HomeMy WebLinkAboutENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall
Terminals
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
Exhibit
2
Quendall Terminals i Table of Contents Environmental Consistency Analysis
QUENDALL TERMINALS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. E-1
CHAPTER 1
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES &
ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES &
ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 2-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Transportation Analysis - Enhanced Alternative
- Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street ‘A’ - Enhanced Alternative
Appendix B – Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the
Enhanced Alternative
Appendix C – GHG Emissions Worksheet for Enhanced Alternative
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Regional Map ..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1-2 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... 1-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Comparison of 2010 – 2015 SEPA Redevelopment Alternatives &
Enhanced Alternative ......................................................................................................... 1-7
1-2 Building Height – Preferred Alternative & Enhanced Alternative ..................................... 1-8
Quendall Terminals E-1 Environmental Consistency Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Applicant (Century Pacific, LP) is proposing mixed-use redevelopment, including
multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/opens space uses
on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores of Lake
Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) have been published by the City of Renton on the Quendall Terminals
Redevelopment Project:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The Applicant is currently seeking approval for the following plans/permits from the
City:
• Master Site Plan;
• Binding Site Plan; and
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
The City and the Applicant have initiated preparation of a Development Agreement for
the project. An “Enhanced Alternative” has been created during this process. The
following report contains an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Enhanced
Alternative.
Goal of this Analysis
The goal of the Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis is to confirm
that proposed development and associated environmental impacts under the Enhanced
Alternative are within the range of redevelopment alternatives and environmental
impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA environmental review for the project.
A further goal of the Consistency Analysis is to verify that the changes in the Enhanced
Alternative would require no additional mitigation measures.
Development Types, Levels and Features
The Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis compares the types and
levels of development and development features called for under the Enhanced
Alternatives to the types, levels and features assumed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA
review. The Consistency Analysis determines that the types of development (residential,
Quendall Terminals E-2 Environmental Consistency Analysis
commercial and parks/open space) under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the
types of uses assumed under the EIS redevelopment alternatives in the past SEPA
review. The maximum levels of development under the Enhanced Alternative (692
residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space) would be within the maximum levels of
development evaluated in the past SEPA review (particularly Alternative 1 analyzed in
the 2010 DEIS with 800 residential units, 275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail,
restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of parks/open space). Specific development
features of the Enhanced Alternative (e.g., building height, bulk and scale; open space
and related areas; parking and access; shoreline setback; wetland and shoreline area;
building setbacks; view corridors; population and employment; grading; utilities; and
fire lane and utility maintenance access road) would be within the ranges under the EIS
alternatives as well, and are substantially similar to the Preferred Alternative.
Environmental Impacts
The Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis compares the probable
environmental impacts from redevelopment under the Enhanced Alternative to the
probable impacts from redevelopment under the alternatives analyzed in the 2010
through 2015 SEPA review. The following elements of the environment are addressed in
the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review and this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas,
Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use,
Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Transportation and Cultural Resources. More
detailed analyses are provided in this report for: Transportation; Height, Bulk and Scale;
Aesthetics/Views; and Parks and Recreation.
The Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the
Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the
past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in
the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Conclusion
The Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable
environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall
Terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those
identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Chapter I
COMPARISON OF
DEVELOPMENT UNDER
THE EIS ALTERNATIVES &
ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Quendall Terminals 1-1 Environmental Consistency Analysis
CHAPTER 1
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER
THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Introduction
The Applicant (Century Pacific, LP) is proposing mixed-use redevelopment, including
multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open space uses
on the approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site located in northern Renton on
the shores of Lake Washington. The site consists of an approximately 20.3-acre Main
Property along Lake Washington and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the
northeast (see Figure 1-1, Regional Map and Figure 1-2, Vicinity Map).
The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation under
the oversite of the EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the environment
associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate
EPA process. The impact analyses in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review
prepared for the project solely addressed impacts that may occur due to post clean-up
redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site, and assumed an existing/baseline
condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation.
To date, four SEPA review documents have been published by the City of Renton on the
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (December
2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (August 2015);
and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
These documents are available for review at Renton City Hall and via download on the
City of Renton Website – www.rentonwa.gov.
The Applicant is currently seeking approval for the following plans/permits from the
City:
• Master Site Plan;
• Binding Site Plan; and
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Source: Google Maps, 2016 Figure 1-1
Regional Map
North Not to Scale
Quendall Terminals
City of Renton Boundary
Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Source: EA, Google Maps, 2016 Figure 1-2
Vicinity Map
North Not to Scale
City of Renton City Limits
SITE
(Isolated Property)
SITE
(Main Property)
LAKE WASHINGTON
Quendall Terminals 1-4 Environmental Consistency Analysis
The City and the Applicant have initiated preparation of a Development Agreement for
the project. During this process, an “Enhanced Alternative” has been created.
The Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared to
confirm that proposed development and associated environmental impacts under the
Enhanced Alternative are within the range of redevelopment alternatives and impacts
analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA environmental review for the project. This
section of the consistency analysis compares the type and level of development, and
other development features under the Enhanced Alternative to those under the
alternatives in the past SEPA environmental review.
2010 DEIS
Two redevelopment alternatives and a No Action alternative were described and
analyzed in the DEIS:
Alternative 1 – Application
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
- 800 residential units;
- Approximately 245,000 sq. ft. of office uses;
- Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses;
- Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
- 2,171 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
Alternative 2 – Lower-Density Alternative
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
- 708 residential units;
- No office uses;
- Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses;
- Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
- 1,364 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use redevelopment would occur on the
Quendall Terminals site at this time.
2012 EIS Addendum
Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed
by the Applicant and the Applicant’s technical team based on additional
Quendall Terminals 1-5 Environmental Consistency Analysis
agency/community input (particularly from the EPA), and continued input and
coordination with the City of Renton.
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to that described in
the DEIS for the redevelopment alternatives, particularly Alternative 2, with certain
exceptions, including: incorporation of a 100-foot minimum shoreline setback, reduction
of the number of residential units, modulation of building heights to reduce impacts on
adjacent uses and provision of a 20-foot wide fire lane/trail in the shoreline setback, if
approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD
Settlement.
Preferred Alternative
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
- 692 residential units;
- No office uses;
- Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses;
- Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
- 1,337 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
2015 FEIS & 2015 MITIGATION DOCUMENT
The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in the EIS Addendum was maintained
in the 2015 FEIS. Final project mitigation measures were included in the 2015 FEIS and in
the 2015 Mitigation Document.
2016 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The City and the Applicant have been working on a Development Agreement for the
Quendall Terminals project. Through this process, an Enhanced Alternative has been
created. Redevelopment under the Enhanced Alternative would be similar to that under
the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative in the 2012 EIS Addendum and 2015 FEIS, with
several key differences, as described below.
Quendall Terminals 1-6 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Enhanced Alternative
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
- 692 residential units;
- No office uses;
- Approximately 33,190 sq. ft. of retail uses;
- Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
- 1,352 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
Key redevelopment assumptions under the Enhanced Alternative from the Development
Agreement that would differ from those under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative
include:
• Additional retail/restaurant/office and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
space would be provided along Street ‘B’, along the lakeside frontage and along
other streets as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building
street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet;
• An additional 1.3-acre public park would be included in the southwestern
portion of the site; and
• A future possible dock/pier associated with the public park could be provided
(this dock is not proposed at this time and would be subject to future SEPA
environmental review and subject to EPA consent).
Table 1-1 compares the past EIS redevelopment alternatives to the Enhanced
Alternative; additional detail is provided below.
Types of Development
As shown in Table 1-1, the types of development under the Enhanced Alternative
(residential, commercial and parks/open space) are within the types of uses assumed
under the EIS alternatives.
Quendall Terminals 1-7 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Table 1-1
COMPARISON OF 2010 – 2015 SEPA REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS - Preferred
Alternative
2016 Enhanced Alternative
Commercial Uses (Office,
Retail and Restaurant)
275,600 sq. ft.
(245,000 sq. ft.
office, 21,600 sq.
ft. retail, 9,000 sq.
ft. restaurant)
30,600 sq. ft.
(21,600 sq. ft. retail
and 9,000 sq. ft.
restaurant)
30,600 sq. ft.
(21,600 sq. ft. retail
and 9,000 sq. ft.
restaurant)
42,190 sq. ft.
(33,190 sq. ft. retail
and 9,000 sq. ft.
restaurant)
Residential Units 800 units 708 units 692 units 692 units
Maximum Building
Height
77 ft. 67 ft. 64 ft. 64 ft.
Number of Buildings 9 9 10 10
Residential Building Area 94,600 – 209,000
sq. ft.
77,000 – 112,800
sq. ft.
46,200 – 88,000 sq.
ft.
62,400 – 101,975 sq.
ft.
Open Space & Related Areas1 11.7 acres1 11.8 acres1 10.6 acres1 12.9 acres1
Parking 2,171 spaces 1,364 spaces 1,337 spaces 1,352 spaces
Shoreline Setback 50 ft. min. 50 ft. min. 100 ft. min. 100 ft. min.
Building Setbacks from
Adjacent Property Lines2
North: 38 ft. min.2
South: 37 ft. min.2
North: 38 ft. min.2
South: 42 ft. min.2
North: 38 ft. min.2
South: 42 ft. min.2
North: 42 ft..2
South: 47 ft. 2
View Corridors View corridors
along Street ‘B’
and along
driveways/parking
areas at N. and S. ends of site
View corridors
along Street ‘B’ and
along
driveways/parking
areas at N. and S. ends of site
Larger view
corridors along
Street ‘B’ and along
driveways/parking
areas at N. and S. ends of site
Larger view corridors
along Street ‘B’ and
along
driveways/parking
areas at N. and S. ends of site
Site Population 1,300 residents 1,132 residents 1,108 residents 1,108 residents
Site Employment 1,050 employees 50 employees 50 employees 62 employees
Grading 53,000 - 133,000
CY fill
53,000 - 133,000
CY fill
53,000 – 133,000
CY fill
53,000 - 133,000 CY
fill
Utilities Sewer and water
from City;
stormwater mgmt.
per applicable
regulations
Sewer and water
from City;
stormwater mgmt.
per applicable
regulations
Sewer and water
from City;
stormwater mgmt.
per applicable
regulations
Sewer and water
from City;
stormwater mgmt.
per applicable
regulations
Fire Lane/Trail/
Pedestrian Promenade
Shoreline trail
inside 50-ft. shoreline setback
Shoreline trail
inside 50-ft. shoreline setback
20-ft. wide fire
lane/trail inside 100-ft. shoreline
setback
20-ft. wide enhanced
fire & utility access lane outside 100-ft.
shoreline setback &
a shoreline trail
inside the 100-ft.
shoreline setback3.
Source: Quendall Terminals SEPA Review, 2010 - 2015 and Lance Mueller & Associates, 2016.
1 For purposes of this Environmental Consistency Analysis, open space and related areas include: the enhanced fire and utility
access lane; other pedestrian circulation; site landscaping, parks and open space; and the shoreline setback area.
2 Setbacks are measured from the property line to the nearest proposed structure.
3 The shoreline trail would require approval as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement.
Quendall Terminals 1-8 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Levels of Development
The maximum development levels under the Enhanced Alternative (692 residential
units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant] and 12.9 acres of
parks/open space) are within the maximum levels of development evaluated in the past
SEPA review (in particular, DEIS Alternative 1 which included 800 residential units,
275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail, restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of
parks/open space).
Other Development Features
Building Height, Bulk & Scale
The maximum building height under the Enhanced Alternative would be 64 feet, the
same as under the Preferred Alternative, and less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
As shown in Table 1-2, the majority of the proposed buildings would be the same
heights as under the Preferred Alternative, including those adjacent to Barbee Mill (e.g.,
building SW 4 in the southwestern portion of the site, which would be 4 stories tall).
Three of the proposed buildings located in the eastern and central portions of the site
under the Enhanced Alternative (buildings NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be 6 stories tall,
one-story taller than under the Preferred Alternative.
A total of 10 buildings would be constructed on site under the Enhanced Alternative, the
same number as under the Preferred Alternative, and one building more than under
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The residential building areas would range from 62,400 to
101,975 sq. ft., greater than the 46,200 to 88,000 sq. ft. under the Preferred Alternative,
but less than the 94,600 to 209,000 sq. ft. under DEIS Alternative 1.
Table 1-2 BUILDING HEIGHT – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Building Preferred Alternative
(Total # of Floors1)
Enhanced Alternative
(Total # of Floors1)
SW 1 6 6
SW 2 6 6
SW 3 5 5
SW 4 4 4
NW 1 6 6
NW 2 5 6
SE 1 6 6
SE 2 5 6
NE 1 6 6
NE 2 5 6
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2016. 1 Includes parking level.
Quendall Terminals 1-9 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Open Space & Related Areas
A total of 12.9 acres of open space and related areas would be provided under the
Enhanced Alternative, more than under any of the other EIS alternatives. This area
would include a new 1.3-acre public park located in the southwestern portion of the
site. A breakdown of the open space and related areas is provided below.
• Enhanced Fire and Utility Access Lane 0.6 ac.
• Other Pedestrian Circulation 1.5 ac.
• Site Landscaping, Park & Open Space 2.9 ac.
• Shoreline Setback Area 3.4 ac.
• Courtyard Landscaping 3.4 ac
• Isolated Property 1.2 ac.
12.9 ac.*
*Any minor errors in addition are due to rounding.
Parking & Access
Under the Enhanced Alternative, 1,352 parking spaces would be provided within the
proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas and in one deck parking area. These
spaces would be more than the 1,337 spaces under the Preferred Alternative and less
than the 2,171 spaces under DEIS Alternative 1. The proposed spaces would provide an
adequate supply for the proposed uses (see Chapter 2 – Transportation and Appendix A
for details).
Access to the site would continue to be provided from the east from two points: one
from N 43rd Street and the other from Ripley Lane N. Three public roads (Street ‘A’,
Street ‘B’ and Street ‘C’) and two private drives (Drive ‘E’ and ‘F’) would be constructed
onsite. A center left-turn lane that was included on Street ‘A’ under the Preferred
Alternative was not found to be needed and was eliminated under the Enhanced
Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the Street ‘A’ intersections would
provide acceptable traffic operations (see the Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street ‘A’-
Enhanced Alternative Memo in Appendix A for details). Certain access points to parking
areas within the buildings would be adjusted under the Enhanced Alternative as well.
Shoreline Setback
A minimum 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake
Washington would be provided under the Enhanced Alternative, the same as under the
Preferred Alternative and greater than the minimum 50-foot shoreline setback under
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This area would accommodate any retained/re-established
and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers and all other habitat restoration areas
Quendall Terminals 1-10 Environmental Consistency Analysis
required as part of the EPA’s anticipated Record of Decision [ROD] for the remediation
project or a Natural Resource Damage [NRD] settlement. The minimum 100-foot
setback area would total 3.4 acres under the Enhanced Alternative, the same area as
under the Preferred Alternative1.
Building Setbacks
Under the Enhanced Alternative the minimum building setback from the north property
line would be 42 feet and from the south property line would be 47 feet. These building
setbacks would be greater than under any of the other EIS alternatives.
View Corridors
Under the Enhanced Alternative, view corridors would be available along Street ‘B’ and
along the driveways/parking areas at the north and south ends of site. These corridors
would be similar to under the Preferred Alternative and slightly larger than under DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2.
Population & Employment
The population under the Enhanced Alternative is estimated to be 1,108 residents, the
same as under the Preferred Alternative, and less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
The employment under the Enhanced Alternative is estimated to be 62 employees,
more than under the Preferred Alternative and DEIS Alternative 2, but less than under
DEIS Alternative 1.
Grading
The same amount of grading is estimated to be required for site development under the
Enhanced Alternative and the EIS alternatives: 53,000 to 133,000 cubic yards of fill on
the Main Property (this is additional grading beyond the grading required to accomplish
site cleanup/remediation under the site’s status as a Superfund site).
Utilities
Utilities, including water, sewer and stormwater control, would be provided for the
Enhanced Alternative, as described for the other SEPA Alternatives.
1 “Natural Public Open Space” was reported for the EIS alternatives in Table 4.7-1 of the EIS Addendum. This area
included the minimum shoreline setback area, as well as site landscaping outside of the setback area. Without the
landscape area, the shoreline setback area under the Preferred Alternative and Enhanced Alternative would be the
same (3.4 acres). The overall open space and related areas under the EIS alternatives is correctly shown in Table 1-1 of this Consistency Analysis.
Quendall Terminals 1-11 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Enhanced Fire & Utility Access Lane
Similar to under the Preferred Alternative, a publically accessible 20-foot wide fire and
utility access lane would be provided on the west side of the westernmost buildings and
a soft surface trail would be provided within the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback
under the Enhanced Alternative; the trail would require approval as part of EPA’s
anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement. The fire/utility lane
under the Enhanced Alternative would be located outside of the 100-foot minimum
shoreline setback area and would connect to the north and south site boundaries via 6-
foot wide, soft surface trails. DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would include a narrower soft
surface trail within 50-foot minimum shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s
anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the types of development (residential, commercial and parks/open space)
under the Enhanced Alternative are within the types of uses assumed under the EIS
redevelopment alternatives in the past SEPA review. The maximum levels of
development under the Enhanced Alternative (692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of
commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of
parks/open space) are within the maximum levels of development evaluated in the past
SEPA review (particularly Alternative 1 analyzed in the 2010 DEIS with 800 residential
units, 275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail, restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of
parks/open space). Specific development features of the Enhanced Alternative (e.g.,
building height, bulk and scale; open space and related areas; parking and access;
shoreline setback; wetland and shoreline area; building setbacks; view corridors;
population and employment; grading; utilities; and fire lane/pedestrian promenade)
would be within the ranges under the EIS alternatives as well, and are substantially
similar to the Preferred Alternative.
Chapter 2
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES
& ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Quendall Terminals 2-1 Environmental Consistency Analysis
CHAPTER 2
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE
EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
2.1 Summary Table
The “Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative”
table in Appendix B provides a overview of the probable impacts that would result from
the EIS redevelopment alternatives and the proposed Enhanced Alternative. The
potential impacts that would result from DEIS Alternative 1 (the EIS alternative with the
greatest overall level of development; see Chapter 1 for details) are listed in the first
column and the potential impacts of the other EIS redevelopment alternatives and the
Enhanced Alternative are compared to these impacts. The matrix addresses all of the
elements of the environment that were analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS
(i.e., Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Land and Shoreline Use, Relationship to Plans and Policies, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and
Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and Cultural Resources). Significant unavoidable
adverse impacts are listed, as applicable.
2.2 Key Topic Areas
Several “key topic areas” have been identified from the table in Appendix B as the focus
for comparison of the Enhanced Alternative and the EIS alternatives. These are the areas
where the Enhanced Alternative could have the greatest potential for differences in
impacts on the environment relative to the EIS alternatives. The key topic areas discussed
in this chapter of the Consistency Analysis are:
• Transportation;
• Building Height, Bulk and Scale;
• Aesthetics/Views; and
• Parks and Recreation.
Transportation
Additional transportation analysis was conducted for the Consistency Analysis to
confirm that the potential impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the
range of impacts identified under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review for the
project.
Quendall Terminals 2-2 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Past SEPA Review
The relationship between proposed redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site and
the off-site transportation system was evaluated in detail in the DEIS, EIS Addendum
and FEIS. These analyses relied on field-verified transportation counts/data, the latest
traffic forecasting data available and the latest industry standards and study methods to
present a reasonable determination of potential transportation impacts for SEPA review
purposes. Potential transportation impacts from the proposed project could occur in
the following areas: intersection level of service (LOS), queuing, site access and
circulation, public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking.
The analysis of potential transportation impacts in the DEIS was provided for two future
baseline transportation networks to reflect future planned Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) transportation improvements in the site vicinity:
1. With I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Improvements (I-405 Improvements); and
2. Without I-405 Improvements.
2010 DEIS
The DEIS indicated that there are existing capacity and queuing issues on certain
roadways in the site vicinity. For example, the I-405 /NE 44th Street Southbound Ramps
intersection currently operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour.
The DEIS focused on DEIS Alternative 1; impacts for DEIS Alternative 2 were assumed to
be similar to or less than DEIS Alternative 1 due to its reduced level of redevelopment.
The DEIS determined that under Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and no
project mitigation assumed, four intersections would operate at LOS E/F at build-out of
the Quendall Terminals site:
• Lake Washington Boulevard (I-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street;
• I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street;
• Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard; and
• Lake Washington Boulevard (Garden Avenue) at Park View Avenue N.
Excessive southbound queues of approximately 700 to 800 ft. in length would be
anticipated at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection southbound on
Ripley Lane under Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and with no project
mitigation; these queues would block key access intersections.
Under DEIS Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation,
the site access at Ripley Lane N would operate at LOS F.
Quendall Terminals 2-3 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Given the site location and current lack of transit service in the site vicinity, it was
anticipated that residents and employees of Quendall Terminals would primarily rely on
automobile transportation and significant impacts from the proposed project on public
transportation were not anticipated. Increases in population from the project would
result in increased demand for non-motorized transportation facilities and parking
onsite.
The DEIS concluded that with or without the I-405 Improvements, and with
implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, no significant
transportation-related impacts were expected (see DEIS Section 3.9,
Transportation/Traffic and Appendix H for details).
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
The EIS Addendum included an updated transportation analysis to respond to
transportation-related comments received on the DEIS and provide analysis of the
Preferred Alternative.
The updated analysis in the EIS Addendum determined that at project build-out, with no
I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, three intersections would
operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative:
• Lake Washington Boulevard (I-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street;
• I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street; and,
• Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street
An updated queuing analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum. Under the
Preferred Alternative at build-out without I-405 Improvements and with no project
mitigation, excessive southbound queues of approximately 800 to 900 ft. in length
would be expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the stop-controlled Ripley Lane/Lake
Washington Boulevard intersection.
The site access and circulation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum as well.
Under the Preferred Alternative without I-405 Improvements and with no project
mitigation, the southbound approach to the Ripley Lane/N 44th Street intersection
would operate at LOS F.
Public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking impacts for the
Preferred Alternative would be similar to the analysis in the DEIS.
In response to comments received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum, additional
transportation analysis was conducted in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative, including
Quendall Terminals 2-4 Environmental Consistency Analysis
on: the Park Avenue corridor and I-405 Exit 5 (N 30th Street) interchange, 2017 build-out
year, 2014 North Renton Traffic Study and updated trip generation to the 9th edition of
the ITE Manual.
The EIS Addendum and FEIS concluded that with or without the I-405 Improvements,
and with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, no significant
transportation-related impacts were expected for the Preferred Alternative (see EIS
Addendum Sections 3.4 and 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, and FEIS Chapter 2,
Key Topic Areas – Transportation and Appendices B and C for details).
2016 Consistency Analysis
Additional transportation analysis was conducted for this Consistency Analysis to confirm
that the potential impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of
impacts identified under the EIS alternatives. The following areas were reviewed:
• Trip generation;
• Parking;
• NE 44th Street/I-405 Southbound Ramp operation; and
• Vehicle queuing.
Trip Generation
The Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately
173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak hour trips and 15 more PM peak hour
trips than the Preferred Alternative, and would represent 3,153 fewer daily trips, 431
fewer AM peak hour trips and 406 fewer PM peak hour trips than Alternative 1.
Therefore, trip generation under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range
analyzed under the EIS alternatives.
Parking
The Enhanced Alternative would provide 1,352 parking spaces. According to the City of
Renton Municipal Code in place in 2010 when a complete application for Quendall
Terminals was submitted, 1,368 off-street parking spaces would be required for the
Enhanced Alternative. Therefore, there would be a deficit of 16 spaces based on this
standard. However, the principal of shared use was not incorporated into the calculated
2010 parking requirement. This principal would reduce the amount of required parking.
Also, the minimum parking standards have been reduced in the current City Code.
Therefore, the Enhanced Alternative would provide an adequate supply of parking.
Quendall Terminals 2-5 Environmental Consistency Analysis
I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street Operation
The DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS identified the I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street
intersection as approaching capacity under all of the EIS alternatives (e.g., this
intersection would operate at LOS E, close to LOS F, at buildout under the alternatives
with the identified project mitigation and without the I-405 improvements. Therefore, a
sensitivity analysis of the Enhanced Alternative was conducted at this intersection to
determine if further project mitigation measures would be required with the Enhanced
Alternative. Under the Enhanced Alternative with the identified project mitigation and
no I-405 improvements, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 78 seconds of
delay, which is considered an acceptable level of operation by the City of Renton, and
would be the same as under the Preferred Alternative.
Queuing
The DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS discussed vehicle queuing impacts of the EIS
alternatives in the site vicinity. Under the Preferred Alternative at buildout without the
I-405 improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive queues of
approximately 800 to 900 feet in length are expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the
Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. With proposed mitigation and
with or without the I-405 improvements, the southbound queue would be reduced to
approximately 200 feet. Under the Enhanced Alternative with proposed mitigation, with
or with or without the I-405 improvements, the addition of an estimated nine trips
exiting the site during the PM peak hour on Ripley Lane would not measurably increase
the estimated vehicle queuing on Ripley Lane relative to the Preferred Alternative.
Therefore, the transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the
range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives.
With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the I-405
improvements, significant transportation impacts are not anticipated.
(See Appendix A for details on the transportation study for this Consistency Analysis.)
Building Height, Bulk and Scale
Past SEPA Review
The potential height, bulk and scale impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project were
analyzed in detail in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS. These analyses focused on the
compatibility of the proposed buildings with existing and planned buildings in the site
vicinity, and the consistency of the project with applicable City of Renton plans, policies
and regulations.
Quendall Terminals 2-6 Environmental Consistency Analysis
2010 DEIS
DEIS Alternative 1 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up to approximately 77 feet
in height, ranging from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 square feet in residential
building area on the site. DEIS Alternative 2 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up
to approximately 67 feet in height, ranging from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 sq. ft.
in residential building area. Residential densities of 46 dwelling units per net acre and
40 dwelling units per net acre, respectively, were analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1
and 2 (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis).
The DEIS indicated that under DEIS Alternative 1 and 2, proposed new buildings onsite
would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent residential buildings to the south
(Barbee Mill) and other single family residential buildings in the area, but were generally
similar to buildings in surrounding commercial and planned development to the north
and east (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and planned Hawk’s Landing
development). While the proposed buildings at Quendall Terminals were greater in
height and bulk than adjacent residences to the south, the proposed building setbacks
from the south property line were a minimum of 37 feet under Alternative 1 and 42 feet
under Alternative 2, respectively, including landscape screening, driveways and surface
parking areas (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). Overall, the height, bulk and
scale of proposed buildings under the Alternatives 1 and 2 was considered to generally
be consistent with the existing urban development in the area and applicable provisions
of the City of Renton Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. With implementation of
the proposed mitigation measures, the DEIS concluded that significant land use impacts
were not anticipated under Alternatives 1 and 2.
(See DEIS Section 3.5, Land and Shoreline Use, and Section 3.6, Relationship to Plans,
Policies, and Regulations, for details.)
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum and FEIS included similar types
of land uses and levels of development to DEIS Alternative 2. However, modifications
were made in the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of proposed
development with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level,
modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials and
addition of landscaping, see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis).
The Preferred Alternative included ten new mixed-use buildings, up to 64 feet in height,
with from approximately 46,200 to 88,000 sq. ft. of residential building area. Proposed
Quendall Terminals 2-7 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Building SW 4 located adjacent to the southwestern property line was four-stories high,
buildings in the northern portion of the site were five-stories high and buildings in the
central portion of the site were five to six stories high. A residential density of
approximately 32 dwelling units per net acre was achieved under the Preferred
Alternative. A proposed building setback of 37 feet from the property line was provided
between the proposed buildings and the adjacent residential development to the south
(see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis).
The FEIS concluded that proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would
be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed
individual buildings under Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall
and bulky than certain existing commercial and multifamily buildings to the north and
east of the site (i.e., Seahawks Training Facility, proposed Hawk’s Landing and
multifamily residential areas to the east of I-405) and greater in height and bulk than
existing single family residential buildings to the south of the site (i.e., Barbee Mill).
With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts
were not anticipated.
(See EIS Addendum Section 4.5, Land and Shoreline Use and FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic
Areas for details.)
2016 Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would include similar types of land uses and levels of
development to the Preferred Alternative. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the
Enhanced Alternative would include modifications to enhance the compatibility of
proposed development with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development
level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials
and addition of landscaping relative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, see Table 1-1 in this
Consistency Analysis). The Enhanced Alternative would include additional
retail/restaurant/office and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) space along
Street ‘B’, along the lakeside frontage and along other streets as necessary to qualify for
a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet.
Like the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative would include ten new mixed-
use buildings up to 64 feet in height. Residential building area would range from
approximately 62,400 to 101,975 sq. ft. in size. Proposed Building SW 4 located
adjacent to the southwestern property line would be four stories high; Building SW 3
further east would be five stories high, the remaining buildings in the northern and
central portions of the site would be six stories high. Three of the proposed buildings
located in the eastern and central portions of the site under the Enhanced Alternative
Quendall Terminals 2-8 Environmental Consistency Analysis
(buildings NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be one-story taller than under the Preferred
Alternative. Residential density would be similar to under the Preferred Alternative. A
proposed building setback of 47 feet from the property line would be provided between
the proposed buildings and south property line (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency
Analysis).
Like the Preferred Alternative, proposed development under the Enhanced Alternative
would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity.
Proposed individual buildings under Enhanced Alternative would generally be similar or
less tall and bulky than certain existing commercial and multifamily buildings to the
north and east of the site (i.e., Seahawks Training Facility, proposed Hawk’s Landing and
multifamily residential areas to the east of I-405) and greater in height and bulk than
existing single family/paired homes to the south of the site (i.e., Barbee Mill).
Therefore, the land use impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range
of impacts analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. And,
with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts
are not anticipated.
Aesthetics/Views
Past SEPA Review
The aesthetic character and viewshed impacts resulting from the proposed
redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site were analyzed in detail in the DEIS, EIS
Addendum and FEIS. These analyses focused on the changing aesthetic character from
an open, partially vegetated property to a mixed-use development, including view
corridors and viewing areas, and sources of light, glare and shadows, consistent with the
City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan.
2010 DEIS
Under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, redevelopment on the site was intended to be
aesthetically pleasing, and would represent a compact, urban form and maintain
consistency throughout the site. Architectural features and landscaping would be
provided to enhance the project’s visual appeal.
A visual analysis was conducted as part of the DEIS for both Alternatives 1 and 2. Ten
representative viewpoints were selected, consisting of public locations such as streets,
sidewalks, Lake Washington, and a public park where views of the site and vicinity are
possible. As indicated in the DEIS, redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under
both DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would block or partially block views toward Lake
Quendall Terminals 2-9 Environmental Consistency Analysis
Washington from certain viewpoints. View corridors would be provided along Street ‘B’
and along private driveways at the north and south ends of the site under both DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2. Views toward Lake Washington would be provided along the
proposed shoreline trail, the east/west roadway at the north and south end of the site,
as well as semi-private views from the building courtyards for project residents. In
general, view corridors would be slightly greater under DEIS Alternative 2 than under
DEIS Alternative 1 due to less dense redevelopment.
(See DEIS Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views, for details.)
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
The Preferred Alternative would include a level of redevelopment similar to DEIS
Alternative 2; however, certain redevelopment assumptions were modified to enhance
the visual character of the site, including increased view corridors, building height
modulation and building design features more compatible with surrounding
development.
Additional visual analysis of the Preferred Alternative was conducted for the EIS
Addendum and FEIS, including analysis of six key viewpoints (five from the DEIS
viewpoints and one new viewpoint along Lake Washington Boulevard N). Based on the
analysis, view impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those
identified under DEIS Alternative 2. However, under the Preferred Alternative, certain
view corridors through the site would be larger than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
The view corridor along Street ‘B’ would be approximately 8 feet wider under the
Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. View corridors under the
Preferred Alternative would also be larger along the southern boundary of the site and
increased viewing opportunities would be provided due to building height modulation
which would allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain
viewpoints.
(See EIS Addendum Sections 3.2 and 4.6, Aesthetics/Views, and FEIS Chapter 2 – Key
Topics for details.)
2016 Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would include a level of redevelopment comparable to under
the Preferred Alternative. Redevelopment assumptions for the Enhanced Alternative
were similarly modified to enhance the visual character of the site, including increased
view corridors, building height modulation and building design features more
compatible with surrounding development.
Quendall Terminals 2-10 Environmental Consistency Analysis
View impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be similar to those identified under
the Preferred Alternative. As under Preferred Alternative, the view corridor along Street
‘B’ would be approximately 8 feet wider under the Enhanced Alternative than under
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Also, view corridors would be larger along the southern
boundary of the site and increased viewing opportunities would be provided due to
more building height modulation than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, which would
allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain viewpoints.
Public views would also be possible from the enhanced fire and utility access road.
Therefore, the aesthetic impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range
of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. And,
with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant aesthetic impacts
are not anticipated.
Parks and Recreation
Past SEPA Review
2010 DEIS
As described in the 2010 DEIS, redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would
generate increases in on-site residents and employees, which would result in associated
increases in demands on park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Quendall
Terminals site, including some that are exceeding their capacity during the summer.
Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would further contribute to these
capacity issues. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of
Renton based on the City’s Level of Service (LOS) standards and the increased
population on the site.
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, open space and related areas would be provided onsite that
would help meet the demand for passive recreation facilities from project residents and
employees. However, the demand for active recreation facilities would not be satisfied
onsite. Approximately 11.7 to 11.8 acres of open space and related areas would be
provided under Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, including paved plazas, natural areas,
landscape areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. Approximately 3.4 acres of natural open
space area that would be visually and physically accessible to the general public at
certain times of day, including the natural shoreline area and the proposed shoreline
trail, would be provided. These open space and related areas may or may not meet the
City’s standards, regulations and procedures for open space.
Quendall Terminals 2-11 Environmental Consistency Analysis
If approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project and any NRD
Settlement, a publically accessible trail would be located within the 50-foot minimum
shoreline setback area under Alternatives 1 and 2, consistent with the City’s 1983 SMP
regulations
The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees at the time of building
permit issuance. These fees would help to offset the impacts of proposed new
residential development on park and recreation facilities, open space and trails.
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS
Addendum and FEIS would result in increases in on-site population and employees,
which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation facilities
in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at nearby parks during the
summer. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton
based on the City’s LOS standards and the increased population on the site.
The Preferred Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help
meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, but not
the demand for active recreation facilities. Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and
related area would be provided. These open space and related areas may or may not
meet the City’s standards, regulations and procedures for open space.
Publically accessible pedestrian facilities were proposed along the shoreline under the
Preferred Alternative. A shoreline trail would be provided on the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, inside the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback area, if
approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD
Settlement.
The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees under the Preferred
Alternative.
2016 Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would result in increases in on-site population and
employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and
recreation facilities in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at nearby
parks during the summer. These impacts would be similar to the Preferred Alternative
but less than DEIS Alternative 1. Additional park and recreation facilities could be
needed in the City of Renton based on the City’s LOS standards and the increased
population on the site.
Quendall Terminals 2-12 Environmental Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help
meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, as well
as some of the demand for active recreation facilities. A total of 12.9 acres of
parks/open space would be provided under the Enhanced Alternative, more than under
any of the other EIS Alternatives. This area includes a new 1.3-acre public park located in
the southwestern portion of the site. A future possible dock/pier associated with the
public park could be provided (this dock is not proposed at this time and would be
subject to future SEPA environmental review and consent from EPA). These open space
and related areas are expected to meet the City’s standards, regulations and procedures
for open space.
Similar to the other EIS Alternatives, publically accessible pedestrian facilities are
proposed along the shoreline under the Enhanced Alternative. A 20-foot wide enhanced
fire and utility access lane would be provided on the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite. The fire and utility access lane would be located outside of the
minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area and would connect to the north and south
site boundaries via a 6-foot wide, soft surface trail. A soft surface trail would also be
provided within the 100-foot shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s
anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement.
The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees to help offset the impacts
of the project on park and recreation facilities, open space and trails.
Therefore, the parks and recreation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be
within the range of impacts analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS
alternatives. And, with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant
parks and recreation impacts are not anticipated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative – including
on transportation; building height, bulk and scale; aesthetics/views; and parks and
recreation -- are within the impacts analyzed for the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA
review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts
that cannot be mitigated.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
TENW
Transportation Engineering NorthWest
Transportation Planning | Design | Traffic Impact & Operations
PO Box 65254, Seattle, WA 98155 | Office (206) 361-7333
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 8, 2017
TO: Gretchen Brunner, Senior Planner
EA Engineering
FROM: Michael J. Read, PE, Principal
TENW
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminals EIS – Consistency Analysis
TENW Project 3178
This memorandum documents a consistency analysis of specific transportation evaluations
documented in the original Quendall Terminals EIS, Quendall Terminals FEIS, and Quendall
Terminals Supplemental Transportation Review based upon the „Enhanced Alternative‰ developed
in close coordination between the applicant and the City of Renton in November 2016.
Transportation-related items included in the consistency review:
Preparation of an updated trip generation analysis of the increased retail space within the
development, using updated trip generation rates published by ITE in the Trip Generation
Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
Preparation an updated parking code analysis and parking demand analysis (if warranted)
to evaluate the adequacy of on-site parking, shared parking potential, and identify any
parking management techniques that should be considered if necessary.
Prepare an updated sensitivity analysis at the critical intersection ramp junction of NE 44th
Street/I-405 to confirm the transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original
EIS for Quendall Terminals is consistent under the Enhanced Alternative.
Project Trip Generation – Enhanced Alternative
Based upon the original date of the EIS analysis and the proposed minor increase in floor area for
ground floor retail space as part of the Enhanced Alternative, an updated trip generation analysis
was completed. Since the original EIS, the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published an
updated edition of the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. As noted above, a small
increase in retail (approximately 12,965 square-feet) is now proposed as part of the Enhanced
Alternative which includes:
692 apartment units (no change from Preferred Alternative).
9,000 square-feet of restaurant use (no change from Preferred Alternative).
33,190 square-feet of ground floor retail uses (net increase from 20,225 square-feet in the
Preferred Alternative by 12,965 square-feet)
1,352 on-site parking stalls
Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis
TENW page 2 February 8, 2017
Consistent with the original Quendall Terminals DEIS, Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum, and
Quendall Terminals FEIS, very conservative trip generation estimation methods were utilized in
evaluating project traffic impacts. As such, similar factors through factoring of published residential
trip generation rates (10 percent higher than ITE rates) and conservative internalization factors
consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, ITE, were utilized. Average trip rates
for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820), and High-
Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips of the Enhanced
Alternative.
As shown in Table 1, a net total of approximately 5,829 daily, 435 a.m. peak hour (107
entering, 328 exiting), and 545 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (346 entering and 199
exiting) would be generated at full buildout conditions under the Enhanced Alternative. As
shown, the Enhanced Alternative would result in approximately 173 more daily trips, no net
change in a.m. peak hour trips, and 15 more p.m. peak hour trips than Preferred Alternative
evaluated in the Quendall Terminal EIS documents. As such, the relative impact to traffic
operations within the study area would be very similar, but slightly more (less than a 3 percent
increase in total site trip generation in the p.m. peak hour) than those disclosed and evaluated
under the most recently developed Preferred Alternative.
Detailed trip generation tables of the Enhanced Alternative are provided in Attachment A. An
additional comparative analysis between the Enhanced Alternative and Alternative 1 evaluated
in the DEIS is also provided in Attachment A. As shown in Attachment B, an estimated 431
fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 406 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 3,153 fewer daily trips
would be generated under the Enhanced Alternative when compared to the DEIS Alternative 1
(Original Application). This represents a significant overall reduction in vehicle trip generation
in the upper range of land use alternatives considered in the Quendall Terminals DEIS.
Table 1:
Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation Comparison with Preferred Alternative
Land Use
ITE Land Use
Code 1
Size 2
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily Trip
Generation Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605
10% Factor on Residential Uses 8 28 36 28 16 47 460
Retail 820 30,190 sf GLA 20 13 33 59 63 123 1,417
Restaurant 932 9,000 sf GFA 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144
2016 Enhanced Alternative Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626
Less Internal Trips 3 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176
Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -18 -41 -32 -26 -58 -621
2016 Enhanced Alternative Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829
2015 Preferred Alternative Net Trip Generation 104 331 435 340 190 530 5,656
Difference in Enhanced Alternative
Compared to Preferred Alternative +3 -3 0 +6 +9 +15 +173
1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Area, and GLA is Gross Leasable Area.
3. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004.
Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis
TENW page 3 February 8, 2017
Parking Analysis – Enhanced Alternative
Table 2 summarizes minimum off-street parking requirements based on City of Renton
Municipal Code for the proposed mix of land uses. Although substantial reductions in
minimum requirements in off-street parking has been adopted within current City municipal
code, this analysis of parking requirements is based on those code provisions in force at the
time of complete application for Quendall Terminals in 2010.
As shown, a total of 1,368 stalls would have normally have been required under City code
when the Quendall Terminals project was vested in 2010, resulting in a 16-stall stall deficit
compared against the proposed 1,352 stalls. This code requirement does not take into
consideration shared parking potential between the various proposed uses on site, which have
differing peaks throughout the course of the day, and is therefore, considered conservative.
Peak residential demand occurs after 9:00 p.m., when retail demand is non-existent and
restaurant demand has diminished significantly.
Under current City code, only 828 stalls would be required for proposed land uses;
significantly less than 2010 code provisions. In addition, the latest parking demand models
(King County Right Size Parking Model, Attachment B) for apartment uses specific to this site
determined that only 1.34 stalls for each dwelling unit, on average, should be built to serve
residential uses (dedicating 928 stalls). Given these factors, no additional parking analysis is
required as the applicant proposes to designate approximately 1.73 stalls for each apartment
unit.
Table 2: City Parking Code Requirements
Land Use Size Code Rate
Required Off-Street
Parking (stalls)
Enhanced Alternative
Retail 30,190 sf 4.0 stalls/1,000 sf 121
Multifamily Residential 692 units 1.75 stalls/DU 1,211
Restaurant (seating area) 9,000 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 36
Total 1,368 stalls
Proposed 1,352 stalls
Surplus/(Deficit) - 16 stalls
DU ă Dwelling unit. sf ă square- feet.
Source: Renton Municipal Code for Off-Street Parking, 2010 Regulations.
Sensitivity Analysis of Ramp Intersection Level of Service
As noted in the Quendall Terminals FEIS, Table 2-1, with the Preferred Alternative under the future
regional network scenario that did not include I-405 Widening, the applicantÊs mitigation along
Lake Washinton Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street / I-405 Interchange noted one intersection
near capacity with buildout of the project. During the a.m. peak hour, the intersection ramp
junction of the I-405 southbound ramp of NE 44th Street was evaluated for level of service
operations to confirm the transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original EIS for
Quendall Terminals is consistent under the Enhanced Alternative. Although in aggregate there is
Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis
TENW page 4 February 8, 2017
not a change in total a.m. peak hour trip generation under the Enhanced Alternative, a slight shift in
directional trips are expected with increased retail uses (3 additional trips). With a majority of
traffic expected to enter/exit the site via or through the NE 44th Street and I-405 Interchange
system, the intersection that includes the southbound on/off-ramps is forecast to operate at LOS E
with an average delay of 78 seconds per vehicle assuming with both signal control and
channelization upgrades outlined in the Quendall Terminals FEIS. As shown in Attachment C, this
intersection is forecast to remain at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour with the Enhanced Alternative
at buildout.
Vehicle Queues
As documented in the Quendall Terminals FEIS (May 2015), updated vehicle queuing was
evaluated under the Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative at buildout without I-405
Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive southbound queues of
approximately 800 to 900 feet in length would be expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the
stop-controlled Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. To address the excessive
queuing at this location, project mitigation would be provided in the vicinity of the Ripley
Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection with or without the I-405 Improvements. With
implementation of the project mitigation, the southbound queue for left turns on Ripley Lane would
be reduced to approximately 200 feet with or without I-405 improvements.
With implementation of the Enhanced Alternative considered in this consistency analysis, the
addition of an estimated 9 trips exiting the site during the p.m. peak hour on Ripley Lane would
have no measurable increase in the estimated vehicle queues previously identified that would be
mitigated by the Project at the Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and
adjacent ramp junctions with I-405 (see vehicle queuing results in Attachment C).
Conclusions
As described above, the transportation consistency analyses was prepared for the Quendall
Terminals Enhanced Alternative and remain valid for the assumed buildout in 2017 based on these
determinations:
With the proposed Enhanced Alternative, no significant differences in overall project trip
generation are expected with 173 more daily trips, no net change in a.m. peak hour
trips, and 15 more p.m. peak hour trips than Preferred Alternative evaluated in the
Quendall Terminal EIS documents.
A parking deficit of 16-stalls in comparison to off-street minimum parking Code
requirements from 2010 would result with the proposed 1,352 stalls. This however,
does not consider current parking demand models or shared parking potential that
would occur between various mixed land uses proposed as part of the Enhanced
Alternative. With code amendments adopted by the City since the original EIS and in
effect in 2016, a 524 stall parking surplus would be calculated.
The intersection ramp junction of NE 44th Street and Southbound I-405 is forecast to
remain operating at LOS E with buildout of the Enhanced Alternative and the proposed
mitigation at the interchange and associated Lake Washington Boulevard improvement as
Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis
TENW page 5 February 8, 2017
part of site access would operate with acceptable levels of service and vehicle queuing
during peak hours.
Based on the above, it was determined that no further analysis of the Enhanced Alternative is
warranted, and the project mitigation identified in the 2015 Mitigation Document remains valid.
Finally, as noted in the FEIS and the draft Development Agreement, an update to the original
transportation impact analysis is required within 5 years from the date of this site plan revision.
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206)
361-7333 ext. 101.
TENW
ATTACHMENT A
Enhanced Alternative Detailed Trip Generation Estimates
Quendall Terminals EIS
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016
Time Period In Out Total
New Daily 2,914 2,915 5,829
AM Peak Hour 107 328 435
PM Peak Hour 346 199 545
Quendall Termials - Enhanced Alternative
Trip Generation Summary
Net New Trips Generated
11/29/2016
Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls Summary
Quendall Terminals
Trip Generation
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016
ITE Trip Rate
Land Use Area Units 1 LUC 2 In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Retail 33,190 GLA 820 50% 50% 42.70 708 709 1,417
Internal Trips 3 -236 -238 -474
Pass-by 4 34%-160 -161 -321
Subtotal =312 310 622
Apartment 692 Units 220 50% 50% 7.32 2,532 2,533 5,065
Internal Trips 3 -141 -115 -256Subtotal =2,391 2,418 4,809
Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 50%50% 127.15 572 572 1,144
Internal Trips 3 -211 -235 -446
Pass-by 4 43%-150 -150 -300
Subtotal =211 187 398
Total Proposed Gross Daily Trips = 3,812 3,814 7,626
Less Total Internal Trips = -588 -588 -1,176
Less Total Pass-by Trips = -310 -311 -621
Total Proposed Net New Daily Trips Generated = 2,914 2,915 5,829
Notes:
1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area.
2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes.
3 Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd Edition, 2004.
4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd edition, 2004.
Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative
Daily Trip Generation
Trips GeneratedDirectional Split
11/29/2016
Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls Daily TGEN
Quendall Terminals
Trip Generation
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016
AM Peak Hour Trip Generation
ITE Trip Rate
Land Use Area Units 1 LUC 2 In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Retail 33,190 GLA 820 62% 38% 0.98 20 13 33
Internal Trips 3 -6 -5 -11
Pass-by 4 34%-4 -3 -7
Subtotal =10 5 15
Apartment 692 Units 220 20% 80% 0.56 78 310 388
Internal Trips 3 -7 -7 -14Subtotal =71 303 374
Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 55% 45% 10.81 53 44 97
Internal Trips 3 -8 -9 -17
Pass-by 4 43%-19 -15 -34
Subtotal =26 20 46
Total Proposed Gross AM Peak Hour Trips = 151 367 518
Less Total Internal Trips = -21 -21 -42
Less Total Pass-by Trips = -23 -18 -41
Total Proposed Net New AM Peak Hour Trips Generated = 107 328 435
Notes:
1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area.
2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes.
3 Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd Edition, 2004.
4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd edition, 2004.
Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative
AM Peak Trip Generation
Trips GeneratedDirectional Split
11/29/2016
Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls AM TGEN
Quendall Terminals
Trip Generation
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016
PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
ITE Trip Rate
Land Use Area Units 1 LUC 2 In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Retail 33,190 GLA 820 48% 52% 3.71 59 64 123
Internal Trips 3 -12 -19 -31
Pass-by 4 34%-16 -15 -31
Subtotal =31 30 61
Apartment 692 Units 220 65% 35% 0.68 306 165 471
Internal Trips 3 -12 -10 -22
Subtotal =294 155 449
Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 60% 40% 9.85 53 36 89
Internal Trips 3 -16 -11 -27
Pass-by 4 43%-16 -11 -27
Subtotal =21 14 35
Total Proposed Gross PM Peak Hour Trips = 418 265 683
Less Total Internal Trips = -40 -40 -80
Less Total Pass-by Trips = -32 -26 -58
Total Proposed Net New PM Peak Hour Trips Generated = 346 199 545
Notes:
1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area.
2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes.
3 Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd Edition, 2004.
4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd edition, 2004.
Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative
PM Peak Trip Generation
Trips GeneratedDirectional Split
11/29/2016
Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls PM TGEN
TENW
Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation – Comparison with DEIS Alternative 1
Land Use
ITE Land Use
Code 1
Size 2
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily Trip
Generation Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605
10% Factor on Residential Uses 8 28 36 28 16 47 460
Retail 820 30,190 sf GLA 20 13 33 59 63 123 1,417
Restaurant 932 9,000 sf GFA 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144
2016 Enhanced Alternative Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626
Less Internal Trips 3 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176
Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -18 -41 -16 -26 -58 -621
2016 Enhanced Alternative Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829
2012 DEIS Alternative 1 Net Trip Generation 445 421 866 442 509 951 8,982
Difference in Enhanced Alternative
Compared to DEIS Alternative 1 -338 -93 -431 -96 -310 -406 -3153
1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Area, and GLA is Gross Leasable Area.
3. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004.
TENW
ATTACHMENT B
King County Right Size Parking Model Results
TENW
ATTACHMENT C
LOS and Queuing Analysis with Buildout of Enhanced
Alternative
NE 44th Street/ Southbound I-405 Ramps
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 2/8/2017
Quendall Terminals - EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak with mitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1881 1599 1770 1863 1762 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1881 1599 87 1863 1762 1568
Volume (vph)0 1007 26 515 251 000014010370
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 1095 28 560 273 000015211402
RTOR Reduction (vph)00700000000358
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1095 21 560 273 0000016344
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s)81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3
Effective Green, g (s)81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.84 0.84 0.11 0.11
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1025 871 522 1561 191 170
v/s Ratio Prot 0.58 c0.29 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.61 0.09 0.03
v/c Ratio 1.07 0.02 1.07 0.17 0.85 0.26
Uniform Delay, d1 34.1 15.8 51.7 2.3 65.7 61.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 48.2 0.0 60.3 0.1 35.6 3.6
Delay (s)82.4 15.8 112.0 2.4 101.3 64.9
Level of Service F B F A F E
Approach Delay (s)80.7 76.1 0.0 75.4
Approach LOS F E A E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 78.0 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 2/8/2017
Quendall Terminals - EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak with mitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 766 293 370 5 355 13
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.64 0.46 0.47 0.01 0.60 0.01
Control Delay 8.2 13.5 12.3 3.5 0.0 15.8 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0
Total Delay 8.2 14.4 13.4 3.9 0.0 17.9 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 72 49 0 0 54 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 102 86 34 0 163 0
Internal Link Dist (ft)156 112 73 322
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125
Base Capacity (vph) 415 1416 752 862 806 596 900
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 256 156 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 354 0 0 173 127 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.72 0.59 0.52 0.01 0.76 0.01
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
11730 118th Avenue N.E., Suite 600, Kirkland, WA 98034 | 425.821.3665 |
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 12, 2017 TG:09041.01
To: Campbell Mathewson – CenturyPacific
From: Kevin Jones, P.E., PTOE and Kyle Stahley, P.E. – Transpo Group
Subject: Quendall Terminals – Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street A
This memorandum summarizes the study we prepared analyzing the need for a center left-turn
lane in Street A at the Quendall Terminals development. The requirement for such study was
established as part of the Hearing Examiner Recommendation (April 19, 2016) in
Condition 44, XIV. This condition states that “A transportation study shall be completed to analyze
the need for a center left-turn lane in Road A.” In order to meet the required condition, we
conducted traffic analyses at the three internal intersections on Street A by evaluating the
anticipated traffic volumes at each intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak hours as well
as intersection operations without a center left-turn lane or left-turn pockets.
Based on the analyses conducted and explained in the following sections, a center left-turn lane in
Street A is not recommended at Quendall Terminals.
Project Description
The Enhanced Alternative development scenario for the Quendall Terminals project would
construct four multi-story buildings totaling 692 residential units and include 33,190 square feet of
retail space and an additional 9,000 square feet of restaurant space on the ground floor. Parking
would be provided below each of the buildings along with some surface parking along the outside
of the building. Approximately 1,350 parking spaces would be developed for the project.
The parking areas would be accessed via three roads on-site, currently known as Street B,
Street D, and Street E. Each of these streets would connect to the planned Street A which would
serve as the main access road to Lake Washington Boulevard N on the south end of the project
and Seahawks Way (Ripley Lane N) at the north end of the project. This analysis focuses on the
operations at the intersections of the three streets with Street A (from north to south):
1. Street A / Street E
2. Street A / Street B
3. Street A / N 43rd Street / Street D
The Street A / Street D intersection also serves as an access to the Barbee Mill development to
the south. A conceptual layout of the project access points and street layouts is shown in Figure 1.
Although not shown in the figure, it is anticipated that the Street A / Street D intersection would be
aligned as a traditional, four-leg intersection and it was analyzed using this configuration.
2
Figure 1: Quendall Terminals Site Layout
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the proposed project was based on trip generation developed for the Enhanced
Alternative and developed in the Quendall Terminals EIS Memorandum1. Table 1 below
summarizes the Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation.
1 Quendall Terminals EIS – Consistency Analysis, Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 12, 2017.
3
Table 1. Weekday Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips
Land Use1 Size In Out Total In Out Total Total
Apartments (ITE LU 220) 692 DUs 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605
+10% Factor (Residential) 8 28 36 28 16 47 460
Retail (ITE LU 820) 30.19 KSF 20 13 33 59 63 123 1,417
Restaurant (ITE LU 932) 9.00 KSF 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144
Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626
Less Internal Trips2 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176
Less Pass-by Trips2 -23 -18 -41 -32 -26 -58 -621
Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829
Note: LU = land use, DU = dwelling units, KSF = 1,000 square feet 1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. 2. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004.
As shown in Table 1, the weekday AM peak hour is anticipated to generate 435 net new trips while
the weekday PM peak hour is anticipated to generate 545 net new trips.
Traffic Volumes
Project trips were distributed to the internal roads and intersections based on the locations of the
parking spaces and garages. There would be approximately 1,350 surface and garage parking
spaces on site with access points on Street B, Street D, and Street E. It was assumed drivers of
vehicles are likely to take the shortest route to and from the on-site parking areas and
consequently, it was assumed that approximately 20 percent of vehicle trips would use Street E,
25 percent would use Street B, and 55 percent would use Street D on the south end of the project.
The anticipated external trips to the project site were assigned to each of the internal intersections
along Street A, based on the project trip distribution. At the Street A / Street D intersection, these
trips were added to existing volumes observed entering and exiting the Barbee Mill development
from traffic counts recently conducted during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Street B
and Street E intersections with Street A would be new intersections, constructed with the
development, and do not have any anticipated traffic from other uses.
The distribution of vehicle trips along each of the streets as well as the weekday AM and PM peak
hour traffic volumes at each intersection are illustrated in Figure 2.
4
Figure 2: Vehicle Trip Distribution and Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Intersection Operations
The need for a left-turn lane in Street A was analyzed by calculating the intersection level of
service (LOS) and vehicle queuing at each of the intersections. LOS was calculated using
methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).
The channelization at each intersection was assumed to be single-lane approaches. The LOS was
calculated assuming that each intersection was all-way stop-controlled. Additionally, a secondary
analysis was completed which assumed each intersection was side-street, stop-controlled. The
LOS is reported for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours in Table 2. For the side-street, stop-
controlled analysis, the 95th-percentile queue length was reported for the stop-controlled
approaches, based on HCM 2010 methodology, and shown in Table 2. The HCM 2010 does not
include queuing methodology for all-way stop-controlled intersections.
5
Table 2. Weekday Peak Hour Level of Service and Queuing Summary
All-Way Stop-Controlled Side-Street Stop-Controlled
Intersection LOS1 Delay2 WM3
Stopped
Approaches4 LOS Delay WM Queue5
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Street A / Street E A 7.3 EB NB A 8.7 NB 1
Street A / Street B A 7.0 NB EB A 8.8 EB 1
Street A / Street D A 8.3 EB NB / SB B 11.8 SB 1
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Street A / Street E A 7.4 EB NB A 8.6 NB 1
Street A / Street B A 7.3 NB EB A 8.9 EB 1
Street A / Street D A 9.2 WB NB / SB B 13.4 SB 1
Note: EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound 1. Level of service, based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) methodology.
2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for all vehicles at all-way stop-controlled intersections and for vehicles on the worst stop-controlled
approach at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections indicating approach or movement with greatest average vehicle delay.
4. Approaches which are controlled by stop signs.
5. 95th-percentile queue rounded up to the nearest vehicle for the worst movement of the intersection based on HCM 2010 methodology.
As shown in Table 2, each of the intersections on Street A is anticipated to operate with relatively
minor delays (approximately 13 seconds or less) during both the weekday AM and PM peak
hours, regardless whether the intersections are all-way or side-street stop controlled. Additionally,
the 95th-percentile queues anticipated during the weekday AM and PM peak hours would be no
more than one vehicle at each of the intersections if they are side-street stop controlled. Based on
the traffic operations and anticipated queue lengths, single-lane approaches at each of the Street
A intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations and a center left-turn lane would not be
needed.
Additional Considerations
In addition to the intersection operations discussed above, the construction of Street A as a two-
lane street would provide other traffic calming and non-motorized benefits. If left-turn pockets for
vehicles on Street A were provided, it is possible that vehicles on either Lake Washington Blvd N
or on Seahawks Way could cut-through the development by using Street A to bypass traffic
queues on N 44th Street. Although this is still possible with a two-lane section on Street A, it would
be less likely due to the presence of turning vehicles and slower speeds required on Street A.
The Eastside Rail Corridor – Regional Trail is currently being planned with the Draft Master Plan &
EIS released in February 2016. The trail would serve people walking and biking and is planned on
the old railroad alignment located immediately east of Street A. Residents of the planned Quendall
Terminals development and visitors to the retail and restaurant land uses as well as the public
shoreline of the planned development are likely to use the trail for recreation and transportation.
Safe crossings from the trail to the Quendall Terminals development would be designed to
facilitate connectivity between the two. By constructing Street A as a two-lane road, crossing
distances of the street would be shortened, increasing the comfort level and safety of people
crossing the streets.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss our findings.
APPENDIX B
Comparison of Impacts Under
the EIS Alternatives &
Enhanced Alternative
Appendix B 1 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
EARTH
Impacts
• A minimal amount of clearing
and grading (approximately
53,000 – 133,000 CY of fill),
primarily in the upland portion
of the Main Property would be
required for redevelopment.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• Grading activities could impact
the integrity of the soil cap
installed during site
cleanup/remediation.
Implementation of institutional
controls defined in the final
remediation plans would ensure
that the cap would remain intact
during excavation.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• Site disturbance during
construction activities could
result in increased potential for
erosion and sedimentation of
on-site wetlands and Lake
Washington. Significant impacts
are not expected with
implementation of the
temporary erosion and
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 2 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative sedimentation control plan
(TESCP) required by the City.
• A deep building foundation
system (i.e., piles) and/or
ground improvements would
likely be required for structural
support. Installation of piles, as
well as excavation for utilities,
could impact the integrity of the
soil cap installed during site
remediation and could transmit
contamination to site areas that
are not contaminated.
Significant impacts are not
expected with implementation
of institutional controls defined
in the final remediation plans.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• Differential settlement could
occur between structures that
would be pile–supported and
underground utilities serving the
structures, causing damage to
utility lines. Significant impacts
are not expected with
implementation of institutional
controls defined in the final
remediation plans.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• With redevelopment, the
amount of impervious surface
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 3 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative area onsite and associated
stormwater runoff rates would
increase and could result in
erosion hazards at stormwater
outfalls at the lake. Significant
impacts are not expected with
installation of a permanent
stormwater control system, as
required by the City, including
energy dissipation measures at
the outfalls.
• Potential impacts to site
structures could occur during
seismic events due to ground
motion, liquefaction and lateral
spreading hazards. All proposed
structures would be built to the
most current IBC code to
address potential effects of
seismic events and buildings
would likely be supported on
piles to reduce these hazards.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• Groundwater could be
encountered during
construction activities.
Significant impacts would not be
expected with dewatering and
other construction techniques.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 4 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
• With redevelopment,
impervious surfaces would
increase and potential for
infiltration of rainfall to
underlying aquifers would
decrease. However, the
majority of the recharge to the
aquifers originates from off-site
sources to the east, and
significant impacts are not
expected.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There would be a risk of ground
motion impacts and landslides
beneath Lake Washington
adjacent to the site during a
seismic event; however, such
impacts would occur with or
without the proposed
redevelopment. There are no
significant unavoidable earth-
related impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 5 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
CRITICAL AREAS
Impacts
• The entire Main Property would
be capped with soil during site
cleanup/remediation, resulting
in the fill of all existing wetlands
and elimination of riparian
habitat on this property.
Wetlands would be re-
established and/or expanded
and riparian habitat would be
recreated/enhanced in a 50-ft.
minimum shoreline setback
area.
• Same as Alternative 1.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, a 100-ft. minimum
shoreline setback would be
maintained.
• Same as Alternative 1;
however, a 100-ft. minimum
shoreline setback would be
maintained.
• Proposed construction and
redevelopment could cause
indirect impacts to on-site
wetlands, riparian habitat and
lake habitat related to
hydrologic conditions (in the
case of the wetlands) and
potential for erosion and
sediment deposition
(particularly during
construction). Significant
impacts, including to salmonid
fish in the lake, are not expected
with implementation of a TESCP
during construction and
installation of a permanent
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 6 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
stormwater control system, as
required by the City.
• With proposed redevelopment,
no direct impacts would occur
to the retained/expanded
wetlands on the Isolated
Property or the re-
established/expanded wetlands
on the Main Property.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• With proposed redevelopment,
a portion of the buffer on
Wetland D would be reduced to
25 feet; other portions of the
buffer would be expanded to
provide compensatory areas, as
allowed by the buffer averaging
provisions of the City of Renton
Municipal Code.
• Same as Alternative 1. • No reduction of the Wetland D
buffer would occur with the
100-ft. minimum shoreline
setback area that would be
maintained.
• No reduction of the Wetland D
buffer would occur with the
100-ft. minimum shoreline
setback area that would be
maintained.
• Proposed buildings would be
setback a minimum of 50 feet
from the shoreline, as required
by the 1983 City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Proposed buildings would be
setback a minimum of 100 feet
from the shoreline.
• Proposed buildings would be
setback a minimum of 100 feet
from the shoreline.
• Three stormwater outfalls
would be constructed within the
shoreline areas. These outfalls
would be located to avoid direct
impacts to wetlands and would
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 7 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
be designed to prevent
erosions/siltation during
construction and operation.
Therefore, no significant
impacts to wetlands and the
lake are expected.
• With proposed redevelopment,
the shoreline setback area
would largely remain intact. A
publically accessible trail with
interpretive viewpoints would
be located within the 50-ft.
minimum shoreline setback, if
approved as part of EPA’s
anticipated ROD for the
remediation project or any NRD
settlement. The upland portion
of the Main Property would be
covered in buildings, paved
areas and landscaping, providing
habitat for certain wildlife
species adapted to urban
environments.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
However, the publically
accessible pedestrian facilities
would be location within the
100-ft. minimum shoreline
setback area, if approved as
part of EPA’s anticipated ROD
for the remediation project or
any NRD settlement.
• Same as Alternative 1.
However, a publically
accessible pedestrian facilities
would be located within the
100-ft. minimum shoreline
setback area, if approved as
part of EPA’s anticipated ROD
for the remediation project or
any NRD settlement.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant
unavoidable impacts to critical
areas that cannot be mitigated
with the mitigation measures
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 8 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Impacts
• The entire Main Property would
be capped with soil during site
cleanup/remediation, limiting
the potential for exposure to
underlying contaminants. To
the greatest extent possible, this
cap would remain intact with
proposed redevelopment.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• The installation of deep
foundations (i.e., piles) and
utilities could generate
contaminated soil and/or
groundwater to which workers
and City staff inspectors could
be exposed. City staff that
maintain utilities could also be
exposed to contaminated
soils/groundwater. With proper
protection equipment, training
and handling and disposal of
contaminants, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• Volatile contaminants in the
subsurface could generate
vapors that could intrude into
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 9 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative utility trenches and above-grade
structures. With separation of
living/working areas from
contaminants by the soil cap
and under-building parking, as
well as implementation of
institutional controls specified
during site remediation, no
significant impacts are
anticipated.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant
unavoidable impacts to
environmental health that
cannot be mitigated with the
mitigation measures identified
in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
ENERGY—GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
Impacts
• Proposed redevelopment would
result in an increase in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions relative to existing
conditions due to the increase in
building density and site
population. Development
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, GHG emissions would
be less due to less building
density and site population.
Development would result in an
estimated 860,434.8 MTCO2e in
lifespan GHG emissions.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, GHG emissions would
be less due to less building
density and site population.
Development would result in an
estimated 841,938.8 MTCO2e in
lifespan GHG emissions.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, GHG emissions
would be less due to less
building density and site
population. Development
would result in an estimated
851,720.0 MTCO2e in lifespan
Appendix B 10 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative would result in an estimated
1,297,536.8 MTCO2e in lifespan
GHG emissions.
GHG emissions (see Appendix
C for calculations of these
emissions).
• New development would use
energy in the form of electricity
for heating, cooling, lighting and
other energy demands, and
natural gas for heating and
cooking.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, energy usage would be
lower due to less overall
development on the site.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, energy usage would
be lower due to less overall
development on the site.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, energy usage would
be lower due to less overall
development on the site.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant
unavoidable energy or GHG
emissions impacts that cannot
be mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
Impacts
• Under the proposal, the site
would be subdivided into seven
lots, four of which would
contain mixed-use
development, and three of
which would contain the
shoreline area.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 11 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
• Redevelopment would occur in
nine buildings on the Main
Property, and would include:
− 800 residential units
− Approx. 245,000 sq. ft.
of offices uses
− Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of
retail uses
− Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of
restaurant uses
No development would occur on
the Isolated Property.
• Redevelopment would occur in
nine buildings on the Main
Property, and would include:
− 708 residential units
− No offices uses
− Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of
retail uses
− Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of
restaurant uses
No development would occur on
the Isolated Property.
• Redevelopment would occur in
ten buildings on the Main
Property, and would include:
− 692 residential units
− No offices uses
− Approx. 21,600 sq. ft.
of retail uses
− Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of
restaurant uses
No development would occur
on the Isolated Property.
• Redevelopment would occur
in ten buildings on the Main
Property, and would include:
− 692 residential units
− No offices uses
− Approx. 33,190 sq. ft.
of retail uses
− Approx. 9,000 sq. ft.
of restaurant uses
No development would occur on
the Isolated Property.
• Site preparation and
construction of buildings and
infrastructure would result in
temporary construction-related
impacts to adjacent land uses
over the buildout period (i.e., air
emission, noise and increased
traffic). Due to the temporary
nature of construction and
required compliance with City of
Renton construction code
regulations, no significant
impacts are expected.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
• Redevelopment would convert
the site from its current vacant,
partially vegetated state to a
mixed-use development, and
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 12 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
would restore a Superfund site to
a productive use.
• Redevelopment would result in
increased activity levels onsite
(i.e., noise, traffic, etc.). In
general, these activity levels
would be greater than the
adjacent residential uses to the
south (Barbee Mill), but similar
to the commercial uses to the
north (Seahawks Training
Facility) and the existing and
planned commercial and hotel
uses to the east (proposed
Hawk’s Landing hotel and
commercial uses east of I-405).
Activity levels would be
consistent with the existing
urban character of the area and
no significant impacts are
expected.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, activity levels onsite
and their associated potential to
impact adjacent land uses would
be less due to less overall
development onsite.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, activity levels onsite
and their associated potential
to impact adjacent land uses
would be less due to less
overall development onsite.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, activity levels onsite
and their associated potential
to impact adjacent land uses
would be less due to less
overall development onsite.
• Proposed buildings onsite would
be up to 80 feet high and
residential building area from
approximately 94,600 to
209,000 sq. ft. in size. The
proposed height and bulk would
be consistent with the type and
size of development
contemplated in the COR land
• Proposed buildings onsite would
be up to 67 feet high and
residential building area from
approximately 77,000 to
112,800 sq. ft. in size. The
proposed height and bulk would
be consistent with the type and
size of development
contemplated in the COR land
• Proposed buildings onsite
would be up to 64 feet high
and residential building area
from approximately 46,200 to
88,000 sq. ft. in size. The
proposed height and bulk
would be consistent with the
type and size of development
contemplated in the COR land
• Proposed buildings onsite
would be up to 64 feet in high
and from residential building
area from approximately
62,400 to 101,973 sq. ft. in
size. The proposed height and
bulk would be consistent with
the type and size of
development contemplated in
Appendix B 13 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
use/zoning classification and the
Urban shoreline environment.
use/zoning classification and the
Urban shoreline environment.
use/zoning classification and
the Urban shoreline
environment.
the COR land use/zoning
classification and the Urban
shoreline environment.
• Proposed buildings would be
greater in height and bulk than
the adjacent residential
buildings to the south; however,
they would generally be similar
to the surrounding existing
commercial and planned hotel
buildings to the north and east.
Existing off-site features (i.e.,
roadways and the PSE
easement) and proposed on-site
features (i.e., setbacks,
driveways, parking areas and
landscaping) would provide
buffers between proposed
buildings and adjacent uses.
Architectural features would be
included that are intended to
enhance the compatibility of the
proposed development with
surrounding uses. Overall, no
significant land use compatibility
impacts are expected.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however building height and
bulk would be less.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however building height and
bulk would be less.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, building height and
bulk would be less. Three
buildings (buildings NW 2, SE 2
and NE 2) would be one-story
taller than under the
Preferred Alternative.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant
unavoidable adverse land use
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 14 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS,
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
• The proposed project would
generally be consistent with
applicable plans, policies and
regulations. However, it is
unclear at this time whether
proposed redevelopment would
be consistent with all of the COR
land use/zoning classification
goals and requirements,
particularly regarding the design
of the project. Possible
mitigation measures could be
implemented to enhance the
design of the project and
achieve consistency with these
goals and requirements.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. The
City and the Applicant are in
the process of preparing a
Development Agreement that
would enhance the project
design by providing additional
open space, street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) and
opportunity for a possible
future public dock or pier (this
dock is not proposed at this
time and would be subject to
future SEPA environmental
review and consent from EPA).
AESTHETICS/VIEWS
Impacts
• Proposed redevelopment would
change the aesthetic character
of the site from a partially
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 15 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative vegetated area to a new mixed-
use development.
• Proposed buildings would be
greater in height and bulk than
the adjacent Barbee Mill
development to the south and
would be generally similar in
height and bulk to the Seahawks
Headquarters and Training
Facility to the north.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, proposed development
height and bulk would be less.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, proposed
development height and bulk
would be less.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, proposed
development height and bulk
would be less. Three buildings
(NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would
be one-story taller than under
the Preferred Alternative.
• Views toward the site would
change substantially to reflect a
maximum seven-story mixed-
use development. Architectural
features and landscaping would
be provided to enhance the
project’s visual appeal. Possible
mitigation measure could be
implemented to further
enhance the aesthetic character
of the development and
maintain views of the lake.
• Similar to Alternative 1; however
proposed buildings would be a
maximum of six stories.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, proposed buildings
would be a maximum of six
stories, and in the southwestern
portion of the site building SW 4
would be four-stories high.
• Similar to Alternative 1;
however, proposed buildings
would be a maximum of six
stories, and in the
southwestern portion of the
site building SW 4 would be
four-stories high.
• View corridors are proposed
along the main east/west public
roadway (Street ‘B’) and along
the private driveways at the
north and south ends of the site
to provide views across the site
towards Lake Washington.
• Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternatives 1;
however, view corridors along
Street ‘B’, private driveways and
along the southern boundary of
the site would be widened.
• Similar to Alternatives 1;
however, view corridors along
Street ‘B’, private driveways
and along the southern
boundary of the site would be
widened.
Appendix B 16 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
Views toward the lake would be
blocked or partially blocked
from certain public view points.
Possible mitigation measures
could be implemented to
enhance views across the site.
• Proposed redevelopment would
add new sources of light and
glare, and would produce
shadows at the site. New light
sources would be similar to
existing sources at the Barbee
Mill development and Seahawks
Headquarters and Training
Facility; however, the general
lighting levels on the site would
be higher. Noise levels would
be typical of an urban
development. Shadows from
the project would not impact
off-site uses, but would extend
onto certain on-site outdoor
areas.
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that lighting and noise levels and
shadows would be lower due to
less overall development.
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that lighting and noise levels
and shadows would be lower
due to less overall
development.
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that lighting and noise levels
and shadows would be lower
due to less overall
development.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant
unavoidable adverse land use
impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 17 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Impacts
• Approximately 11.7 acres of
open space and related areas
would be provided onsite,
including: paved plazas, natural
areas, landscaped areas,
unpaved trails and sidewalks.
These areas may or may not
meet the City’s standards,
regulations and procedures for
open space. Approximately 3.4
acres of the on-site open space
and related areas would be
visually and physically accessible
to the general public (i.e., the
natural shoreline area and the
shoreline trail, respectively).
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that slightly more open space
and related areas would be
provided onsite (11.8 acres).
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that slightly less open space and
related areas would be
provided onsite (10.6 acres).
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that more open space and
related areas would be
provided onsite (12.9 acres)
and would include a new 1.3-
acre park in the southwestern
portion of the site.
• Increases in the on-site
residential population, as well as
on-site employees would
increase demands on
neighborhood and regional
parks, open space, trails and
recreation facilities, including
parks that are already at or
exceeding capacity on warm
days. The proposal would
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that there would be slightly
fewer residents on the site and
fewer employees; demands on
neighborhood and regional
parks, opens space, trails and
recreation facilities would be
reduced accordingly.
• Similar to Alternative 1, except
that there would be fewer
residents on the site and fewer
employees; demands on
neighborhood and regional
parks, opens space, trails and
recreation facilities would be
reduced accordingly.
Similar to Alternative 1, except
that there would be fewer
residents on the site and fewer
employees; demands on
neighborhood and regional
parks, opens space, trails and
recreation facilities would be
reduced accordingly.
Appendix B 18 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
contribute to these capacity
issues. Additional parks and
recreational facilities could be
needed in the City, based on the
increased on-site population.
Certain on-site facilities (i.e., the
shoreline trail) would provide
opportunities for passive
recreation. Areas for active
recreation could be provided
onsite as well. Parks impact fees
would be paid to help offset the
impacts of the project on City
parks and recreational facilities.
A new 1.3-acre park would be
included in the southwestern
portion of the site that would
provide additional
parks/recreation area.
A publically-accessible 12-ft.
wide enhanced fire and utility
access lane would be provided
outside the 100-ft. minimum
shoreline setback. This access
lane would connect to the
properties to the north and
south of the site via 6-ft. wide
soft-surface trails. In addition, a
soft surface trail would be
provided within the 100-ft.
shoreline setback area, if
approved as part of EPA’s
anticipated ROD for the
remediation project or any NRD
settlement.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant
unavoidable adverse parks and
recreation impacts that cannot
be mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
Appendix B 19 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
TRANSPORTATION
Impacts
• The proposed redevelopment
would generate approximately
9,000 daily vehicular trips at full
buildout, including
approximately 865 AM peak
hour trips and 950 PM peak
hour trips.
• Proposed redevelopment would
generate approximately 5,800
daily vehicular trips at full
buildout, including
approximately 445 AM peak
hour trips and 540 PM peak hour
trips.
• Proposed redevelopment would
generate approximately 5,656
daily vehicular trips at full
buildout, including
approximately 435 AM peak
hour trips and 530 PM peak
hour trips.
• Proposed redevelopment
would generate approximately
5,829 daily vehicular trips at
full buildout, including
approximately 435 AM peak
hour trips and 545 PM peak
hour trips.
• With proposed redevelopment,
and without WSDOT I-405
improvements or project
mitigation, four intersections
would operate at LOS E/F:
- Lake Washington Blvd. (I-405
NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.;
- I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.;
- Ripley Lane/Lake Washington
Blvd.; and
- Lake Washington Blvd.
(Garden Ave.) at Park View
Ave. N.
• Similar to Alternative 1. • With proposed redevelopment,
and without WSDOT I-405
improvements or project
mitigation, three intersections
would operate at LOS E/F:
- Lake Washington Blvd. (I-
405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.;
- I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.;
and
- Ripley Lane/NE 44th St.
• Similar to the Preferred
Alternative.
• Without I-405 Improvements or
project mitigation, excessive
southbound queues (between
700-800 ft.) would be
anticipated at the Lake
Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane N
intersection.
• Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1;
however, without I-405
Improvements or project
mitigation southbound queues
(between 800-900 ft.) would be
anticipated at the Lake
• Similar to the Preferred
Alternative.
Appendix B 20 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane
N intersection.
• Without I-405 Improvements or
project mitigation, the site
access at Ripley Lane N is
anticipated to operate at LOS F.
• Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1.
• Given the site location, it is
anticipated that the proposed
redevelopment would be
occupied by residents and
employees who primarily rely on
personal automobiles and no
significant impacts to public
transportation would be
anticipated.
• Similar to Alternative 1 • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1.
• Increases in population onsite
would result in associated
increased need for non-
motorized facilities. Curbs,
gutters and sidewalks would be
provided onsite, as well as along
Lake Washington Boulevard and
Ripley Lane N. A publically
accessible trail is also proposed
within the 50-ft. minimum
shoreline setback, if approved as
part of EPA’s anticipated ROD
for the remediation project or
any NRD settlement.
• Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1.
However, a publically
accessible trail would be
located within the 100-ft.
minimum shoreline setback, if
approved as part of EPA’s
anticipated ROD for the
remediation project or any NRD
settlement.
• Similar to Alternative 1.
However, a publically
accessible enhanced fire and
utility access lane would be
located outside the 100-ft.
minimum shoreline setback
and would connect to the
properties to the north and
south via trails. In addition, a
soft surface trail would be
provided within the 100-ft.
minimum shoreline setback
area, if approved as part of
EPA’s anticipated ROD for the
Appendix B 21 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative
remediation project or any
NRD settlement.
• 2,153 parking spaces would be
provided and would meet
applicable City of Renton
parking standards.
• 1,362 parking spaces would be
provided and would meet
applicable City of Renton
parking standards.
• 1,337 parking spaces would be
provided and would meet
applicable City of Renton
parking standards.
• 1,352 parking spaces would be
provided and provide
adequate parking supply.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• With or without the I-405
Improvements, and with the
identified project mitigation
measures, no significant
transportation-related impacts
are expected. Therefore, there
are no significant unavoidable
adverse transportation impacts
that cannot be mitigated with
the mitigation measures
identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts
• Cultural resource impacts were
not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS.
However, impacts are expected
to be similar to under the
Preferred Alternative.
• Cultural resource impacts were
not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS.
However, impacts are expected
to be similar to under the
Preferred Alternative.
• Certain construction activities
onsite (i.e., clearing and grading
of the upland area, construction
of deep building foundations,
and excavation of utilities)
could require excavation into
• Same as the Preferred
Alternative.
Appendix B 22 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative the soil cap (should it be
installed) and could result in an
inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources.
While it is unlikely that cultural
resources would be
encountered as part of
construction activities on the
site, a monitoring plan and
inadvertent discovery plan
would be implemented in the
event that any cultural
resources are encountered.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• Cultural resource impacts were
not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS.
However, similar to under the
Preferred Alternative, no
significant unavoidable adverse
cultural resource impacts are
expected that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
• Same as Alternative 1. • There are no significant
unavoidable adverse cultural
resource impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
• Same as the Preferred
Alternative.
APPENDIX C
GHG EMISSIONS WORKSHEET
FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative
Section I: Buildings
Type (Residential) or Principal Activity
(Commercial)# Units
Square Feet (in
thousands of
square feet)Embodied Energy Transportation
Lifespan
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Single-Family Home..............................0 98 672 792 0
Multi-Family Unit in Large Building .......692 33 357 766 799741
Multi-Family Unit in Small Building .......0 54 681 766 0
Mobile Home.........................................0 41 475 709 0
Education ..............................................0.0 39 646 361 0
Food Sales ...........................................0.0 39 1,541 282 0
Food Service ........................................9.0 39 1,994 561 23344
Health Care Inpatient ............................0.0 39 1,938 582 0
Health Care Outpatient .........................0.0 39 737 571 0
Lodging .................................................0.0 39 777 117 0
Retail (Other Than Mall)........................33.2 39 577 247 28635
Office ....................................................0.0 39 723 588 0
Public Assembly ...................................0.0 39 733 150 0
Public Order and Safety .......................0.0 39 899 374 0
Religious Worship ................................0.0 39 339 129 0
Service ..................................................0.0 39 599 266 0
Warehouse and Storage ......................0.0 39 352 181 0
Other ....................................................0.0 39 1,278 257 0
Vacant ..................................................0.0 39 162 47 0
Section II: Pavement...........................
Pavement..............................................0.00 0
Total Project Emissions:851720
Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet
(MTCO2e)
Version 1.7 12/26/07
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR □ NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington (“City”), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns (“Developer”), is made and entered into this ____ day of
________ , 2016 (the “Effective Date”) pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the “Quendall Property” or “Property”)).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the “Project”), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision.
Exhibit
3
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner’s Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
“Initial Project Applications”).
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW (“SEPA”),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the “DEIS”) on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the “Addendum”). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the “FEIS”) and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City’s request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
(“the Development Agreement Statute”), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City’s Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the “Project-level SEPA Review.”
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____________, 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer’s applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners’
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties’ mutual satisfaction
(“Future Dock Proposal”). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the “SEPA Transportation Update”), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the “Update Notice”) will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer’s development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA’s oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates (“Initial Term”). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer’s request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather” or “safe harbor” clause that would
delay the City’s enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City’s Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City’s authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully
set forth.
6.8 Dispute Resolution.
6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement,
the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This
mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the
other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute.
6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through
mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration.
The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By:__________________________
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By:__________________________
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ________________________
CITY OF RENTON
By:
Denis Law
Mayor
Date: ________________________
ATTEST:
By:___________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of _______, County of ________, personally appeared ________________,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-1-Map
11/11/2016
Exhibit A
Page 15
9
8
1
0
2
-
3
5
1
3
B
U
S
H
,
R
O
E
D
&
H
I
T
C
H
I
N
G
S
,
I
N
C
.
2
0
0
9
M
I
N
O
R
A
V
E
.
E
A
S
T
S
E
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
&
C
I
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
(
2
0
6
)
3
2
3
-
4
1
4
4
S
W
1
/
4
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
9
,
T
2
4
N
,
R
5
E
,
W
.
M
.
L
E
G
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
,
L
L
L
P
.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
R
E
N
T
O
N
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
A
T
E
:
1
1
/
1
1
/
1
6
J
O
B
N
O
.
:
2
0
0
9
0
5
0
.
0
3
11/11/2016
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
1
P
a
g
e
1
6