8. Larson
Anthropological! Archaeological Services, Seattle. Submitted to HDR Engineering,
Bellevue, Washington and King County Department of Natural Resources, Water
Pollution Control Division, Seattle.
Lorenz, Thomas H.
1976 Archaeological Assessment, Army Corps of Engil1eers, Permit Number 071-0YB-J-
002916. Phase 1" May Creek Interceptor, METRO/King County Water District
Number 107. Letter report submitted to Moore, Wallace and Kennedy, Incorporated,
Seattle. On file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia.
McDonald, Lucile
1979 The Lake Washington Story. Superior Publishing Company, Seattle.
Metsker, Charles
1936 Metsker's Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company, Seattle.
Mullineaux, Donald R.
1970 Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County,
Washington. Geological Survey Professional Paper 672, United States Govermnent
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
O'Hare, Daniel
1905 State of Washington. Compiled from the Official Records of the General Land Office
and other sources. In Early Washington Atlas, 1981, Ralph Preston, Binford and
Mort, Portland, Oregon.
24
.! ,
I
I
JAG Development Cultural R~ource Assessment
Paige, George
1856a Report to Isaac 1. Stevens, Superintendent ofIndian Affairs, Washington Territory.
December 29, 1856, Fort Kitsap, Washington Territory. On microfilm, U.S.
National Archives, Records of the Washington Superintendency of Indian Affairs,
Letters received from Puget Sound, Microcopy 5, Roll 10.
l856b Report to Isaac L Stevens, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory.
December 31,1856, Fort Kitsap, Washington Territory. On microfilm, U,S.
National Archives, Records of the Washington Superintendency of Indian Affairs.
Letters received from Puget Sound, Microcopy 5, Roll 10.
Prater, Yvonne
1981 Snoqualmie Pass, From Indian Trail to Interstate. The Mountaineers, Seattle.
Reid, Al
1991 Archaeological Monitoring at Sbabadid Site (45Kl51) During the Earlington Woods
Development Project, 1990. Submitted to the Holly Corporation, Tacoma, Contract
Job No. 947001.
Remediation Technologies, Incorporated
1996 Review of Historical Tnformation and Environmental Records for the Baxter,
Quendall and Barbee Mills Properties. Prepared for JAG Development Corporation,
Bellevue, Washington.
Robinson, Joan
1982a SR 405: Factoria to Northup Way-HOV, Archaeological and Historical Services,
Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Prepared for Washington State Department
of Transportation, Seattle. Letter report on file Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
1982b SR 90: Bellevue Access Study, Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern
Washington University, Cheney. Prepared for Washington State Department of
Transportation, Seattle. Letter report on file Washingtoll State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation, Olympia.
1990 A Cultural Resources Survey of SR 900: Junction SE May Valley Road, King County,
Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington
University, Cheney. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation,
Seattle. Letter report on file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Olympia.
Scott, James W. and Daniel Turbeville m
1983 Whatcom County in Maps 1832-1837. Center for Pacific Northwest Studies and the
Fourth Corner Registry, Bellingham, Washington.
2S
JAG Development Cultur~l Resource Assessment
Slauson, Morda C.
1971 One Hundred Years Along the Cedar River. Maple Valley Historical Society, Maple
Valley, Washington.
1976 Renton, From Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, Washington.
Smith, Marian W.
1940 The PuyaUup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,
Volume 32. Columbia University Press, New York.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
1920 Survey of Lake Washington Shoreline at May Creek. On file at Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, Olympia.
United States Geological Survey
1983 Bellevue South, Washington 7.5 Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey,
Reston, VA.
United States Surveyor General
1864 General Land Office Map, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian.
Washington State Deparnnent of Natural Resources, Olympia.
1865 General Land Office Map, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia.
1864-Genera! Land Office Surveyor's Notes, Township 24 North, Range 5 East,
1865 Willamette Meridian. Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Olympia.
Waterman, T. T.
ca. Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript on file Pacific Northwest
1920 Collection, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle.
1922 Geographic Names Used by Indians of the Pacific Coast. Geographical Review
12: 175-194.
Way, Nancy
1989 Our Town Redmond. Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Williams, R. Walter, Richard M. Laramie, and James J. Ames
1975 Catalog of Washington Streams cmd Salmon Utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound
Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia.
26
Appendix 1
Agencies and Individuals Contacted
Agencies and Individuals Contacted
Jim Spitze, Director, CNA Architecture, telephone, 9 January, 1997, 17 January, 1997,21
January, 1997, 11 March, 1997, 12 March 1997.
Mark Larsen, Redevelopment Specialist, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, telephone,
10, March 1997.
Joe Gibbons, Hydrogeologist, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, in person, 4 and 5
March, 1997.
Mike Paulson, Environmental Scientist, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, in person, 4
and 7 March, 1997.
Stan Greene, Researcher, Renton Historical Society and Museum, in person, 7 and 8 March,
1997.
Jason Wear, Administrative ASsistant, Duwamish Tribe, telephone, 21 February, 1997.
Walter Pacheco, Community Services Director, Muckleshoot Tribe, telephone, 26 March,
1997.
,
.'
I -,
I
.;
-,
Appendix 2
Tribal Correspondence
l A A
January 17,1997
Virginia Cross
Chairperson
s
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
39015 172nd Avenue S.E.
Auburn, W A 98002
,
Dear Ms. Cross:
LARSON
AN TH ~OPOlOGICA l
~.RCHAeOlOGICAl
se(vlCCs
CNA Architecture Group, Incorporated, has retained Larson Anthropological/Archaeological
Services to conduct a cultural resource assessment for a Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement for JAG Development's proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Site. The
project area is a 69 acre site on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Washington at May Creek, a
quarter mile north of Kennydale, Washington (Figure 1). JAG Development has preliminarily
proposed development of office buildings, residential housing, a· hotel/conference center, a marina,
'and restaurant space on tb,e property to be phased over a 10-15 year period.
LA AS ' cultural resource assessment includes identification of archaeological sites and potential
traditional cultural use areas within the boundaries of the JAG Development. A field survey will be
conducted on the 69 acre parcel to determine the existence or probability for significant cultural
resources. LAAS is currently gathering exisring archaeological, historic, ethnographic, and
ethnohistoric data from the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, University of
Washington Libraries, and perrinent local King County repositories. However, we believe that the
Muckleshoot Tribe may have information gathered from elders andlor the Tribe may currently use
areas for traditional cultural activities.
We encourage a cultural representative from the Muckleshoot Tribe to contact LAAS if the Tribe
has infonnation that might be useful in the assessment. We understand that traditional cultural use
areas.are private, but LAAS welcomes the opportunity to work with the Tribe regarding
incorporation of this type of information in a secure and respectful manner. Please phone Lynn
Larson or Leonard Forsman at LAAS at your earliest convenience if you would like to discuss the
matter further. Otherwise, Leonard Forsman will phone your cultural representative within a week
of your receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
~--;;. a~
Lynn L. Larson
Principal Investigator
LLLlLF
enclosure
cc: Walter Pacheco, Community Service Coordinator ,
10 BOX 70106
SEATTtE
WA SHINGTON
Q8107
, . L
,
;
I
·1 . I
..
A A s
January 17, 1997
Cecile Maxwell-Hansen
Chairperson
Duwamish Indian Tribe
212 Wells Avenue South, Suite C
Rentou, W A 98055
Dear Ms. Maxwell-Hansen:
LARSON
A"I iH ROPOLOQICAL
A<CHAEOlOGICAl
SE~VICES
CNA Architecture Group, Incorporated, has retained Larson Anthropological! Archaeological
Services to conduct a cultural r.esource assessment for a Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement for JAG Development's proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Sitet, The
project area is a 69 acre site on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Washington at May Creek, a
quarter mile north of Kennydale, Washington (Figure 1). JAG Development has preliminarily
proposed development of office buildings, residential housing, a hotel!conference center, a marina,
and restaurant space on the property to be phased over a 10-15 year period.
LAAS' cultural resource assessment includes identification of archaeological sites and potential
traditional cultural use areas within the boundaries of the JAG Development. A field survey will be
conducted on the 69 acre parcel to determine the existence or probability for significant cultural
resources. LAAS is currently gathering existing archaeological, historic, ethnographic, and
ethnohistoric data from the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, University of
------'9V'f.fa!tSs:hhmm· gtcm-bief!ll'ies;-a:ft&perMeat-le&al-IQag-GeW!l3'-Eeflooill}tios.-&we"er, we bp.1ie>Le-thaUh .... e -__ _
Duwamish Tribe may have information gathered from elders andlor the Tribe may currently use
areas for traditional CUltural aeti vities.
We encourage a cultural representative from the Duwamish Tribe to contact LAAS if the Tribe has
information that might be useful in the assessment. We understand that traditional cultural use
areas are private, but LAAS welcomes the opportunity to work with the Tribe regarding
incorporation of this type of information in a secure and respectful manner. Please phone Lynn
Larson or Leonard Forsman at LAAS at your earliest convenience if you would like to discuss the
matter further. Otherwise, Leonard Forsman will phone your cultural representative within a week
of your receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, '
~o.~
Lynn L. Larson
Principal Investigator
LLLlLF
enclosure
cc: James Rasmussen, Tribal Council Member
;I 0 ao;< 70106
SEArfLE
WASHfNGTON
QS107
• co, r ...... , .,. .. ., ...... ~ ...
I
I
'j
I "
appendix 3
Washington State Office of archaeology and Historic Preservation
Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet
1
• "
Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet
Author: Bradley Bowden Leonard A, Froman Lynn L. Larson Dennis E, Lewarch
Title: Cultural ResOurce Assessment. JAG DeyeiOllment. Kin8" County. Washington
Date: March 2J 1997
County: ~ Sections: l2..12 Township::MN Range: ~ Quad: Bellevue South.
WashjniWn
Total Pages:..TI, Acres:QQ
Site No. :
-------------.. --------
OARP Use Only
(For Author's review)
This report:
_X_ Describes the objectives & methods.
_X _ Summarize the results of the survey,
_X_Reports where the survey records and data
are stored.
_X_Has a Research Design that:
Details survey objectives
Details specific methods
Details expected results
Details area surveyed
, Details how results will be feedback in the
NADB Document No: _______ _ OARP Log No: ______ _
My review results in the opinion this survey report __ does ___ ,does not conform with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification,
Signed:
Date: _____ _