The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 01 3 of 6Denis Law Mayor Office of the City Attorney Shane Moloney M E M O R A N D UM DATE: June 9, 2017 TO: Quendall Terminals development file (Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline and Substantial Development Permit; Development Agreement); LLIA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM FROM: Leslie Clark, Senior Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Response to Applicant's June 7, 2017 Vesting Analysis I. BACKGROUND The Quendall Terminals land use application and associated development agreement (collectively, the "Project") are scheduled for consideration by the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 2017, with action anticipated by the City Council on the same date. On June 7, 2017, the applicant submitted a letter (the "Letter") analyzing three vesting issues raised in the Hearing Examiner's May 9, 2017 recommendation on the Project. By subsequent e-mail communication on June 9, 2017, the applicant withdrew the Letter's third vesting issue.' This memorandum responds to the two remaining vesting issues raised in the Letter, explaining that the agenda bill and its exhibits already satisfactorily address both issues. For that reason, no separate action is necessary in response to the Letter. II. DISCUSSION 1. The City Attorneys Office and the Applicant Concur that the Project Is Vested to Development Standards in Effect on February 5, 2010. The Letter first addresses the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that the City Attorney reconfirm that the Project remains vested. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner observed that the RMC's vesting provisions were amended after the Project's application date of February 5, 2010, ' The Letter's now -withdrawn third vesting issue objected to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to modify vesting language in Section 5.2 of the draft development agreement. The City Attorney's Office concurred with the Hearing Examiner that the recommended modification comports with vesting law, and the applicant has now withdrawn its objections. No separate action by the City Council is necessary on that issue. Senior Assistant City Attorneys Leslie Clark and Cheryl L. Beyer • Assistant City Attorney Alex Tuttle Prosecuting Attorneys Iva Claris, Joseph S. Brown, Jason Mercer and Sotha Lor MEMORANDUM - Quendall Terminais Page 12 June 9, 2017 and the Hearing Examiner suggested that such amendment may have affected the Project's vesting. In response, the City Attorney's Office reconfirms that the Project remains vested, concurring with the Letter's analysis that the Project remains vested to the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on February 5, 2010. Recommendation. The agenda bill and its exhibits already satisfactorily reflect the position of the City Attorney's Office on the vesting question; no separate action is necessary. 2. The Applicant and City Staff Agree with the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation that the Project's Development Agreement Should Specify that Stormwater Regulations Do Not Vest. Second, the Letter responds to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that the Project's development agreement specify that the Project does not vest to State stormwater regulations. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation is based on a December 2016 vesting decision by the Washington Supreme Court in Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 187 Wn.2d 346. Both the applicant and City staff are in agreement with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Recommendation: The agenda bill and its exhibits already satisfactorily reflect the position of the Hearing Examiner, City staff, and the applicant; no separate action is necessary. cc: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Vanessa Dolbee, CED Current Planning Manager Shane Moloney, City Attorney Vanessa Dolbee From: Leslie Clark Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:50 PM To: 'Ann M. Gygi' Cc: Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks, Ann. Confirming receipt. Leslie LESLIE CLARK I Senior Assistant City Attorney ` 1055 S. Grady Way I Renton WA 98057 LClark@Rentonwa.gov 1 (425) 430-6482 From: Ann M. Gygi [mailto:ann.gygi@hcmp.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:33 PM To: Leslie Clark <LClark@Rentonwa.gov? Cc: Mathewson, Campbell <cmathewson@CenturyPacificLP.com> Subject: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Hi Leslie, This is to confirm that, based on our conversation, Quendall Terminals withdraws its request to modify the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding Section 5.2 of the Development Agreement. This modifies our response letter of June 7, 2017, and we will accept the changes to Section 5.2 as recommended by the Examiner. Thank you. Ann Ann M. Gygi Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. 999 Third Avenue I Suite 4600 1 Seattle, WA 98104 d:206.470.7638 1 206,623.1745 I f:206,623.7789 ann,gygi@hcmp.com 1 wwwAcmp.com I vCard I H M P Hillis Clark Mann & Peterson PS. June 7, 2017 Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney City of Renton Office of the City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Hearang Examiners Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclu�ious of Law and Recommendation. Qaendall Terminals Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Sholie ine Substantial Development Permit, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA M, SAlf) Dear Ms. Clark: On May 9, 2017, Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts issued the above - referenced recommendation of approval for the Quendall Terminals project applications and proposed Development Agreement (hereafter, the "Recommendation"). In the Recommendation, the Examiner suggested that the City Attorney's Office confirm for the City Council that the Quendall Terminals project enjoys vested rights. Accordingly, we wanted to provide you the Applicant's legal analysis regarding vesting. On behalf of the Applicant, Quendall Terminals, we provide the following vesting analysis, which concludes that the Quendall Terminals project is vested to the land use regulations in place on the date of complete application. We also address the two language changes regarding vesting that the Hearing Examiner offered for Council's consideration. BACKGROUND As we have discussed, the Applicant has shared a common understanding with City Planning Staff and the City Attorney's Office for mans, years that the Quendall Terminals project is vested to land use regulations in effect on the date the City issued its determination of complete application on February 5, 2010. At that tune, the City's land use regulations provided for vesting upon submittal of a complete application for binding site plan approval. RMC 4-7-230(N)(1), adopted by Ord. 4950, 02/11/02. Subsequently, the Applicant spent years, and mote than a million dollars, developing its project proposal and taping it through the City's environmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act. In the Examiner's own words, "[t]he applicant and 37aff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed development is compatible with sun-ounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints oJ'its challenging location. "Recommendation at 1. Numerous City documents have recognized that the Project vested as of the date of complete application, including the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document, issued in 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 1 Seattle, WA 98104 1 206.623,1745 1 f: 206.623.7789 1 hcmp,com Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney June 7, 2017 Page 2of6 August 2015 with publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Project, see Nlit. Doc. at 10 (Exh. 2)' (Project vested to development standards in place at date of complete applications, February 5, 2010); the Staff Report issued in April 2014, see Staff Report, April 19, 2016, at 4 (Exh. 1); and the proposed Development Agreement for Quendall Terminals, see Draft Dev. Agrmt. Section 1, at 4 (Exh. 20) (defining "Vesting Date" as February 10, 2010)2. These documents demonstrate the common view between the City and Quendall Terminals that vesting occurred upon complete application, and that all of the project review has been conducted under the land use regulations in effect on the vesting date. The Applicant has relied upon its vested rights in proceeding through application review and approvals. LEGAL ANALYSIS As described above, the procedural background for Quendall Terminals establishes the factual basis for its vested rights. In addition, the legal doctrine of vesting compels recognition of vested rights under the circumstances here. The Examiner has suggested confirmation from the City Attorney's office regarding vesting. For your consideration, we address the following points in response to the Examiner's vesting discussion in the Recommendation: (1) Quendall Terminals vested under the City of Renton's binding site plan ordinance in 2010, and its vested rights survive the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision in 2012; and (2) Neither the court's holding not its rationale in Graham NeighborhoodAss'�i v. F.G. Asson, 162 Wash. App. 98 (2011) provide a basis for overriding Quendall Terminals vested rights. Because Quendall Terminals vested under the City's ordinance, we need not address whether the state subdivision code, ch. 58.17 RCW, provides statutory vesting for binding site plan applications. u "Exh." references in tb is letter are to the Exhibits to the Staff Reports and as entered at the Hearing, as enumerated at p. 8 of the Recommendation. 2 We note that there is a minor discrepancy in the stated vesting date between the original letter of determination of completeness dated February 5, 2010, and later references stating the date as February 10, 2010, which we assume is a typographical error that has been carried forward. For accuracy, the Februai�, 5 date should be used, although the applicant is unaware of any land use regulatory changes adopted by ordinance between February 5 and February 10, 2010. Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney June 7, 2017 Page 3 of 6 A. The Quendall Terminals Applications are Vested under the City of Renton Binding Site Plan Ordinance in Effect at Date of Complete Application. .Quendall Terminals Vested under City Cade. Applicants can vest their project applications by virtue of state vesting statutes or local vesting ordinances. See Efickson &Assoc. Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873 (1994) ("Within the parameters of the [vested rights] doctrine established by statutory and case law, municipalities are free to develop vesting schemes best suited to the needs of a particular locality"). The doctrine places limits on municipal discretion and permits land owners or developers "to plan their conduct with reasonable certainty of the legal consequences." fd , quoting West IblainAssocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d. 47, 51 (1986). At the time that Quendall Terrninals submitted its complete applications, including its application for Binding Site Plan, the subdivision chapter of the Renton Municipal Code included a vesting provision that "[u]pon filing of a complete application for a binding site plan, the application shall be considered under the binding site plan ordinance, the zoning, and other development regulations in effect on the date of application for the land uses and development identified in the binding site plan application..."). RAIC 4-7-230(N)(1). That ordinance was in place when Quendall Terminals received its notice of complete application from the City, and it is unequivocal that the project vested under the City Ordinance. The Examiner queries, under the Grabant decision, whether the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision may have affected Project vesting. As addressed below, Quendall TerminaUs vesting was not disturbed by repeal of RMC 4-7-230(N)(1). 2. The Graham Deczszon is Inapposite to Qmmdall Terminals Vesting, The Examiner raises a hypothetical question in his Recommendation, arising from his reading of the Grabaan decision, regarding whether an application vests to a vesting ordinance. Recommendation at 25. For reasons addressed below, the Examiner's hypothetical is not pertinent here because a plain reading of Renton's vesting ordinance clearly establishes that the Quendall Terminals applications vested to it. Nonetheless, we address Graham to explain why the court's rationale, distinguishing between "procedural" permit processing provisions and "land use control ordinances," is not material here. The Pierce County ordinance at issue in Graham imposed new permit expiration terms, adopted after an applicant had submitted a complete subdivision application. The ordinance set new permit processing requirements that vested applications were required to meet in order to maintain valid permit status.' The applicant for the subdivision claimed that because s The Graham court did not conclude whether vesting itself was procedural or substantive in mature. Rather it addressed the question of once vested, what regulations are you vested to. The court determined that Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney June 7, 2017 Page 4 of 6 its application was vested, the new permit procedures did not apply to it. The court found that the permit expiration procedures at issue were procedural, not "land use control" ordinances subject to vesting, because they did not have a "restraining influence on the development of land." The court reasoned that even a vested application can become subject to new procedural code provisions that do not amount to land use control ordinances. Accordingly, the court found that the new permit expiration provisions did apply to the applicant, and because it had not complied with measures to maintain valid permit status after receiving notice, the subdivision application had expired. It was material to the court's reasoning in Graham that the permit expiration provisions at issue were not found in the County Code chapter relating to land use regulations themselves. Rather, they were in a separate chapter of County Code entitled "vesting," which chapter directly limited a developer's vested rights. 162 Wn. App. at 116. To the contrary here, the vesting provision that governs Quendall Terminals was found within the City's subdivision regulations, chapter 4-7 RMC, and in the section (.230) addressing requirements for Binding Site Plans. Moreover, the Renton vesting provision by its own terms stated what provisions binding site plan applications vest to: "the application shall be considered under the binding site Milan ordinance, the zoning, and other development regulations in effect on the date of cpplication..." RMC 4-7-230(N)(1) (emphasis added). 5o by the very terms of the vesting ordinance,.the scope of the regulations to which the application vested included the binding site plan ordinance in effect on the date of complete application, and that is precisely where the vesting provision is found. Thus, the vesting analysis that controls here is distinguishable from that reviewed in Graham, because the language of Renton's vesting provision itself determines the scope of vesting. By its own terms, subsequent repeal of the vesting ordinance could not undo Quendall. Terminals' prior vesting. Another important distinction from Graham applies here. In Graham, the permit expiration provision at issue included important due process protections for the applicant. If a permit application was not timely acted upon, the county mailed notice to the applicant that the application would be terminated in one year, which period could be extended only by the County Hearing Examiner. 162 Wn. App. at 117. The notice period is critical to protect due process rights of developers, who can then act to complete their permitting process or seek extension. At the same time, the ability to terminate inactive applications enables the County to assure that vesting benefits those who are sufficiently invested in their projects to merit it. In contrast to the bare bones application reviewed in Graham, the Examiner for Quendall Terminals found that "[tlhe apt icart and sta�have =rrde bone a monumental effml in assatfing that the imposed development is compatible with sarrronndin,g uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints of its challenging location. "Recommendation at 1. Moreover, there was never any notice provided that the set of "land use control ordinances" to which the applicant vested did not include the permit expiration criteria set forth in the permit processing section of the Pierce County Code. That is a different set of facts and law than is presented here. Willis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney June 7, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Quendall Terixninals was at risk of losing its vested rights. To the contrary, numerous City documents affirmed Project vesting subsequent to the repeal of the vesting prevision. 4 A reversal of the vesting determination now would violate Quendall Termuials' due process rights and result in significant damages. We have no reason to believe the City would seek do that, but given the Examiner's question, we feel compelled to identify that concern. Finally, to the Examiner's hypothetical question, principles of fairness support a conclusion that applicants do vest to vesting provisions of an ordinance. A vesting provision itself is a land use control regulation, because it fixes in place all of the other land use control regulations that apply to the application. If the rule were otherwise, then cities could do away with a projeces vested rights by passing a "procedural rule" to undo vesting. The conclusion that an applicant vests to a vesting provision can reside in harmony with the coures ruling in Graham, because the ordinance provision in question there did not repeal vesting, rather it added procedural requirements that the court found did not constitute land use control regulations. The applicant remained vested to land use control regulations, although it was required to comply with the new procedural requirements to keep valid application status. B. Hearing Examiner's Proposed Revisions to Development Agreement Vesting Language. The City Attorney incorporated language in Section 5.2 of the proposed Development Agreement to ensure that its vesting provisions reserved to the City the authority to enforce possible new stormwater compliance measures imposed upon the City under its NPDES permit.' The provision creates an exception for new federal or state statutes, rules, court decisions, etc. that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a grandfather clause that would provide safe harbor for the Project. At the time that Section 5.2 was proposed, state vesting doctrine as applied to NPDES requirements was under review by the State Supreme Court, but QuendalI Terminals nonetheless agreed to the provision. The recent decision in Snoho wish County v. Pollution Control Hearing ward, 187 Wn.2d 346 (2016), held that the vested rights doctrine does not apply to stormwater regulations that the State Department of Ecology requires permittees (such as the City) to adopt and apply to completed development applications under the NPDES permitting program. This is consistent I Vesting is particularly important here, because Renton's COR zone mandates a master plan approval to guide phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. See RNIC 4-9-200(1)(1), (B)(1)(l)). Site Plans applications and building permit applications must be consistent with the blaster Plan approval, and a building permit cannot be issued until site planning is complete. RNIC 4-9-200(B)(2). Section 52 as drafted by the City Attorney reads; "Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this agreement, 1:lne City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, riles, 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." Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. Leslie Clare., Depute City Attorney June 7, 2017 Page 6of6 with the intent of the provision drafted by the City Attorney. Since the decision has issued and is no longer "new" under the exception, we would not object to adding the new sentence proposed by the Examiner, which clarifies that the City's legal obligations under its NPDES permit are exempt from vesting. We are concerned, however, with the Hearing Examiner's second proposed revision to Section 5.2. He suggests striking the word "new" from the provision as drafted by the City Attorney. With the express exemption from vesting for NPDES permit requirements, that change is not necessary to address the concern raised by the City Attorney. Moreover, it would create uncertainty regarding the single value the Applicant gains under the Development Agreement: an extended permit duration vested to the land use control ordinances in place at the time of complete application. The Project applications have undergone an intensive review process with no other regulatory mandates having been raised as warranting an exception from vesting, and the City's authority is well protected by the exception as drafted. Use of the term "new" to qualify the exception helps assure a level playing field for evaluating any future vesting limitation claims that might arise in a context similar to the NPDES permit anaiysis. We ask that apart from adding the sentence regarding NPDES requirements, Section 5.2 remain as drafted by the City Attorney. On behalf of Quendall Terminals, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our analysis of the Examiner's vesting discussion. AMG:kah E-Mail: afin.gygi@hcmp.com Direct Dial: (206) 470-7638 Fax: (206) 623-7789 cc: Campbell Mathewson Nt): 1995UO2 4827-4459-7577v1 Very truly yours, A A 4/t� Ann M. Gygi Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson PS. AGENDA ITEM #8, cj AB - 1881 - c1TY OF -----w,,��"�Renton SUBJECT/TITLE: RECOMMENDED ACTION DEPARTMENT: STAFF CONTACT: EXT.: N/A City Council Regular Meeting - 03 Apr 2017 Quendall Terminals Public Hearing Council Concur Community & Economic Development Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager 7314 The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City consider a Development Agreement. The Land Use application consists of a request for Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and now a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the subject land use application on April 18, 2017. The requested Development Agreement establishes the new Enhanced Development Alternative and allows for an extended time frame for the land use entitlements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10 years, with a possible 5 year extension, for a total of 15 years. A public hearing is required to be held by City Council when considering a Development Agreement. However, there is an opportunity to consolidate the required public hearing for the Development Agreement with the public hearing for the land use entitlements with the City's Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the development agreement, the public will be able to comment on both the development project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing. Second, the Hearing Examiner would have the benefit of considering all aspects of the project and associated public comments when making a decision on the land use entitlements and a recommendation to City Council. A consolidated public hearing process would streamline and simplify the public process for the overall project. The final decision authority on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the City's Hearing Examiner. A. Draft Development Agreement The Administration recommends consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the development agreement and deferring this process to the City's Hearing Examiner. Y,, AGENDA ITEM #8, cj When Recorded, Return to: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Abbreviated Legal Description: To BE INSERTED Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A) Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR ❑ NOT YET ASSIGNED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 AGENDA ITEM #S. c) 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 past-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 etseq. ("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project, as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended permit duration. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 AGENDA ITEM #8. e) 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(0)(1) and 4-8-070(J). J. The City's Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together constitute the "Project -level SEPA Review." K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on , 2017. L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: AGREEMENTS 1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS. Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC') in effect on the Vesting Date. Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as approved by the Hearing Examiner. Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting Date. Master. Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications under LUA09-151. RMC means the Renton Municipal Code. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 AGENDA ITEM #S. c) 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 Retall/restau ra nt/off ice space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet of the project site; 3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction ("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits. The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 AGENDA ITEM #s. c) work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to bake Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan. 3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions, and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such unmitigated Project impacts. 3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking. 3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted. 3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 AGENDA ITEM #8. c) 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 (1) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value ((excluding any City -owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA Transportation Update, upon Developer's request 30 days in advance of the sunset date, for one additional five-year period of time. S. VESTING. 5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to City of Renton ordnance number 5523. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6 AGENDA ITEM #s. e) 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. 6.1 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. Droft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7 AGENDA ITEM #8, c) 6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.706.190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or communication shall be given. If to the City of Renton: Renton City Hall Attn: Mayor Attn: Development Services Director 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 If to Quendall Terminals: Quendall Terminals Attn: Robert Cugini P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 and to J.H. Baxter & Co. Attn: Georgia Baxter P.O. Box 5902 San Mateo, CA 94402-0902 With a copy to: Campbell Mathewson CenturyPacific, LLLP Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 AGENDA ITEM #8. c) 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Davis Wright Tremaine Attn: Lynn Manolopolous 777108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149 Cable Huston LLP Attn: James E. Benedict 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 T. Ryan Durkan Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98101 6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington. 6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. 6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement, the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute. 6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 AGENDA ITEM #8. c) 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 De velopmen t Agreem ent Page 10 AGENDA ITEM #8. c} Denis Law Mayor IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below. DATED this day of , 2017 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS By: Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative By: Robert Cugini Its: Vice President Date: CITY OF RENTON By: Date: ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 AGENDA ITEM #8. cj ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF ) 55: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of , County of , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 AGENDA ITEM #S. c) STATE OF 55: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 AGENDA ITEM #8. c) List of Exhibits: Exhibit A —Legal Description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 AGENDA ITEM #8. c} Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER. REFERRED TO AS POIN`i' A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29044'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRJE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56028'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59024'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59024'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; A7,SO THAT PORTION 07 SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO, 568V408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREO= CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BEM PLS NO. 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 11/11/16 BUSH, ROED & EITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 Page 15 Exhibit A-1 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. TAX ACCT. NO. Ago!N 292405-9012-01 900 0 150 300 ( IN 1 inch - 300 !i .— -LjL2 16__ 4 TAX ACCT. NO. 292405900203 _f N66'12'12'W 107.51 r /A' _ / TRUE POINT 1p / OF BEGINNING t- N TAX ACCT. NO. $8y 292405-9001-04V rc, bL I Q 100.01*�.. Epp• "a^ 4V AZ TAX ACCT. NO. POINT A" ohry 292405--9002-03 qN V ry ol ORDINARY HIGH AZ� GOV'T LOT 5 WATER MARK / � _� �q // �'�co AT 18.8 / ELEVATION ( N3O'56 16 E ��` �`� 90.80' _ �_ .,�0 Qv S W 4 N3[�'S6'1 VE y�Q q r SECTION 29, DEEDED PER AFN 7001 _ (SE 80TH ST) } CORNER 20080619001179 VAC N 44TH ST ' OF SEC. 29 T24N, 45E �oz'11'1Y' /�s9b REC. # 7602260427, N88'48'56"W 1016.36' R-1500.00 \ 6p 3� ; L=57.25 i Gov 00' ¢ !y_ 1,113.05' --rjIl III + I r PLAT OF BARGEE MILL Q� 9 jj ' 1 OL. 246, PGS. 25-39, ,% 149.74' C. NO. 20080208000182 u•;a3 �2Q 32.50' VAC N 44T ST ?w r�N28•a o4 E GOV�T LOT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP. CITY OF RENTON. WASHINGTON BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 @FM SEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11 /1 1 /1 5 98102-3513 JOB NC.:2009050.03 Page 16 City of Renton % Office of the City Clerk rj 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED r Jim R6v (� 11�1N41stPI enton, WA 98056 V dp- w— , t City of Renton Office of the City Clerk 3 1055 South Grady Way l Renton WA 98057-3232 1 ADDRESS SERVICE. REQUESTED VJ k `3 Poo '',i'-,{�,>..:i ..;�.'rr.�';.... Q� •�i „�r ..` •: Q�� /`�^^•re�^amxren��.w.:.-..�..zn� ii'', i�l�.i�•�Y� 1 - � � � 1•{?.{; ..,,z.,...n,• I�irNl r 1i,„rv,.4 s $ oti_4: a.u. -�'� Ob CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 6 2017 Rinutivto S CITY-`a—ERK'S OFF!QiP 005 1. N r }r r11rR� I 7 _4i7 �r.,crM Ii11,''1041 i111P0!,'iEll�iisl ilfl'�yil s1,,i111111iLl:i, yc,<s r'°sr t 1; n--,re•., _j I j wryww.Yr 141"1 Y lit VIVI .;;. $ 03 0.45 o le MAILED FROM ZIP GODF Lvnn Manolo Poulos 777 108th Ave NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004 rf'TY OF RENTOr,; MAY 24 201t �f=C;EIVE[� : =RK'S OFFIGI City of Renton % Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED -4 ob 9 WF �OSP08r. ...1 1--� t� � 7 �' �r�Niv �Ic nrrc •. =r 4_. �. 0� (*1— :., IV 00.45 gum ij00,1 7 221_1 J Lx aL MAIt_EDFROM 71PGODE 9 3a:E` 7 CITY OF RENTON Sheng Wu MAY 3 0 2017 1222 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 RECEIVED CITY CLERK., [3EFICE i k r..1Pert" fYc� r"s,"��s k�?�� • J.ac Annprcr'=!n M! YM' t_;, UN'TEDSTdTES iRA 4 3547 fee due $0.58 POSTAL SERVICE - - _ - Restricted Data - City of Renton - Office of the Gty Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA9M7.37.3Z t�l ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED' 76 DREarimp 9E101 HILLIS C:LARK AMR TIN & PETERSONPS OLD: 1221 2ND A PE SIE 500 SEATTLE WA 98101-2 98 9 NEr W. 999 3RD AYE STE 4600 SEA TTLE YEA 98104-4084 -', First -Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid USPS r Perrrtit.,tio. G10 2C11 sK 000321e220 L'.1Y 11 „ •+r 'cSr. htAJLtQFROrf I1PG00E 93057 Millis Claris Marm & Peterson, PS_ 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Scattle, WA 98101 CITY OF RENT01 MAY 19 2017 'ECEi\iED C T'(ciERK'S OFFIC: 111llllkl'IIII1,11I6.11'IllI[IIfll'llllIhf1111'11111'1311`111,11 TO THE POSTMASTER OFi± 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 Gi. 12 17 21:23 4700700000480 c1:1 proc:2017G51 1 ef£20160,02 PLANET:Id000odc:0362018hlO198412998101298925 I'IIIrIlIiII�'III'IIIIIII!�III!It>IIIIIIIt I!IrIII.iIIIlI!'iliIl! I irt- a�U;VITED STATES1 PostaClass Mail POSTALSERVICE1j FORM 3547 fee due $0.58 i �rSPs}eand Fees Paid J; Restricted Data I Permit No. G10 )LD: City of Renton b Office of the Qty Clerk 105S South Grady Way Ratton WA 9W57-3232 Au0M5S SERVKE RE-QUE= (/Jeffery Kahyer nsM ar ��„JJ Road Construction Northwest, Inc BOX se k -41 N Renton, on, A ��^ Renton, WA 9$057-0188 V 0 2 ml 0004275220 LAY16 201T LUI EDFROM MPGODE 93057 CITY OF RENTON MAY 22 2017 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1d1"1,Iku.kfa111.111.'il'!1u'4111k11"'•h 11.h1911111.1. L:"ti ROAD CONSTR UCTION NOR THWEST INC TO THE POSTMASTER OF PO BOX 188 RENTON WA 98057-0188 1055 S GRADY WAY XW. PO BOX 2228 RENTON WA 98057-9998 RENTON WA 98056-0228 Ii UNITEDSTATES POSTAL SERVICE �l CRy of Renton fth 1 vunikeo eGtyOrra 7055 South Grady Way� Renton WA98057--3232 L ` �1 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED C i C, ORM 3547 fee due $0,5 Restricted Data Cvrw McNedv 3810 Park Ave N Rentan. WA93M 28 C0RG=NMP 20056 CYRUS M MCNEELY OLD: 3810 PARK AYE N RENTON WA 98056-1520 NEW: 31702 4THAYE S FEDERAL WA Y WA 98003-5235 05- l3 17 2122 4300620000519 cl: I proc20170513 eff:20161212 PLANET: 1d:00 Code:0362018451019841199NU 6152010 I I First -Class .,Vfail Postage and F"ees Paid USPs Permit rti'o. G10 aoe427e220 VAY11 2011 MAILED FR" U-CtlCE 960P GI-IY OF TON Mf.AY 2 2 2 .' RECEIVE ;I ti Cj!9RK' ItII'u;lLlr1iItIli 1^Irlrit-f'•111•Ili •1111111I"1I'l I.111 TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 I"11'!Il1111111'f11!''I!1!rllll111l�"IIIII'!!!I!I'!'lilll'!I'!� LINITEDSLATES First -Class Mail FORM 3547 fee due $0.58 Postage and Fees Paid POSTU SERVICE , asps I Restricted Data Permit No. G10 Gty of Renton $ Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 9OD57--3232 ^` ADDRESS SERVICE REQU°STED --Jar et L & Gary a Sanford R2nian. WA 98M o irff T `_'�j= ��l� 04?'275329 N�iY ; 1 271 7 ai —^-•" "-i LLULED FROM 7P CODE 5311 57 CITY OF RENTON M�^CCAyyY2 2 201-1 I ' CITY CLERK'S OrFiCE INT 1 j 26 CAGONKP 99056 . IIIIII•full1,1.lr.1111111111A-Ir1I1"1-11-11111I111`1111.1'U'l 1 SANFORD OLD: 1102 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056-2169 NEW. 381 MAPLE LEAF LOOP CLE EL UM WA 98922-3116 TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 05, 13,17 2 L22 4800620N0540 cr:1 proc:20170513 etf:20161222 W aUGr.I�i-no(-m-n-wmIsmrI(IIokaIAIzaan.F?Iran7 111111111811111111111111E1lI1I11EI1111111111]1111111111111111-1111 UNITED ST13TES - First -Class _hail Uj RM 3547 fee due $0.55 � Postage and Fees Paid � POSTAL SERVICE usPs RestrictedL)ata Permit,Vo. GIO O1 �, Mix ofdie City G+erk � �{: i,_ - 3 -•�'�� 1053 South GradyWay32 fV Renton WA98C57-3232 wo .�r_•.;v=. � aoaazTa2zc '1.%.Y1' ?Jr 7 _ au. t.rFtLO R0, i ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED r l �p !ry 1 Or f FAVEMDERS v 1 2717 Rentm WA 99 56 20 i - i Renton. WA 98056 {'+ CITY 2e 0Rm01YM1= saosa IIug11Hll1ir°ltlr •11I'•rhflllrlf'-ull-lr°'I''hff fI'.y I -- I FA YE I JANDERS TO THE POSTMASTER OF OLD: 2717 ABERDEEN A VE NE RENTON WA 98056-2211 1055 S GRADY WAY NEW: 11450 RAINIER A ICE S A P T 219 RENTON WA 98057-9998 SEATTLE WA 98178-3967 05i13-17 21:22 4800620000537 c1: l proc:20170513 erT:20170503 PLANET: [d:00Code:03620184510198409098056221I17 r�lrllrnlr�r�lllllrIrllllrrlrillln�lllrrlrllllllrlrlllllll�lr First -Class Mail UNITED S7ZTES FARM 3547 fee due 058 Postage and Fees Paid . POSTAL SERVICE',' ; asps Restricted Data I Permit No.G1Il aty of Renton e Office of the City Clerk 9 Rent South Grady Way ` Renton WA 96057-3232 ADDRESS SE.WCE REQUESTED r CZ 02 Im � I/ r�};: •_�� oaa a27522o- A-AY11 2017 Lt4[iEDFP.4`5.]TPCODE98C57 I I r.-'Ty OF RENTO; it MAY 22 2017 j RECEDED Wry CLERK'S r) >F! c: 24 ORaONMP 98096 Ili vililtu-f-l-If[t114'1... Ili 9I.tlr,I.11illfffrll'l--"'Ill RILEY OLD: 3607 LAKE W,4SHINGTON BLVD N RENTON WA 98056-1509 NEW.• 11000 NE IOTH STAPT 434 BELLEVUE WA 98004-8563 05:13, 17 21:22 4800620000538 cl:I proc:20170513 etT:20161020 PLANET:1d:00 Code:03620184510199409998056150907 TimlGlel- ---- - —" 3607 Cilme Washirlron Bird N TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 u��lllf Il��llr�lrrr�ll''I11'Illliull�lrlllrrlr�Illlnr�lrrlrlll 2uxlTE sraTEs + ORM 3547 fee due $0.5" POSTAL SERVICE ' Restricted Data First-Cris Mail 11 Postage and Fees Paid LISPS Permit No. G10 City of Renton e� 1 ib Cfm e ofthe city rJerk C 1�- 1055 South Grady Wayf J Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED c'Y r it Aanade HR Hi[4saarkMarbnAn.PS M1 Second Ave, 5te 500 G�'Seattle. Wa 75101 V- 75 opimm'ff, 53101 HILLIS CLARK NJARTIN & PET ERSO.V PS OLD: 1221 2ND AVE STE 500 SF 4 TTLF. WA 98101-2989 NEW. 999 3RD AVE STE 4600 SE4TTLE ff-A 98104-4084 0512117 2 123 4700700000479 cl:1 proc:2017051 1 cf :20160702 PLA\ET: ld C0 Code:0362C IS45101954134981012981)25 OAS1 0004275220 MAY11 2017 r.1ALED FACFA ZIP CODE 9e057 , CITY OF RENTON; MAY 19 2017 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S CFFF:..- vall.-It111-11F1111.111d1.11•111'.111.11114,l111'I1111111111.1 TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 1t11tt111111rt114 111r11111111111111111111,11111111t11111tlltttlt v First -Class ,Vail unrlrEasraTEs ; POSTAL 3547 fee due $0.58 Postage and Fees Paid i POSL SERt%ICE'' Restricted Data Permit,'Vo. GIO OLD: NEW: Gay of Renton 4� once of the City Cerk rv; t�. JS[' 1 D55 South Grady Way o" `i::'• e 7 ,y , 3 Renton Wag M7-3232 j yw . — - ^ t.LV1E0 FROh[ ZIPCOpE 88057 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED { \ rr 7 Q Wonie&Yuri Shan ( 1211 N 42nd P1 MAY 2 — 201 Renton. WA 98a56 / 1 RECENED L lT� ,,PC.EKS OpFlcr; z6 oRsctrvrt� eaoss!!h•!Ff'fnrtrdltl.r•lhrhlhdlrrr•.rtnlirl.l�'y1•.hm• SIHON 1211 N 422 D PL RE'VTOIV WA 98056-2170 12025 SE 76TH ST NEWCASTLE PVA 98056-1776 TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 05/1317 21:22 48006M000536 c1:1 proc:20170513 ef-.20160516 PLANET: Id:00 Code: D36201845 101984081980562L7011 1111t111111t111t11t1r111111111tt11111111111111r1=lt1t111t11111tt1 UNITEDSTWES Fir -CI ss 1I it FORM 3547 fee due $0.58 Posfaz e and Fees Paid J POSTM SERVICE; isPs Restricted Data i Permit No. G10 bGty of Renton 0» of the City Gerk 1055South Grady Way Remon WA 98057-3232 �} A )CRESS SEAV CE REQUESTED 144 \/ Y �n a as Ann Gv0 KI" Claris Martin & Peterson, PS. 12215e=nd Ave, Sie Sac Seattle. WA 981M 0004276220 VAY11 NIT :W ED FROM 2FPGG➢E 92057 0 "Y ':-)C RENT- j;,_ WAY I tj 20 j 7 RECEIVED CITY CLERK"5 76 RR6dNHP 9esos•r•t.1hr'1'•lff••tlrtlr•'Er'••alrl!•=lilh�r:i`t'f�n�lllr•ir HILLIS CLARK ANRTIN & PI:TF_RSON PS OLD: 1221 2ND A VE STE 500 SEA TTLE OVA 98101- 2989 h'EW. 999 3RD A C E ,`;T E Ohl 0 SEAT71E 47.4 98104-4084 0.1? l7 -�1:234700700000478e1:i p7ce:20170?I I ett":20160702 CLANFI': Id:00 Ccxie:03b2U184i10148313 981U1243925 City of Renton Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 =RVICE REQUESTED TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 I'11tlll'lll��ll1111l+Il1111111111111Iif �` ou . _0.453 CL� '1.AILEDFROM ZIP COCE _ CITY OF RENTO� Ryan Durkin MAY 2 2 2917 1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building RECEIVED Seattle, WA 98101 Cl-TY CLERKS OFFI _ 8 D� 1C,SE S �t City of Renton Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 -RViCE REQUESTED L/ cA .,ram.,,-• �• -.� � Q� - $ 00.451 Uj P.1.=I _ED FR -P-A DR G��t7E AMY LIETZ ROBERTS ALR DESIGN INC 1006 NE 34th Renton, WA 98056-1938 CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 2 2017 RECEIVED �>rICE CITY CLERK City of Renton Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 980S7-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Foster Pepper LLC 1111 3rd Ave, #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 ?LS D��r3ldrii'�EF'f F Coo) �w dit MW W� 1 `nRNY111ifp 1'IINI V Ill �4V1 S q"2 1 M $ 00.453 LU 0 .} M 1' 1 2..l1 7 rr a�� MAILED FROM ZIPGODE 9W:�', i C17y OF RENTON MAY zo1 r 980 N7E 103S316C0005.':1.4.!17 i T 1 +i : w.: ; := it",T r k i- Ui So � 1'3 s'e 1STER PEoc«P PL S-ATTLE WA .98ial-3296 PETIR; Y Ti3 SSNDER Office of the City Clerk �V,0 Pos;" .,.. UJ a 1055South Grad Way ~•� � � � Y Y O� QQ.4Jr3 Renton WA 98057-3232 rA 0 2 r� w ~ nnn427.220 MAY!?, 201' Q al MAILED FROM ZIP GLIDE 9 8-) 5' ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED CITY OF RENTW�, MAY 17 2017 Campbell Mathewson RECEIVED Century Pacific, L.P. CITY CLERK'S onFlcE 1201 �' ' ... ..;+- #, rnn ' Seatt vlXiw 980 DE 10� 6 03�tos./15,r17 E f j: Fr ,w L ti -C. P5 0 F aF A i• 2 0 1 3 4 `T fJ7 AN W i% LY L, 7 41 Q S /- J L J L. 3 S 4 rJ Y L. it ..s. 4_ 7' U f 12 ^' "F .? iNPhu".I Aowzk City of Renton V'R)Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Julie Varon 1100 N 41st PI Renton, WA 980561595 t F'71 MIY F414VF'. LL" �� >> z ern $ 00.453 ju ir z 300427622C, MKY'1 1 7 a.M MAILED FROM ZIP GODE 94 0 7 CITY OF REN 3 Ot,:t MAY 17 2017 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE N1X.IE 930 DE 1 0005/1 f17 F ETLiK19 TO SEY''D:;- R V 'J ivl A NSIN B $0 73Z zZ '-0526-210473-11-49 i�id„, ~ �==y"�•..'y�`�.�� ..�.�� I,i��i�E�i�iii�iis9'ssE��i+#jii#�i�si3fl��iir��ii##i{��i�€:�ilil� is Posy City of Renton ;. 41 "Qr Office of the City Clerk w � *' d ;`'"T_'�- . y 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 °� 02 1V $ 00.453 .tu<0 1) fi4:�7G22') M;"r"1 2ii i i MAILED FROM ZIPi=:Oi]F 98� S r ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED L} -- CITY 4F RENTp1wf Sally Scott MAY 17 2017 Bad Bad Address See Notes RECEIVED Renton, WA 98056 "'ITY CLERK'S OFFICE - - ivI:+CI� _uE3 I5c L 0005f15 `7 l _RETURN TO SENDER iNr' arnn�n jNA.SLE TO _-- U N C 31C: 93057323255 :'-0526-00474-11—+43 City of Renton Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Jim Hanken Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc. 1111 Third Ave, Sutie 1800 Seattle, WA 98101 -,Is Pc"�l' Q- lffww� LU CD -F 0 U3 02 IM $00-453 LU n 9 ID,4, 7 6 2 C V MAILED FROM ZIP CODE .9 N'j 7 CITY OF RENTON MAY 17 2011 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE t w RETURN TO SENDER 'r I I;= P A P i 17 A IZ An rl R E 5 F !D U N 5 B TO 0 R 10i A R 0 L) T� BC: 9S037323255 047 6 - W� 97 2 - 11- 45 7& CIS!EdWj P,, I'llid Iii ill Jill 4111 pJI I INVOICE/REQUEST FOR PAYMENT Date May 18, 2017 Kevin Iden 5121 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 Reference Copy of HEX Report — QuendaII Terminals Payment for requested materials. The costs are as follows: Description Charge Copies (43 @ .15/each) 6.45 Postage Fee 1.82 TOTAL DUE $ 8.27 Make checks payable to: City of Renton Attention: City Clerk Division, 7th Floor 1055 5 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 PLEASE PLACE CHECK IN RETURN ENVELOPE ADDRESSED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT THANK YOU Denis Law Mayor City Clerk - Jason A. Seth, CMC May 12, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject, REVISED CONTACTS: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation RE: Quendall Terminals, LUA-09-151 Dear Mr. Mathewson: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Recommendation dated May 9, 2017. This document is immediately available: • Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at www.rentonwa.gov/cityclerk. Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by project name. • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 71h floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner Documents is $6.45, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov If you have any further questions, you can email Jason Seth, City Clerk, at (425) 430- 6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov, Sincerely, Megan Gregor, CIVIC, MLIS Deputy City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Brad Nicholson, POR Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Clark Close, Senior Planner Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Gillian Syverson, Secretary, Planning Division Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Denis Law Mayor City Clerk - Jason A. Seth, CIVIC May 11, 2017 Brad Nicholson Campbell Mathewson South End Gives Back Century Pacific, L.P. 2302 NE 28th Street 1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation RE: quendall Terminals, LUA-09-151 Dear Mr. Nicolson & Mr. Mathewson: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Recommendation dated May 9, 2017. This document is immediately available: Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at www.rentonwa.gov1cityclerk. Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by project name. • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7tn floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner Documents is $6.45, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov If you have any further questions, you can email Jason Seth, City Clerk, at (425) 430- 6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Megan Gregor, CIVIC, MLIS Deputy City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Clark Close, Senior Planner Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Gillian Syverson, Secretary, Planning Division Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (118) 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Quendall Terminals Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION Summary The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the development agreement. The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009, the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access, open spaces, landscaping, view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures composed of 46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was appealed. By the date of the April 18, 2017 hearing, the appeal had been withdrawn and only five members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 project. One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site, including placement of a soil cap across the project site and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need for the proposed development agreement since the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards during the extended expiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington, and a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area. The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation) are traffic and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project use the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to assess a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the City streets to the south of the project. View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little question that the multiple six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a building that is 115 feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts, the proposal includes a widened central road (Road B) to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback requirements. Testimony Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner's Recommendation. It is solely provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signing any priority or importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing. Staff Opening Presentation: Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23, the City Council expressly authorized the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4. Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement. Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and that precise details of design will be reviewed and approved during subsequent site plan review. The heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and north of the project. The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re- evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 3 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains. The site is a former creosote facility and was subsequently designated a superfund site. The EPA will be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain how the project site would be configured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort. In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA. There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks. There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill and a 38-foot setback from the Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi -private plaza spaces. Pursuant to Condition 27, Lots I and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas, they proposal will have to be amended. Condition 41 requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped water line. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re -opening of the hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the City Council. Applicant Presentation: Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations. She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project. She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The applicant has the burden of proof in establishing consistency with decision criteria. The examiner is also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development agreement. Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation mitigation, including both on and off -site roadway improvements, a transportation demand management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of Transportation (`WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41" to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City streets. On -site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and programs to reduce reliance upon single -occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has adequate capacity to serve the development. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation information available to the City, such as the work associated with the I-405 WSDOT interchange improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off -setting traffic impacts. Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last two years, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly environment. The project is consistent with the City's design standards. Campbell Mathewson, project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 5 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation, landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation of approval. However, the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront retail and the public park along the southwest corner of the site and the potential for a new dock. The buildings were also set back another 20 feet. Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review. Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills. As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards between residential blocks, pedestrian orientation in design, added retail use and restaurants and trails. The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park. The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the first time in decades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April 11, 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the 1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five. Public Comments: Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern. He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently has to twelve -foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 4 6 7 8 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a tittle bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock. Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed -use site and she doesn't want it to be an elitist area. Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of residents and also that the developer has been very accommodating. Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts. Staff Rebuttal: In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so to coverall bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts, a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil contaminants being moved with pile driving, the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 7 2 4 IC: 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PL", Applicant Rebuttal: Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site. In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions of approval. Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides for public access and use of shore) ine areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the project. Exhibits Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18, 2017 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017 public hearing as well: Exhibit 24 Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017 Exhibit 25 Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017 Exhibit 26 Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017 Exhibit 27 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data Exhibit 28 Google Maps Exhibit 29 City of Renton power point Exhibit 30 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations" Exhibit 31 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits' Exhibit 32 Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site Exhibit 33 Larry Toedtli CV Exhibit 34 Bob Wells Resume Exhibit 35 Lance Mueller Resume Exhibit 36 Street B rendering Exhibit 37 June 6, 2016 Site Plan PLO Exhibit 38 June 1, 2016 Site Plan PO.0 Exhibit 39 April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Agreement with Land Use Applications MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA Development 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle, WA, 98101 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council. Substantive: 3. Project and Site Description. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. A. Proposal. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed - use buildings. The proposal would include 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 4095 units/acre), 42,190 sq, ft, of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], I,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposed' to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of- way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via the development of new internal Roads A — E. The primary site access from public streets is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 — 133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10, 2010. ' The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA G] 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. Site Conditions/Superfund Designation. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying a remedy for clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA, which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e. Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15) to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2, for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site (Main Property), including placement of a soil cap across the entire Main Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. C. Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. Consequently, the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 10 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 with the `'proposal". 4. Surrounding Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) right of way,1-405 and undeveloped COR zoned property. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most significant impacts are individually addressed as follows: A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical Areas Map and is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. Due to the baseline assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located in the 100-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site -specific site plan review should include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots I and 6), Recommended Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots I and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200(J) a new application would be required. As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C 10, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD. It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources. Pages 3.6-14 — 3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City stormwater regulations. Following construction, a permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with City stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution -generating surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stormwater outfall pipes would be situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation. B. Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi -story structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights -of - way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures F1 — F15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80 feet. At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However, in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks, which are significantly wider than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 12 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills. SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed by the applicant. C. Noise, Privacy and Dust. The City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8 RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance regarding construction hours. With these measures in place, noise and dust impacts are adequately mitigated. The proposed building layout provides semi -private court yards between each residential tower which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy. The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the retail/restaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces. D. Drainage. Adequate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant adverse drainage impacts. The City's stormwater regulations assure that stormwater impacts are fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 stormwater manual is applicable to the project. As noted in Conclusion of Law ("COL") No. 2 of this recommendation, more current stormwater regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts. Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this analysis mitigation measures Al, A10, All, B2, and B7 were established and will become a condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private, the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained a condition of approval requires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/ property owners/ HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 13 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City stormwater standards. Storm water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be followed in the design and construction of the project. The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16, the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre- and post - developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology. E. Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts via the City's design, view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building and site design is subject to general design review at the master plan stage and detailed design review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies with the District "C" design standards for master plan review. The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure E1, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re -submittal dated 12-16-2015, Exhibit 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a l0-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11. Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 14 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan. Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted in Mitigation Measures F4, G12 and G13. F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project site subsequent to remediation. G. Compatibility/Building Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the west and R-10 property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic issues addressed elsewhere, the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the project site. As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, F1, F8, F9, F11, and F15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures, the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site. H. Limiting. As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B1 I and F7 to ensure that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of down]ighting and shielding among other techniques. Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F13 and H9 and the design standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re -submittal of the Preferred Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 15 4 8 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F 13 and 1 19 and the design standards for the common areas. Loading and Storage Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at off peak hours. 6. Adequacy of_Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and a 10-inch water main extending into the project site. There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDC} fee and water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction permits. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department and police protection by the City of Renton Police Department. Police and Fire staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. if EPA's ROD prohibits the Ere access road within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail. Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface. Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. As previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space. Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation mitigation measures (G1 —G13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas. The amount of on -site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards. However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off -site park and open space facilities. it is determined that the significant on -site park and open space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project. As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas" and "Other Related Areas'' be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. The "Other Related Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition G10 requires that the trail be enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials. Mitigation Document condition G 1 1 requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in compliance with condition G11. Based on the above analysis the provided materials were not compliant with conditions G2, G7, G 10, and 611. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G10, and G11 for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan recording. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 17 2 4 3 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Development Agreement adds a 1.3- acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the site. The "street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. D. Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline. However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private Street E either north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided For the buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space, parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this condition. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum. For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal, additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the 1-405 improvements, staff determined that significant transportation impacts are not anticipated. The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City streets. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative. As to the preferred alternative, page 1-14 of the DEIS addendum concluded that "(11he existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build -out in 2015, with the additional requiredlproposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative 1 traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative 1 clearly generated far more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and ❑A go 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 a, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative 1, the traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where WSDOT has not completed I-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6 shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table 3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, an six other intersections. Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any intersection except for the Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection. The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group, in a memorandum dated January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal because single -lane approaches at each of the Street `A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. Conditions H 1-H 15 of the Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document, provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and 6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who owns the old rail -road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off -site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 20 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off -site improvements, such as southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed. In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard street cross sections is not required. However, the design of the streets shall meet minimum standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 — 15-foot sidewalk is required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6 feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to account for the curb width, and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross- section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the amended cross sections. A couple members of the public at the April 18, 2017 public hearing expressed concern over increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 21 2 3 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLO Condition H5 of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers would elect to use I-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site. Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition H5 adequately addresses concerns over increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the "scenic" character of the road and turn it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be some legitimacy to this concern, the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and functionality considerations integrated into the City's street standards that require the additional street width. F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail -road right-of-way. This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City identifying rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review application and construction permit application submittal. Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed through an internal street system, identified as Roads A — E. The applicant has indicated that Roads A — C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City is not willing to accept the proposed public rights -of -way dedications and Roads A — C shall become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A — C will be private streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School) and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 22 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot specific site plan review. A School Impact Fee, based on new multi -family units, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities. Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is provided via a dial -a -ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St. interchange and 1-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-4051NE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted, Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. Currently there are no non -motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site, however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition, the existing rail road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails" planned multi -purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi -purpose trail at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the primary form and most readily available form of alternative non -motorized transportation is bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation Document (page 26) to mitigate system -wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the applicant shall prepare a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include on -site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure weather -protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation would not use the multi -purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi- purpose trail. 1. Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 23 2 4 l0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B 10 requires that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site plan review and construction permit application. In addition, should the EPA ROD eliminate the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline master programs requirements for significant public access. Conclusions of Law I. Authority. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement. However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline applications. The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan .shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7- 230(l)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement" significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan applications that are merged with development agreements. In contrast to the binding site plan application, shoreline substantial development permits are classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type 1I permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and master site plan approval as Type III permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short, the three permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest -number procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the examiner (see Ex. 23) coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision mirrors the process classified as Type TV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure. 2. Vesting. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows: A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vesting. FOF No. 2 of the April 19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a complete binding site plan application on February 10, 2010. The proposed development agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period of ten to fifteen years. The law is not actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards. Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement, rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when evaluating the vesting issue. Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of land" vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs "...at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted..." A binding site plan is neither a subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains. The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7- 230(N)(1) provided in 2010 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham Neighborhood Assn v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98 (2011), a court ruled that permit expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting, or whether it is a procedural ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting. B. Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting. The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King County stormwater manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater system is governed by a Phase I1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition S5.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase Ill NPDES permit "...shall apply to all [land use] applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall apply to applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022..." In short, new Phase II permit requirements not integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit will apply. The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to `'any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not .subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement." (emphasis added). However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not "new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase 11 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the City oj'Renton. 2.5 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (CDR). 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval for all development in the COR zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities. Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(1). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by RMC 4-7-230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9- 190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") use regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Master Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail: a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administralor will evaluate compliance with the review criteria al a level of detail approprkae for master plans_ ,44aster plans will he evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of'a site plan inJull compliance vvith the criteria. b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the � ldmini irutor will analyze the plan in detail and evaluate compliance with the specrf"tc requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3- 2012) 4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of approval, building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more specific design features to be addressed during site plan review. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding No. 222 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District "C" and consistent with Design District "C" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(6): Off -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation. Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize viewsfrom surroundingproperties; iv. Hews: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural ft atures; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and .surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. z References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No. References to findings from this recommendation are "FOF No. All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any updates to the findings addressed in the April 11, 2017 memo to the examiner, Ex. 19_ MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 28 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 12 13 14 IS 16 17 Is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off -site impacts are significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by FOF 6(D), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(I), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E) and lighting by FOF 5(H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On -Site Impacts: Mitigation of'impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration q1' the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; W. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious .surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on -site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that the mixed -use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well -integrated environment for residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities. Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA, however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking trail, dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the .site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(D). Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No. 5(l). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas,for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users oj'the site. 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in FOF 6(C), RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF No. 6(1). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable, I I . The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the natural systems at the site (i.e. critical areas) will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, , for phased projects. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. I lowever, due to the scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is governed by the proposed development agreement. Binding Site Plan RMC 4-7-230(C): APPROVAL CRITERIA: Approval of ' a Binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the following criteria are met: 1. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more contiguous, legally created lots_ Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district. New nonconforming lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process. 14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots I, 6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that lots 1, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be buildable if created. The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. 2. If'minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium .site per .subsection D of this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RtMC 4-9-150. 15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium site creation is required. 3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The .site is located within a commercial, industrial, or mixed -use zone. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN. SSDP and ❑A 31 2 4 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16. The site is located within the mixed -use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval. 4. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply with all of 'the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall he processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D. a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development .standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other circumstances, the binding site plan .shall not make the site more nonconforming than at the time a completed application is submitted. c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants far binding site plan may propose shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically authorized per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-1OOE5, and other .shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City `s development standards, 17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5- 010. 18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building permit approval. 6. Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways, water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by the binding site plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 32 4 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 6, the applicant has made adequate provisions for all drainageways, streets, water supplies, open space, solid waste and sanitary waste. This criterion is satisfied. 7. Access to Public Rights -of -Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct access or access easement approved by the City. 20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review. 8. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan and the provisions of RMC 4-4-08OE3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions of use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open .space, parking, access, signage and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism. 21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan. 9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan_ 22. As conditioned, the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this standard. 10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan_ 23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 33 4 on X 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11. Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of'protective improvements may be required as condition of approval. 24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the City's critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal complies with the City's critical area regulations. Shoreline Permit F,Y[C 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria: a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by approval Qf a shoreline variance. b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation and the type of'use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted, provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of'the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. c. Forprojects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines of statewide .significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall also be adhered to. 25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No. 6(I). The commercial use regulations further require that parking is to be provided at frequent locations and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(I). The development agreement adds a 1.3- acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS mitigation requires a 100-foot setback. The proposal complies with this 100-foot setback except for a proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval requires the water line to be moved outside the I00-foot setback. The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 34 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the impacts of the proposal on shoreline ecological resources have been mitigated and controlled as required by RMC 4-3-090(K). DECISION For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Council approve the proposed development agreement for the reasons identified in the summary of this recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The permit applications should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document dated, August of 2015. 2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside through the binding site plan. 3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The minimum partial sight -obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit I I and shall be identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. 5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection Easement shall he recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 35 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 8. Roads A — C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. 9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording. 10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 12. Off -site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to Mitigation Measures: • B10 - public trail • G2 — public trail and open space • G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N. • G7 — trail signage • G9 — crosswalk + G 10 trail amenities • H3 — frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N • H4 — trail • H5 — traffic calming measures • H8 — fire access road • H 10 — bicycle lane • HI I — H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and signalization shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are internal Roads. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 36 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ID 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 18. To ensure the semi -private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and amenities as approved by the Director. 19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the site. 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows: a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill) c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility) 21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and the semi -private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80 feet. 22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re -designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 37 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shal I be provided for the residential units on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review. 24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. 25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for lots 2 and 5. 26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval prior to recording. 27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. if the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required. 28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi -purpose trail. 29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review. 30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan. 31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping, open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 38 2 4 E 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 1 1, 2017 memo to examiner. 33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 34. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on the subject site. 36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works Department. 37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording. A The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the facility. 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off -site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application for the site. 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the timing identified above per condition of approval 12. 41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 39 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation. 44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review application for any Iot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and construction permit issuance. I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire property. 11. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved, a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance with the approved phasing plan. 11I. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on the recording Binding Site Plan. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C 10. V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and GI I for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator. VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to condition of approval 3. VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system, including an evaluation of on -site crosswalks to ensure MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 40 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot. IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community Services. X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constret a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right- of-way. XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the XII XIII XIV XV required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B 10, G3, G2, G10, GI I and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department. An updated site plan shal I be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16. Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under XIII. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer: a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to 26 II the location of the proposed new Road A. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main. d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100-shoreline buffer. e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton regulations. XVL If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site -specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of any site -specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. Decision issued May 9, 2017. PhN A.Olbrechts Hearing Examiner MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 43 Denis Law Mayor City Clerk - Jason A. Seth, CMC May 11, 2017 Brad Nicholson Campbell Mathewson South End Gives Back Century Pacific, L.P. 2302 NE 2811 Street 1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation RE: Quendall Terminals, LUA-09-151 Dear Mr. Nicolson & Mr. Mathewson: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Recommendation dated May 9, 2017. This document is immediately available: • Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at wwvj.rentonwa.gov/cityclerk. Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by project name. • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7ch floor or Renton City Hail, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner Documents is $6.45, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov If you have any further questions, you can email Jason Seth, City Clerk, at (425) 430- 6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, r Megan Gregor, CIVIC, MLIS Deputy City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Clark Close, Senior Planner Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Gillian Syverson, Secretary, Planning Division Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (118) May 11, 2017 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 1111 day of May, 2017, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated May 9, 2017, RE: Quendall Terminals (LUA-09-151) to the attached part' s of record. Megan Gregor, CIVIC, MLIS, Deputy City Clerk CRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 11th Day of May, 2017 Cynthia Ft. M Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 fir Y1 •J`.��I��'(j ~ Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Allison Hanson WSDOT 600 108th Ave NE, 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 AMY LIETZ ROBERTS ALR DESIGN INC 1006 NE 34th Renton, WA 98056-1938 Anne Woodlev 7920 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Bob Wells Lance Mueller and Associates 130 Lakeside Ave S Seattle. WA 98122 Bruce MacCaul Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P_ 1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600 Seattle, WA 98101 Charles & Rebecca Taylor 1252 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Christine Chen 1128 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Com William Popp Associates AARON BELENKY 14400 Bel Red Rd, 9206 1800 NE 40th St, H4 Bellevue, WA 98007 Renton, WA 98056 Amit Ranade Amy & Kevin Dedrickson Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 1012 N 42nd PI 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Ann Gygi ANNE SIMP5ON Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 3001 Mountain View Ave N 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Renton, WA 98056-2516 Seattle, WA 98101 Barbara Smith Bob & Mary Becker Harris & Smith Public Affairs 1007 N 42nd PI P.O. Box 1478 Renton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Brad Nicholson Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back South End G' Baek 2302 NE 28th 5t 2302 Sth 5t Renton, WA 98056 Re on, WA 98056 Bruce MacCaul Bud Worley 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N, #B-205 Campbell Mathews Carol O'Connell Century Pacifi 1241 N 42nd PI 1201 Thir ve, #1680 Renton, WA 98056 Seatt , WA 98101 Charlie Conner CHG SF LLC dba Conner Homes at Piper' s Bluff LLC 12600 SE 38th St, Suite 250 Bellevue, WA 98006 Chuck & Sylvia Holden 3609 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Cyrus McNeely 3810 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 � s# Christine Breen 1021 N 41st Pi Renton, WA 98056 Clair Hong Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200, ECL-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 DAN & KRISTY FOSTER 1813 NE 26th PI Renton, WA 98056-2292 Dan Mitzel DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS Diane Espev Jackson 111 Cleveland Ave 3605 Lake Washington Blvd N 2419 Talbot Crest Dr S Mt. Vernon, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98056-1509 Renton, WA 98055 Ed Goines Elisabeth Durr Farrel & Jonell Wilson Seattle Seahawks 1206 N 27th PI 4063 Williams Ave N 12 Seahawks Way Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 FAYE JANDERS Fred Warnock Gary Pipkin 2717 Aberdeen Ave NE 1246 N 42nd PI 1120 N 38th 5t Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Glen St. Amant Gretchen Kaehler Gwendolyn Hieh Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department of Archaeology & Historic 155 Yakima Ave NE Division Prevention Renton, WA 98059 39015 172nd Ave SE PO Box 48343 Auburn, WA Olympia, WA 98504 Inez Petersen Inez Petersen, J.D. Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, #1 Starfish Law PLLC 1102 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 1 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056-1909 Jeanne Demund Jeff rev Coats Jeremy Porter 2811 Mountainview Ave N 5201 SE Ripley Ln N, Suite 105 Aspect Consulting Renton, WA 980562520 Renton, WA 6 401 2nd Ave S, Suite 201 Seatte, WA 98104 Jessica Winter JH Baxter & Co. Jim Hanken 7600 Samd Point Way Altino Properties, Inc. & 15543 62nd Ave Seattle, WA 98115 800 S Third St Kenmore, WA 98028 Renton, WA 98057 Jim Hanken } Jim Roy John & Diane Haines Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc. 1111 N 41st PI 1014 N 27th PI 1111 Third Ave, Sube 1800 Renton, WA 98056 Renton. WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 John Hansen John Murphy Jon & Marilyn Danielson 4005 Park Ave N New Home Trends, Inc. 1308 34th St Renton, WA 98056 4314 148th St SE Renton, WA 98056 Mill Creek, WA 98012 : Julie Varon KATHLEEN DOW Keith Preszler 1100 N 41st PI 121D N 42NO PL 3818 Lake Washington Blvd Renton, WA 980561595 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Kelly Smith Kevin Iden KEVIN POOLE 6811 Ripley Ln N 5121 Ripley Ln 627 High Ave S Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98057-3918 Kim Douthitt KVIe Stanley Larry & Linda Boregson 5901 143 PI SE 12131 113th Ave NE, Suite 203 1013 N 42nd PI Bellevue, WA 98006 Kirkland, WA 98034 Renton, WA 98056 Larry Reymann Larry Toedth Laura & James Counsell 1313 N 38th St 11201 NE 58th PI 1122 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98056 Laurie Baker LAWRENCE DIXON Lawrence Hard 3107 Mountain View Ave N DIXON & A5SO ES INC 4316 NE 33rd 5t Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98105 f'- Len & Pat Reid Leslye Bergan Linda Baker 1217 N 42nd PI 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2 1202 N 35th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 LOUIS TIBBS Lynn Manolo Poulos Marcos Santos 807 N 33rd St 777 10Sth Ave NE, Suite 2300 1209 N 31st St Renton, WA 98056-1901 Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98056 Mark Hancock Michael Christ Michael Mullinaux PO Box 88811 Immersion Services LLC 1415 N 24th St Seattle, WA 98138 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mike & Sharon Glenn Mike Batin Mike Cero 8825 114th Ave SE 3410 Park Ave N 8300 Avalon Dr Newcastle, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98056 Mimi MacCaul Misty Blair Nancv Denney Department of Ecology 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N 3190 160th Ave, SE Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98008 Pattv Witt Paul & Susan Siegmund Paw Thao 1204 N 42nd PI 1006 N 42nd PI 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ralendra Agrawaal Ramin Pazooki Ricardo & Maria Antezana 1113 N 29th St WSDOT 1025 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 PO Box 330310 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98133 Rich Wagner 2411 Garden Ct Renton, WA 98056 Robert & Sonya Tobeck 1003 N 41st PI Renton. WA 98056 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper LLC 1111 3 rd Ave, #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Ronald Corbell 4113 Williams Ave Renton, WA 98056 Richard & Kathleen Bergquist 7244 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Ferry 7414 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Robert Wilson , Rocale Timmons -°' SECO Development, Inc. 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50 Renton, WA 98056 y Ronald & Sachi Nicol Ronald & Vanessa Brazg 1030 N 42nd PI 1019 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ross & Ava Ohashi Roy & Joann Francis 1018 N 42nd PI 1000 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ryan Durkin 1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building Seattle, WA 98101 Scott Greenberg Development Services Director, City of Mercer Island 9611 SE 36th St Mercer Island, WA 98040 Spencer Albert Albert International, LLP 2442 NW Market St, Suite #722 Seattle, WA 98107 SUSAN MILLER 806 N 30th St Renton, WA 98056 SALLY ROCHELLE Sally Scott 3626 Lk Wa Blvd N Bad Bad Address See Notes Renton, WA 98056-1508 Renton, WA 98056 Sheng Wu Sherry and Robert Cline 1222 N 42nd PI 4267 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Van Til Vulcan 505 5th Ave S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Susan Stow 1309 N 36th St Renton. WA 98056 Sue & Mac iahnke 1717 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Suzanne & Donald Orehek 4103 Wells Ave N Renton, WA 98056 j THEO & KIM BROWNE Tim Flynn Tim Riley 1409 N 37th St Aspect Consulting 3607 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 401 2nd Ave S, Suite 201 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98104 Tom Baker Tom Jones 1202 N 35th St KPFF Consulting Engineers Renton, WA 98056 1601 5th Ave, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 Trudy Neumann Victor Chiu 922 N 28th PI 1128 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Winnie & Yuri Sihon Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin 1211 N 42nd PI 1120 N 38th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 TONY BOYDSTON 3920 NE 11th PI Renton, WA 99056-3537 William Skillinja 3814 E Lee St Seattle, WA 98112 5. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: April 18, 2017 To: City Clerk's Office From: Gillian Syverson Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Quendall Terminals LUA (file) Number: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Cross -References: N/A AKA's: N/A Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: 11-18-2009 Applicant: Robert Wilson Owner: Quendall Terminals Contact: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PID Number: 2924059002 ERC Determination: DS Date: 3-20-17 Appeal Period Ends: 4-3-17 Administrative Decision: N/A Date: N/A Appeal Period Ends: N/A Public Hearing Date: 4-18-17 Date Appealed to HEX., By Whom: V HEX Decision: 1� - ZC vl '` (c _l Date: Appeal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed -use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements. 2/15/10 - ERC issued Determination of Significance. Comment period ends March 5, 2010. 12/10/10 - Issued Draft EIS. Comment period ends January 10, 2011. 115/11 - Comment period extended to January 25, 2011. 1/21/11 - Comment period extended to February 9, 2011 2 14 11 - Scheduled for ERC DEIS comment discussion. Location: 4503 Ripley Lane N, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Denis Law Mayor' April 11, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Parties of Record Various SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Parties of Record: A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 71' Floor at Renton City Hall, 105S S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Department of Comr city and % city,f Economic Development NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed action is Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov). PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROPONENT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P. PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land & Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks & Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk & Scale. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 15t Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed), or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Publication Date: March 24, 2017 Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community& Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY-- EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21,46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spates and 12,9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the V Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. Quendall Terminals i Agen:ws — Nouce of Issuanre and Aaadabihty EIS t:onsistcmy Attalysts 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. if you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314, For the Environmental Review Committee, -rww�j�-D*lbu' Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosure cc: Icing County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert, Mluckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation r Quendall'rerrtunaN 1 Agencies Nncice or Issuance and A"ilabiliio — FIS Consistency Analysis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. if you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals 1 Applicam - Nati;e of Issuance and Atailabiliiy EIS Cnnsiszency Analvsk 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov city of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 11, 2017 TO: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09-151 Following the canceled public hearing from April of 2016, the Applicants have requested the City consider a Development Agreement. As such, this memorandum addresses the Development Agreement and changes to the project which result from the proposed Development Agreement. This memo is intended to supplement the staff report to the Hearing Examiner which was issued in April of 2016, for the original scheduled hearing date of April 19, 2016. Only those items identified below have been changed and/or are proposed to be changed from the original staff report. Updated Project Description: The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed - use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed -use buildings. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing liner Page 2 of 7 April 11, 2017 The following Exhibits should be added to the Recorded: Exhibit 19 — Memorandum to Hearing Examiner, April 11, 2017 Exhibit 20 — Draft Development Agreement Exhibit 21— Consistency Analysis Exhibit 22 — Notice of Issuance of Consistency Analysis Exhibit 23 — Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing Findings of Fact (FOF)- (the following FOF's are identified with letters to eliminate and confusion with the original staff report) a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement (Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. • A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner should be completed. c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing ......iiner Page 3 of 7 April 11, 2017 No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. d. A detailed master site plan has not been provided incorporating the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final details master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. e. Staff does not expect that the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative would impact the analysis and associated recommended conditions of the April 2016 staff report for all Findings of Fact except as follows: i. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Parking: The total parking stalls proposed in the Enhanced Alternative is 1,352 stalls an increase from the 1,337 stalls proposed in the Preferred Alternative, a 15 stall increases. There is no change in the residential and restaurant space; however there is an increase in retail space from 20,025 SF to 33,190 SF which would result in a maximum of 133 stalls required for the retail space, up from 80 stalls. Together all three uses could require up to 1,469 parking stalls. ii. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Refuse and Recycling: Based on a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 33,190 SF of retail a combined total of 210.95 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 421.90 Sf of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project. iii. FOF 25, Critical Areas, 6.: The reference to "NRD settlements" should be eliminated because the EPA does not approve and is not party to an NRD settlement. Therefore, Condition 44. IV, should be amended to remove the reference to "NRD settlements". iv. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, f. On Site Impacts, Structure and Scale: With the addition of retail/commercial space along the Lake Washington side of the development it is anticipated that the parking garage would no longer be the dominate structure viewed from the Lake or shoreline trail. V. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, j. Distinctive Focal Points: The "street activation" identified in the development agreement are anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing liner Page 4of7 April 11, 2017 vi. FOF26, Master Site Plan Review, Phasing: Staff recommends that the project duration be consistent with the time frames established in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20. vii. FOF 28 Availability and impact of Public Services, Stormwater: The Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction. viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, the center left -turn lane that was included as a part of Street 'A' is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lame is not needed under the Enhanced Alternative because single -lane approaches at each of the Street 'A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly. Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the 1-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not anticipated ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the site. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing _.__..liner Page 5 of 7 April 11, 2017 X. FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Time Requirements for Shoreline Permits: The Draft Development Agreement extends the time for all land use permit applications including the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Time frames identified in the Development Agreement should be applied accordingly. f. Condition of Approval 14 should remove the word "east" as this has been included in error. g. Condition of Approval 22 contains a minor error, the word "East" should be "West". Condition of Approval 22 should be amended accordingly. h. Condition 43 requires an easement be recorded to all for public access for vehicles and pedestrians to cross the King County rail -road right-of-way. This requirement for an easement limits the type of legal documents that could be drafted to accomplish the intended purpose of the condition. As such, this condition should be amended as shown below. i. The word "Public Promenade" should be removed throughout the staff report and replaced with "fire lane and utility maintenance access road" to be consistent with the Consistency Analysis and Development Agreement. Therefore Condition of approval 41. and 44. XVI should be amended accordingly. Conclusions: All conclusions in the April 2016 staff report are to remain except as identified below: 10. The proiect AR expiration date shall be as identified in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20cat by the Hearing Examminer few the U.astaLSite Plan, See ;Q9 2A 12. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-70B- 170. New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified conditions below. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Amended Conditions of Approval: 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side. The new private Phil olbrechts, Hearing Ex —miner Page 6 of 7 April 11, 2017 access to be located at the Ripley Lane (5eahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 22. Eric West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re- designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 32. ARy extension to thepFeiest@PpFeved beyond januaFy 1, 20-22 er buildiRgaFld r._qU.t69A p FRitr submitted that u,r uld extend the a einn+ heyend aF;uaFy 1, 20223hafl he s bjert tei the „r d@t_P_d_ rtr.r..nm ter man, -;;I in effee-_t at th,. time, 41. A public pr-oF ,nRR& fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This pFswaewade fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the nrornenades-fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 43. of the rail_r-ea d Fight _r.F-Way W nrey;,dae�i yehir„Lsr and pedertri@e n r tr. th.. the final b*RdiRff site plan and shall be Feewded cenCUFreRtly With the biRdiFig Site Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently_ with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation. 44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) _ARCd NQD c..ttl.,.r.^^t completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD and #ion Settlement issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C10. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing E...... iner Page 7 of 7 April 11, 2017 44. XIV. , Road A street designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane ae y and the design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under XIII. 44. XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A P ih1iG PFOFna„,aa fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager New Conditions of Approval: (The following numbering picks up of the end of the April 2016 staff report.) 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. 44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. 44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. f -4 Denis law Mayor March 27, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications. The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (l.UA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or Sincerely, 14 , 1 r 1 Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 2 U 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Department of Comr-- -nity and of Economic Developm-..t NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed action is Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov). PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROPONENT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P. PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land & Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks & Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk & Scale. DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 11t Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed), or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Publication Date: March 24, 2017 Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 11t Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals I Applicant - Notice of Issuance and Al ailet;ihit CI5 Carsislency Anal}'sis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community& Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY— EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.4G acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq, ft, of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open spate. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 111 Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. Quendall Terminals! Agen.ies - ycuc� of Issuance and Atallabihty -EIS Consistency Analysis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov -Y No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314, For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp, of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Quendall Terminals / Aeencies - Notice of Issuance and A%ailab.iit� — EiS Cmslercy Analysis 0 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov CITY.OE RENTDN �.. DEPARTMENTOF'COMMUNITY,&''ECONOMICDiiVELO:P.MENT .PLANNING',DIVISION AFFIDAV LT OF S�RLCE �$Y IIIL�NG...:.... On the 23rd day of March 2017, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC documents (Agency letter, Determination, Copy of Notice of Issuance, Copy of ERC Signature Page. This information was sent to: _....,. .«....:..r j€j! ? EF € ',: .�. E _:........._._....... ( ��EE€pE€EF.. _:........ _. �..''3., ,.- j S1EE .� .. � . 'qn In i PSE AGENCY KC DEPARTMENT OF PERMITTING AND ENV. REV/SEPA AGENCY CITY OF KENT, AICP PLANNING AGENCY CITY OF NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY DEV. AGENCY CITY OF TUKWILA, JACK PACE AGENCY METRO TRANSIT GARY KREIDT AGENCY SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES SEPA COORDINATOR AGENCY WDFW, LARRY FISHER AGENCY MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE FISHERIES DIVISION HABITAT PROGRAM AND SEPA REVIEWER, KAREN WALTER AGENCY- EMAIL ONLY PER KAREN REQUEST WSDOT NW REGION, RAM IN PAZOOKI AGENCY DUWAMISH TRIBAL OFFICE AGENCY US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS SEPA REVIEWER AGENCY KC WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ENVIRON AGENCY OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCY DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ENVIRON REVIEW SECTION AGENCY WA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEPA CENTER AGENCY (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON P Ss COUNTY OF KING s � I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrum' anei` bow gec5- it to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.-7 �'�,, B G#tom .� C fi p111pN�� 0 VV Dated: c �3C�l��u.ASN�� No Public in and for the State of Washinmicin Notary (Print): H L,i ti ) My appointment expires: Ai,�.y� US � r Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA -)-r7 Opp CITY OF,RENTON <` DEPARTMENTOI«COMMUNITY&'ECONOMICI)EVELQPMENT PLANNING DIVISION .,:. AFFIDAVl7 OF-�SERVICE`,BY M "I ING+ On the 23rd day of March 2017, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC documents (Applicant letter, ERC Report with signature page). This information was sent to: ... r. �- { jj tz............._............k.......t`..............-...._.._..g.1. 4{ iA:1 t`.:,�_.`:::-..^.-:.:°:::::.:::°:::::°:::::-:^...'--n'�'..u...'.:.::.'.:.:x:.:.:. :° .xt.v;.Ei. .�§E�d[F3�{y"[S [ ,<....E ;�.;t: ::'-:.' :•...-F..e°1¢.�E�f �y�( y.. a.Es ..... F:'. Robert Wilson Applicant -No address not sent Campbell, Matthewson, Century Pacific, L.P. Contact Brad Nicholson, South End Gives Back Contact Please see Attached Parties of Record _14/ 11 (Signature of Sender): , STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING .� p\.LY Ppf,�tr INN I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrUrner N. it to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. "� A "��¢ Dated: blic in and for the State of: IiVtottE*'''tu_= Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Richard Ferry Robert & Sonya Tobeck Robert Wilson 7414 E Mercer Way 1003 N 41st P1 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98056 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper LLC 1111 3rd Ave, #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Ronald Corbell 4113 Williams Ave Renton, WA 98056 Ryan Durkin 1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building Seattle, WA 98101 SUSAN MILLER 806 N 30th St Renton, WA 98056 THEO & KIM BROWNE 1409 N 37th St Renton, WA 98056 TONY BOYDSTON 3920 NE 11th PI Renton, WA 98056-3537 Ronald & Sachi Nicol 1030 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 . . . ..... .. ... Ross & Ava Ohashi 1018 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 ..................... ...... ............ .... ..... SALLY ROCHELLE 3626 Lk Wa Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-1508 Shenjg Wu 1222 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Steve Van Til Vulcan 505 Sth Ave 5, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 . . ..... .......... . ................. ........ .................. .......... Susan Stow 1309 N 36th St Renton, WA 98056 Tim Riley 3607 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 Trudy Neumann 922 N 28th PI Renton, WA 98056 Ronald & Vanessa Brazg 1019 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Roy& Joann Francis 1000 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Sally Scott Bad Bad Address See Notes Renton, WA 98056 Sherry and Robert Cline 4267 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Sue & Mac iahnke 1717 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Suzanne & Donald Orehek 4103 Wells Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Tom Baker 1202 N 35th St Renton. WA 98056 Victor Chlu 1128 N 41st P1 Renton, WA 98056 ............... William Skilling Winnie & Yuri Sihon Yvonne & Gary C. Pij)kin 3814 E Lee St 1211 IN 42nd P1 1120 N 38th St Seattle, WA 98112 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 m Hillis Clark Marttn & Petterson, P.S. William Popp Associattes AARON BELENKY 1221 Second Ave, Stte 500 14400 Bel Red Rd, #206 1800 NE 40tth Stt, H4 Seattle, WA 98101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Rentton, WA 98056 Allison Hanson WSDOT 600 108tth Ave NE, 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 AMY LIETZ ROBERTS ALR DESIGN INC 1006 NE 34tth Rentton, WA 99056-1938 Anne Woodlev 7920 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 99040 BradNicholsonNicholson Soutth End Gives Back 2302 NE 28tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 vB Bud Worley 4100 Lake Washingtton Blvd N Rentton, WA 98056 Carol O'Connell 1241 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 4 EE Cyrus McNeely 3810 Park Ave N Rentton, WA 98056 .... . . Amitt Ranade Hillis Clark Marttn & Petterson, P.S. 1221 Second Ave, Stte 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Ann Gvgi Hlllis Clark Marttn & Petterson, P.S. 1221 Second Ave, Stte 500 Seattle, WA 98101 5 Bob & Mary Becker 1007 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 Amy & Kevin Dedrickson 1012 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 ANNE SIMPSON 3001 Mounttain View Ave N Rentton, WA 98056-2516 ti il._ jdE ' 3 ... Brad Nicholson Soutth End Gives Back 2302 NE 28tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 ...... W E............E........>.................�� 3 - - ....i.. Bruce MacCaul Bruce MacCaul Campbell Matthewson Centtury Pacifc, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Charles & Rebecca Taylor 1252 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 Christtne Breen 1021 N 41stt PI Rentton, WA 98056 ,i Clair Hong Environmenttal Prottectton Agency Region 10 1200, ECL-122 Sixtth Ave, Suitte 900 Seattle, WA 98101 "84 V, Dan Mittzel 111 Cleveland Ave Mtt. Vernon, WA 99040 Campbell Matthewson Centtury Pacifc, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suitte #1600 Seattle, WA 98101 Charles Wittmann 907 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 Christtne Chen 1128 N 41stt PI Rentton, WA 98056 s Connie Taylor DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS 3605 Lake Washingtton Blvd N Rentton, WA 98056-1509 Diane EspevJackson Dima 2419 Talbott Crestt Dr 5 Rentton, WA 98055 . ...... ..... Elisabetth Durr Farrel & Jonell Wilson 1206 N 27tth PI 4063 Williams Ave N Rentton, WA 98056 Fred Warnock 1246 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 . ....... ... . Gwendolyn High 155 Yakima Ave NE Rentton, WA 98059 Janett L. & Gary R. Sanford 1102 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 Jessica Wintter 7600 Samd Pointt Way Seattle, WA 98115 Jim Hanken Wolfsttone, Panchott & Bloch, P,S., Inc. 1111 Third Ave, Sutte 1800 Seattle, WA 98101 John Hansen 4005 Park Ave N Rentton, WA 99056 KATHLEEN DOW 1210 N 42ND PL Rentton, WA 98056 Rentton, WA 98056 T ..................... Jim Roy 1111 N 41stt PI Rentton, WA 98056 John Murphy New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 148tth Stt SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 ........... ................. .......... Keitth Preszler 3818 Lake Washingtton Blvd Rentton, WA 98056 Ed Gaines Seattle Seahawks 12 Sea hawks Way Rentton, WA 98056 FAYE JANDE RS 2717 Aberdeen Ave NE Rentton, WA 98056 Grettchen Kaehler Departtmentt of Archaeoloo Histtaric Preventton PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 . .... ..... . .......... Jenny Manning 1205 N 10tth PI Rentton, WA 98057 Jim Hanken 15543 62nd Ave Kenmore, WA 98028 John & Diane Haines 1014 N 27tth PI Rentton, WA 98056 Jon & Marilyn Danielson 1308 34tth Stt Rentton, WA 99056 Kelly Smitth 681I Ripley Ln N Rentton, WA 98056 ............ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Kevin Iden KEVIN POOLE kim Doutthitt 5121 Ripley Ln 627 High Ave S 5901143 PI SE Rentton, WA 98056 Rentton, WA 98057-3918 Bellevue, WA 98006 Larry & Linda Boregson Larry Reymann Laura & James Counsell 1013 N 42nd PI 1313 N 38tth Stt 1122 N 41stt PI Rentton, WA 98056 Rentton, WA 98056 Rentton, WA 98056 Laurie Baker 3107 Mounttain View Ave N Rentton, WA 98056 Len & Patt Reid 1217N42ndP1 Rentton, WA 98056 { Linda Baker 1202 N 35tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 .., Mark Hancock PO Box 88811 Seattle, WA 98138 Mike & Sharon Glenn 8825 114tth Ave SE Newcasttle, WA 98056 Mike Cero 8300 Avalon Dr Mercer Island, WA 98056 v E Nancy Denney 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N Rentton, WA 98056 Pavy Thaa 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renttan, WA 98056 LAWRENCE DIXON D IXO N &ASSOCIATES INC Len & Patt Reid 1217 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 LOUIS TIBBS 807 N 33rd Stt Rentton, WA 98056-1901 Michael Christt Immersion Services LLC 1083 lake Washingtton Blvd N, Suitte 50 Rentton, WA 98056 Mike Battn 3410 Park Ave N Rentton, WA 99056 Mimi MacCaul Patty Witt 1204 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 f'- f ' E'. I€ S Raiendra Aerawaal 1113 N 29tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 Lawrence Hard 4316 NE 33rd Stt Seattle, WA 98105 Leslve Bergan 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suitte #2 Rentton, WA 98056 Marcos Santtos 1209 N 31stt Stt Rentton, WA 98056 Michael Mullinaux 1415 N 24tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 Mike Battn 3410 Park Ave N Rentton, WA 98056 Mistty Blair Departtmentt of Ecology 3190 160tth Ave, SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Paul & Susan Siegmund 1006 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 E' 2 Ramin Pazooki WSDOT PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 . ..... Ricardo & Maria Anttezana Rich Wagner Richard & Katthleen Bergquistt 1025 N 42nd PI 2411 Garden Ctt 7244 E Mercer Way Rentton, WA 98056 Rentton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Ferry Robertt & Sonva Tobeck Robertt Wilson 7414 E Mercer Way 1003 N 41stt PI Mercer Island, WA 98040 Rentton, WA 98056 Roger Pearce Fostter Pepper LLC 1111 3rd Ave, #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Ronald Corbell 4113 Williams Ave Rentton, WA 98056 .. ... tE" ...i . Rvan Durkin 1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building Seattle, WA 98101 SUSAN MILLER 806 N 30tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 THEO & KIM BROWNE 1409 N 37tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 � E E TONY BOYDSTON 3920 NE 11tth PI Rentton, WA 98056-3537 Ronald & Sachi Nicol 1030 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 Ross & Ava Ohashi 1018 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 t..E- EttEF6 SALLY ROCHELLE 3626 Lk Wa Blvd N Rentton, WA 98056-1508 ShenR Wu 1222 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 ._..._..._.^,,..._,._.._._..............._.........,,..........,.._._._,........_.... ,. ':?''.. t.CPC §i 1 fy� � EF E � T Stteve Van Til Vulcan 505 5tth Ave S, Suitte 900 Seattle, WA 99104 Susan Sttow 1309 N 36tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 uq Tim Riley 3607 Lake Washington Blvd N Rentton, WA 98056 Trudy Neumann 922 N 28tth PI Rentton, WA 98056 Ronald & Vanessa BrazR 1019 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 Rov & Joann Francis 1000 N 42nd PI Rentton, WA 98056 i Sally Scott Bad Bad Address See Nottes Rentton, WA 98056 Sherry and Robertt Cline 4267 Williams Ave N Rentton, WA 98056 .,.€.,.,.,.,..{..E.,.....3.............._„i.. .�. tt.t,c., sd.€.E€,.,€t[i,t.,.,. Sue & Mac lahnke 1717 Aberdeen Ave NE Rentton, WA 98056 Suzanne & Donald Orehek 4103 Wells Ave N Rentton, WA 98056 , Tom Baker 1202 N 35tth Stt Rentton, WA 98056 Victtor Chiu 1128 N 41stt PI Rentton, WA 98056 . ......... i..Eet i.. ' e. ram. ................... ..E E E<.........i.E..EEEtEE�4 Y£ c�� v7 A E...€ vtL FIFE ii� � William Skilling Winnie & Yuri Sihon Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin 3814 E Lee Stt 1211 N 42nd PI 1120 N 38tth Stt Seattle, WA 98112 Rentton, WA 98056 Rentton, WA 98056 Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community& Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1580 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSI Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 111 Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, -- rax J a �- D * 1k e P., Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals ? Applicant - Notice of Issuance and Availability 51S Consistency Analysis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law � ATY OF Mayor r VR n A� Community & Economic Development Department C.E.Th ip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pierand/or an alternative approved bythe EPAto allowfor public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would S stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. City of Renton Department of Cor city & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Memo quendall Teeminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS clan 0 Er•tire Dc-cu-cr.r fc�r phrcf~ase at Rintc.r Ci["r 1-.a11. Fir, ar:2 Depart,? -en[ 1' FIC;c.r for AID per hard copy or can be cc,w i,I Lnotc for free or, City &f Rertor w,2bsite, Rirrtoma.eo Quendall Terminals IA�gtCITY OF eOo nm�o Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 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 ASSIGNEE) THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1(the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMN ITY City of AND.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with 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. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov). APPLICATION NUMBER(S): PROJECT PROPONENT: PROJECT NAME: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L. P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CQNSISIANCY ANAYSIS PAGE 2df2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 15t Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: March 24, 2017 March 20, 2017 )t�An"4a, Zlwzoimt, -31z,/a 1��2- -Z--- Gregg Zimm r an, ministrator Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works Dep rtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development Denis Law TY OF • Mayorr enton 0 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. Grp of hrnton Deportment of Coma & Economic Development vironmental Review Committee Memo Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review, 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement F COMh� .JITY City of ;:. DEPARTMENT O � ORIGINAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D 0 +�,�,= NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with 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. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov). APPLICATION NUMBER(S): PROJECT PROPONENT: OSeattle, WA 98101 PROJECT NAME: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L. P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ERC ISSUANCE & AVAILABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTANCY ANAYSIS PAGE 2 of 2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 111 Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 2017 DATE OF DECISION: March 20, 2017 SIGNATURES: 31L)d /Z4 /7L Gregg ZimmhrKrn,AAmj61strdfor Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works I - rtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date - �7 L--O r Kelly Beymer, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development 1110 , DEPARTMENT OF MMUNITY CITYOF _. AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT enton ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TO: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Kelly Beymer, Community Services Administrator Rick Marshall, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator FROM: Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager MEETING DATE: Monday, March 20, 2017 TIME: 2:30 p.m. LOCATION: 6th Floor Conference Room #610 Quendall Terminals (Dolbee) LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, BSP, SM, SA-M Non -Consent Location: 4503 Ripley Ln N Description: cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer J. 5eita, Transportation Systems Director C. Long, Economic Development Director' J. Henning, Planning Director® B. Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager° L. Warren, City Attorney S. Maloney, Assistant City AttorneyO P.Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Angela 5t. John, Fire MarshallO J. Medzegian, Council Denis Law Mayor 11;R Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator March 16, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101. SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications. The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 2 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov !. , CITTOFRENTON DEPARTMENT`,OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT;,- PLANNING DIVISION I: AFFIDAVIT,OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 13th day of March 2017, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing "Off -Hold" Letter of documents. This information was sent to: ....f E�E..E.F�EERg�KKe� { '-".«.::.....:':................................. a.... .. t§3":dh£t£:tF.reSentEtl `E EF11116%F��'^..,.�.•., ..:...,..u's. � Please see attached for complete mailing list Owners, Contacts, Parties of Record w (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WAS HINGTOTN ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrumer�t\\ Dated:l\C,iu�y Not Public in and for the State of Was — Q09 4tL �y Notary (Print): My appointment expires: WASkA\ Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, BSP, SM, SA-M Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. William Popp Associates AARON BELENKY 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 14400 Bel Red Rd, #206 1800 NE 40th St, H4 Seattle, WA 98101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Renton, WA 98056 Allison Hanson WSDOT 600 108th Ave NE, 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 AMY LIETZ ROBERTS ALR DESIGN INC 1006 NE 34th Renton, WA 98056-1938 Anne Woodley 7920 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back 2302 NE 28th St Renton, WA 98056 Bud Worley 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 ..... ........ Carol O'Connell 1241 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Cyrus McNeely 3810 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Amit Ranade Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Ann Gyg! Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Bob & Mary Becker 1007 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Amy & Kevin Dedrickson 1012 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 ANNE SIMPSON 3001 Mountain View Ave N Renton, WA 98056-2516 Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back 2302 NE 28th St Renton, WA 98056 Bruce Maccaul Bruce Maccaul Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles & Rebecca Taylor 1252 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 ........... Christine Breen 1021 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Clair Hong Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200, ECL-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Dan Mitzel Ill Cleveland Ave Mt. Vernon, WA 98040 ................ ......... . . . ... ..... Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600 Seattle, WA 98101 Charles Witmann 907 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 . . . . . . . . . . Christine Chen 1128 IN 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Connie Taylor DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS 3605 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-1509 Diane Espey Jackson Dima . Ed Goines 2419 Talbot Crest Dr 5 Seattle Seahawks Renton, WA 98055 12 Seahawks Way Renton, WA 98056 Elisabeth Durr Farrel & Jonell Wilson FAYE JANDERS 1206 N 27th PI 4063 Williams Ave N 2717 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Fred Warnock 1246 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Gwendolyn High 155 Yakima Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford 1102 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Jessie, a Winter 7600 Samd Point Way Seattle, WA 98115 Jim Hanken Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc. 1111 Third Ave, 5utie 1800 Seattle, WA 98101 John Hansen 4005 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 KATHLEEN DOW 1210N42NDPL Renton, WA 98056 E Jeffrey Coats Hallenbeck, Lancaster, Miller & Andrews, A.A.L. 15500 SE 30th PI, Ste 201 Bellevue, WA 98007 EE E €EEE(E Jim Roy 1111 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 John Murphy New Home Trends, Inc. 4314148th St SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Keith Pres.. zler 3818 Lake Washington Blvd Renton, WA 98056 Gretchen Kaehler Department of Archaeology & Historic Prevention PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 Inez Petersen, J.Q. Starfish Law PLLC 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 1 Renton, WA 98056-1909 Jenny Manning 1205 N 10th PI Renton, WA 98057 Jim Hanken 15543 62nd Ave Kenmore, WA 98028 John & Diane Haines 1014 N 27th Pi Renton, WA 98056 Jon & Marilyn Danielson 1308 34th St Renton, WA 98056 Kelly Smith 6811 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 Y Kevin Iden KEVIN POOLE kim Douthitt 5121 Ripley Ln 627 High Ave S 5901 143 PI SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98057-3918 Bellevue, WA 98006 Larry & Linda Boregson Larry Reymann Laura & James Counseil 1013 N 42nd PI 1313 N 38th St 1122 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Laurie Baker LAWRENCE DIXON Lawrence Hard 3107 Mountain View Ave N DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC 4316 NE 33rd St Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 99105 Len & Pat Reid Len & Pat Reid Lesl a Ber an 1217 N 42nd PI 1217 N 42nd PI 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Linda Baker LOUISTIBBS Marcos Santos 1202 N 35th St 807 N 33rd St 1209 N 31st St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056-1901 Renton, WA 98056 Mark Hancock Michael Christ Michael Mullinaux PO Box 88811 Immersion Services LLC 1415 N 24th St Seattle, WA 98138 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mike & Sharon Glenn Mike Batin Mike Batin 8825 114th Ave SE 3410 Park Ave N 3410 Park Ave N Newcastle, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 ....................................... Mike Cero Mimi MacCaul Misty Blair 8300 Avalon Dr Department of Ecology Mercer Island, WA 98056 3190 160th Ave, SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Nancy Denney Patty Witt Paul & Susan Siegmund 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N 1204 N 42nd PI 1006 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 {{ {{E € tE €E EE .:.k-i ...:.4..FiFEIr t ........:.:... .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.. ., ,., .,., _ �i i�� . '. . ......:.. ........, ..._-._..,;. �{F � .< ,.......... ._.. .. , . .. Pavy Thao Rajendra Agrawaal Ramin Pazooki 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N 1113 N 29th St WSDOT Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 Ricardo & Maria Antezana Rich Wagner Richard & Kathleen Bergquist 1025 N 42nd PI 2411 Garden Ct 7244 E Mercer Way Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Ferry Robert & Sonya Tobeck Robert Wilson 7414 E Mercer Way 1003 N 41st PI Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98056 Roger Pearce E Ronald & Sachi Nicol Ronald & Vanessa Brazg Foster Pepper LLC 1030 N 42nd PI 1019 N 42nd PI 1111 3rd Ave, #3400 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Ronald Corbell Ross & Ava Ohashi Roy & Joann Francis 4113 Williams Ave 1018 N 42nd PI 1000 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 _,,..._ . Ryan Durkin SALLY ROCHELLE Sally Scott 1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building 3626 Lk Wa Blvd N Bad Bad Address See Notes Seattle, WA 99101 Renton, WA 98056-1508 Renton, WA 98056 -. _ ....... ..... �E�.i.I:.f,� fl Scott Greenberg Sheng Wu Sherry and Robert Cline Development Services Director, City of 1222 N 42nd PI 4267 Williams Ave N Mercer Island Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 9611 SE 36th St Mercer Island, WA 98040 Spencer Albert Steve Van Til Sue & Mac jahnke Albert International, LLP Vulcan 1717 Aberdeen Ave NE 2442 NW Market St, Suite #722 505 5th Ave S, Suite 900 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98107 Seattle, WA 98104 SUSAN MILLER Susan Stow Suzanne & Donald Orehek 806 N 30th St 1309 N 36th St 4103 Wells Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 M BROWNE Tim Riley Tom Baker 1409 N 37th St 3607 Lake Washington Blvd N 1202 N 35th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 I IE E TONY BOYDSTON Trudy Neumann Victor Chiu 3920 NE 11th PI 922 N 28th PI 1128 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056-3537 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 William Skilling Winnie &Yuri Sihon Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin 3814 E Lee St 1211 N 42nd PI 1120 N 38th St Seattle, WA 98112 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 When Recorded, Return to: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way, Suite 728 Renton, WA 98057 CONFORMED COPY 201708080005Pill 11 89 AGREEMENT Rea: =$8.on OW017 11:57 AM KING COUNTY, WA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Abbreviated legal Description: That portion of Government Lot 5 in S. 29, T. 24N, R. 5E, WN..... Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A) Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR ❑ NOTYETAssIGNED 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 12th day of June, 2017 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.706.170 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')). Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 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. 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 2015, 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. Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.7013.170 etseq. ("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. 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 Hearing Examiner held a public hearing, as authorized by City Council, on this Development Agreement on April 18, 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. Quendall Terminols Development Agreement Page 3 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. 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; Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 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 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. Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 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 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 maybe 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. Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 6 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 Nearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value ((excluding any City - owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA Transportation Update, upon Developer's request 30 days in advance of the sunset date, for one additional five-year period of time. S. VESTING. 5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to City of Renton ordnance number 5523. 5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement. Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton. 5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.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; 5everability. 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 Quendoll Termrnots Development Agreement Poge 7 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. 6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.706.190, 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), (h) 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. Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 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 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 Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 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 notable to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that, in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision, The decision of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an Quen doll Terminals Development Agreement Page 10 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below. DATED this a5 day ofQAn--i<, 2D17 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS 4 , By: Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative By:1 V" Robert Cugini Its: Vice President Date: ?%J5 06 a 1 CITY O-RbNTON By;1.�ifiL 4o�"�"E'N��+�+�� T� +� Denis Law ..+"'"-1 �a+�,�,,,,,,+++ +r'�` Mayor �.a s � Cak ' = T Date: G I * arc '•.,,�o�po�AiED sti�,•``�• ATTEST: � JasqP A. Seth Ci# Clerk Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF Amjgj�c m j ss: COUNTY OF Krr► 6 ) On this 5''4 day of j uL , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of kikmtt County of personally appeared � r]$&r?-T cu6l j r, 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. NOTA PUBLIC in and for the state of L,IPk�- Yd j" I tt'V--3 Notary (print): T) =7 rvt rKu{-A n tic My appointment expires: ,. - oe - i � Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 STATE OF ss: COUNTY OF On this L` day o _ 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 h re a set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. `.�`'�R�Oy�+ '�T' `�xk�111i14 II c' 7 r , r amo ARYVUBLIC-i�i and for the state of [Mary (print):T-In.o�- ky OF y appointment expires: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 List of Exhibits; Exhibit A — Legal Description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Quench!! Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S S METES AND BOJNDS LESA_ DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OFGOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, F:.M. , AND SHOREr ANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOIYIPiG LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGH7-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A L:FS, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINISCAi, DESCRISED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SETIION 29; THENCE NORTH 99`58'36" WEST ALONG THE; SOU71i LINE Or SF1IV LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEE! TO THE WESTERI.,Y LICE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD R:GHT-OF-ir:AY; THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONS SAID rtIGET-Or-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING ;tiOR E: 29044'54" EAST 230.01 FEET TO THE RJE POINT Cr BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN; DESCRIBED; THENCE SOJTH 5028'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WPICE BEARS NORTH 59"24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET F&ON1 SAID FOINT A; THENCE i,'°:RCH 5902446" WEST 70 `1'E:E INNER HARBCP LINE Ar:D THE END 0- SAIG' LINE DESCR=PTION; ALSO THAT PORTION C= SAID GOVEREXENT LOT 5 LYING SOUL EASTERLY OF 1 AKE W SHTNGTON 33!LEVXFD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY SATE HIS H'rtir' Y N iMB= R. 2A AND N9?TH :ESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FUBI,IC STATE HIGHWAY NUYBE.R 1 AS ESTABL_SHED BY DEED RECORDED IA`dU VY 11, 1964 JNDFR RECORDlt:�; ND. 6�7408 AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THER.EOF CONVEYKD TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORAT:CN BY DEED RECORDED j: YE 19, 237,E UNDER RECORDING NO. 200009001179. LI/1112016 CENTi.R.z PACIFIC, LL P DA�<!A. -:=, PLS N; ). 3 754E BR JOB NO. 20,!39:5G.03 ;'_/111:E BUSH, ROED & r' TCHINGS, :NC. 2009 M!NOR AVENJ: EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 230 32.3-4144 r4� 300 0 150 300 x W SW 1M SECTdN ,19. 1"24N, ROE, W M TAX ACCT. NO, TAX ACCT. N0. 107.51 / 292405-9012-01 292405900203 C O' TRUE POINT r Oa' / OF BEGINNING /• ,�v � •� h`58y�; TAX ACCT. NO. 292405-9001-04/', � 4p �rj � tiF, �• f160, 1939 , kk ro 100.01 a0• ' JAP.A.- TAX ACCT. NO, POINT AA' o%y hry� 292405-•9002-03 �jO-& cD�' f��9 ? RY HIGH Gp� �� //GOV�LOT 5 MARKlol ION N30 56'16 E 90.80, 4v N3b'56'16'E�° SW 1 /4 `184.30' ram, SECTION 29, DEEDED PER AFN (SE BOTH ST) } CORNER 20080619001179 VAC N 44TH ST OF SEC. 29 T24N,45E oFoz�i 12- / s9 REC. # 7602260427 R-1500. 00 so b3• r N88'4$'58`W 1016.36' L=57.25 • Vk+ 00, A, 1,113.05' I ;— PLAT OF BARBEE MILL Q`T — r 9� 63.3 149.74' N & `� 1 IkOL. 246, PGS. 25-39, LL V VAC N 447 5T , ,�,� R C. NO. 20080208000182 32.50` " / ►/ N28'451�4 E GOV�T LOT 1 l _ 18.10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIB7 �„/�. BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. kit CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP• LAND SURVEYORS a CIVIL ENGINEERS 2009 MINOR AVE EAST (206) 323-4' 44 BRH SEATTLE, Washington DATE 1 ;/71/16 cce CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 98102-351 3 JOB NO 2009050 03 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 300 M SA A STATE OF WAS HINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Ave SE • Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 July 10, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Re; City of Renton Permit LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA —Approved Century Pacific, L.P. — Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) #2017-NW-3808 Dear Mr. Mathewson: On June 28, 2017, we received notice that the City of Renton conditionally approved your application for an SDP. Your permit is to construct a mixed -use development consisting of 692 dwelling units, 42,190 square feet of commercial uses, 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. This work will occur in the High Intensity shoreline environment designation of Lake Washington, a shoreline of statewide significance. By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). • Ecology's SDP approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC). • The City of Renton Local Shoreline Master Program. Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. We have received your approved SDP. What Happens Next? Before you begin; activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from June 28, 2017, the "date of filing." This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The SHB will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the SHB before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. You may reach them at (360) 664-9160 or http://,v,,,-ww.elLiho.wa.gov/Board/Sl4B. o < � 0 Century Pacific, L.P. July 10, 2017 Page 2 If y u want to appeal this decision. you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the SIB website above or on the website of the Washington State Legislature at http://Ups. leg. wa.gov_/wac. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Misty Blair, Shoreline Specialist, at (425) 649-4309. Sincerely, Amelia Petersen, Section Assistant Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Cc: Vanessa Dolbee — City of Renton Denis Law Mayor June 21, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for Quendall Terminals File No. LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on Monday, June 12, 2017. A Determination of Significance issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee on February 19, 2010. Following which a Draft EIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS were issued December 10, 2010, October 19, 2012, and August 31, 2015 respectively. All EIS documents can be found on the City's Website (enter Quendall Terminals into the search field) The appeal period ended on September 24, 2015. One appeal was filed, which was ultimately dismissed by both the appellant and the applicant. No other appeals were filed. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173- 14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions or need additional information or have difficulty finding the project web page. Sincere)- , .l Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosures: Motion by City Council Hearing Examiner Recommendation Development Agreement — includes legal description Copy of Master Application Notice of Application cc: Office of Attorney General Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Campbell Mathewson, Altino Properties/ Applicant/Owner Shoreline Cover Letter 09-151(003) 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa,gov JUN 12, 2017 - CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - MOTION SHEET f666 ion Staff.Contact Inhere Steci P es Placentent . 4 f f 4.a) PUBLIC HEARING SIN Langston Rd Street Vacation II (VAC-17-001): Council COUNCIL CONCUR Amanda Askren Jason Seth approved the request to vacate under the condition that the utility easement for PSE is secured in the requested area. 7.a) CONSENT AB -1929 Community & Economic Development REFER TO FINANCE Cliff Long Judith Subla AGENDA Department recommended approval of the Renton CaMMITTEE Community Marketing Campaign contract with Atlas Advertising in the amount of $90,000. 7.b) CONSENT AB -1906 Municipal Court requested authorization to REFItA TO FINANCE Bonnie Kim Gilman AGENDA transfer the Court Security Officer from a contracted COMMITTEE Woodrow position to a City employee by establishing a new Court Security Officer position at salary grade a04, and approving the associated budget adjustment. 7.c) CONSENT AB -1923 Transportation Systems Division recommended 16ER70 Derek Akerson Jim Seitz AGENDA entering into a five-year contract with BergerABAM, Inc. in �l�fiSPf3RT[#IDN _ Bob Hanson the amount of $322,364, for the purpose of construction � iON) Heather Gregersen management and inspection services for the NE 31st Street 51fITfENr Bridge Replacement Project (TIP #36). 7.d) CONSENT AB- 1924Transportation Systems Division recommended ItEI=TO James Wilhoit Jim Seitz AGENDA entering into a professional services agreement with Gray & I Bob Hanson Osborne, Inc. in the amount of $125,283.03 for the purposeAVtATiCifN) Heather Gregersen of designing the Renton Ave. S Resurfacing Project. �oi1iTE 7.e) CONSENT AB -1925 Transportation Systems Division recommended !(EEFI TO ; Vicki Grover Jim Seitz AGENDA entering into a Cooperative Agreement with the Washington TATON ; : Heather Gregersen State Department of Transportation for design andAVIATION� construction of the 1-405/SR 167 Interchange DirectMIIi'Tlr ..,._ Connector Project. 7.f) CONSENT AB -1926 Transportation Systems Division recommended >I:l=Eit 1t7 ; Vicki Grover Jim Seitz AGENDA entering into a Utility Agreement with the Washington State , TRA li VORTATION :' Heather Gregersen Department of Transportation in the amount of $136,630, Li Li -Wong for the purpose of coordinating and participating in the CCrMMIri'E design process of the water main relocation along the SR' 167 corridor. 7.g) CONSENT AB -1927 Transportation Systems Division recommended 1i+1:lTO Vicki Grover Jim Seitz AGENDA entering into a Utility Agreement, with the Washington State Abdoul Gafour Department of Transportation, for the purpose of 101A'IN Weather Gregerser coordinating and participating in the design process of theIIi'i� water main relocation at S. 14th St., along the 1-405 corridor. S.a) UNFINISHED ` Council. President Pavane presented a report recommending COUNCIL CONCUR Vanessa Dolbee Jennifer Henning 'BUSINESS` tdr currence with the Hearing Examirier:s recommendation Judith Subra to approve a master site plan, 'binding site plan', and sho: `elirie substantial development permit subject to the conditions identified in the recommendation The iCommittee of the Whole also recommended concurrence . with the Hearing Exarniner's recommendation to approve the development agreement subject to the modifications' recommended in Conclusion of La'W No, 2(g)y for the construction of the Ouerida11 Terminals mixed use deg elopm ent (LUA09-151). The City Council has final`. re.viewing authority over Development Agreements and assoicated land use permits when merged (RMC 4-8-080G). The proposed ri�aster site plan, binding site,plan and shoreline substantial development perrnit are all consistent with applicable code criteria subject to 46 conditions of approval.The Committee further recommends' d that the resolution regarding this matter be presented.for. reading _._ . ....... ................ ..:........... .. . aril adoption. 8.b) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Perssonpresented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Jamie Thomas Natalie Wissbrod BUSINESS approving for payment on June 12, 2017 claims vouchers 5416-5417, 5427-5436, 10017-10018; 356794-356800, 356808-356826, 356843-357109 and four wire transfers and one payroll run with benefit withholding payments totaling $5,345,081.08 and payroll vouchers including 629 direct deposits and 28 payroll vouchers totaling $1,278,797.72. 8.c) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Ron Kahler Linda Moschetti BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the allocation of funds to purchase a John Deere Z970R Commercial ZTrak mower. The total estimated cost of the mower is $13,309. The adjustment for this purchase will be included in the upcoming 2nd quarter budget adjustment ordinance. 8.d) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Leslie Betlach Todd Black BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to Jamie Thomas award the professional engineering design contract for the Misty Baker Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park Facility Structural Repairs project, to PND Engineers, 1nc.in the amount of $204,000.00. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract. 8.e) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Jason Seth Leslie Betlach BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to Todd Black award the construction contract for the Sunset Jamie Thomas Neighborhood Park, Phase I project, to Road Construction Misty Baker Northwest, Inc.in the amount of $2,351,010.48. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract. 8.f) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Jan Hawn Jamie Thomas BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to Chris Seese approve the refinancing plan to issue around $6.12 million with approximately $280,000 in issuance premium to refinance $6.19 million of the outstanding 2007 Water Sewer Revenue Bonds. The Committee further recommended the corresponding ordinance with all the associated documents be presented for first reading. 8.g) UNFINISHED Planning & Development Committee Chair Prince presented COUNCIL CONCUR April Alexander Angie Mathias BUSINESS a report recommending concurrence in the staff Judith Subia recommendation to concur with Mayor Law's appointment of Ms. Laura Bloch to the Community Plan Advisory Board - City Center for a term expiring April 30, 2018. 8.h) UNFINISHED Planning & Development Committee Chair Prince COUNCIL CONCUR John Collura Judith Subia BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt a Citywide ordinance and enter into an interlocal agreement with King County for preservation services to establish the necessary framework to preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate Renton properties which reflect significant elements of the City's, county's, state's and nation's cultural, social, economic, architectural, historic, ethnic, and other heritage. The Planning and Development Committee further recommended that an ordinance be prepared and presented for first reading when it is complete. 9.a) RESOLUTION(S): Resolution No. 4311: City Center Community Plan COUNCIL, ADOPT Angie Mathias Chip Vincent THE RESOLUTION Judith Subia AS PRESENTED 9.b) RESOLUTION(S): Resolution No. 4312: Quendall Terminals Development COUNCIL ADOPT Vanessa Dolbee Jennifer Henning Agreement THE RESOLUTION Judith Subia AS PRESENTED 9.c) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5846, Bond Refinancing COUNCIL REFER THE Jan Hawn Jamie Thomas FOR FIRST ORDINANCE FOR Chris Seese READING: SECOND AND FINAL READING AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING 9.d) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5837: Pet Daycare Docket Ordinance (D-128) COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia FOR SECOND AND THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 9.e) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5838: Municipal Arts Commission Docket COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia FOR SECOND AND Ordinance (D-129) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 9.q ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5839: Light Intensity Commercial Docket COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia FOR SECOND AND Ordinance (D-130) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 9.g) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5840: Tree Retention and Land Clearing COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia FOR SECOND AND Docket Ordinance (D-131) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 9.h) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5841: Administrative Code Interpretations COUNCILADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia FOR SECOND AND Docket Ordinance (D-133) THE ORDINANCE A5 Cindy Moya FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 9.0 ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5842: Clustering Provisions Docket Ordinance COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia FOR SECOND AND (D-134) THE ORDINANCE A5 Cindy Moya FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 9.j) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5843: Shopping Carts COUNCIL ADOPT Paul Hintz Judith Subia FOR SECOND AND THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 9.k) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5844: Vacating a Portion of right-of-way on COUNCIL ADOPT Jason Seth Amanda Askren FOR SECOND AND SW Langston Rd. THE ORDINANCE AS Judith Subia FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: Cindy Moya ALL AYES 9.1) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5845: MCIMETRO Access Transmission COUNCIL ADOPT Amanda Askren Cindy Moya FOR SECOND AND Services Corp Franchise Agreement THE ORDINANCE AS FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES 10) NEW BUSINESS Council refer traffic safety on Maple Valley Highway and COUNCIL CONCUR Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman traffic congestion around New Life Church on Maple Valley Kevin Milosevich Highway be referred to Administration. Linda Moschetti Melissa Day 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Quendall Terminals Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION Summary The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the development agreement. The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009, the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access, open spaces, landscaping, view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures composed of46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was appealed. By the date of the April 18, 2017 hearing, the appeal had been withdrawn and only five members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA project. 2 4 5 6 F1, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site, including placement of a soil cap across the project site and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. EPA work is continuing and well justifics the need for the proposed development agreement since the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards during the extended expiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area. The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation) are traffic and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to I-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project use the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to assess a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 2 4 P 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the City streets to the south of the project. View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little, question that the multiple six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a building that is 1 ] 5 feet in height_ To mitigate the view impacts, the proposal includes a widened central road (Road B) to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback requirements. Testimony Note: This summary should not be considered apart of the Examiner's Recommendation.. It is solely provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signing any priority or importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing. Staff Opening Presentation: Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23, the City Council expressly authorized the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4. Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement. Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and that precise details of design will be reviewed and approved during subsequent site plan review. The heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and north of the project. The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re- evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement. The tern of the development agreement starts the earlier of either when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 3 4 5 G 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains. The site is a former creosote facility and was subsequently designated a superfund site. The EPA will be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain how the project site would be configured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort. In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA. There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks. There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill and a 38-foot setback from the Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi -private plaza spaces. Pursuant to Condition 27, Lots 1 and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas, they proposal will have to be amended. Condition 41 requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped water line. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re -opening of the hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the City Council. Applicant Presentation: Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations. She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project. She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The applicant has the burden of proof in establishing consistency with decision criteria. The examiner is also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development agreement. Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971, It was initially used as a log storage yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 4 2 4 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation mitigation, including both on and off -site roadway improvements, a transportation demand management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of Transportation ("WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41" to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets. On -site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and programs to reduce reliance upon single -occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has adequate capacity to serve the development. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation information available to the City, such as the work associated with the 1-405 WSDOT interchange improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off -setting traffic impacts. Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last two years, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings_ A pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly environment. The project is consistent with the City's design standards. Campbell Mathewson, project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 2 4 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation, landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation of approval. However, the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront retail and the public park along the southwest corner of the site and the potential for a new dock. The buildings were also set back another 20 feet. Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review. Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills. As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards between residential blocks, pedestrian orientation in design, added retail use and restaurants and trails. The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park. The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the first time in decades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April 11, 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the 1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five. Public Comments: Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas ofconcem. He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently has to twelve -foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA l-1 kA 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock. Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed -use site and she doesn't want it to be an elitist area. Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of residents and also that the developer has been very accommodating. Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts. Staff Rebuttal - In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts, a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil contaminants being moved with pile driving, the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 7 9 6 i7 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Applicant Rebuttal- Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site. In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions of approval. Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides for public access and use of shoreline areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the project. Exhibits Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18, 2017 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017 public hearing as well: Exhibit 24 Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017 Exhibit 25 Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017 Exhibit 26 Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017 Exhibit 27 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data Exhibit 28 Google Maps Exhibit 29 City of Renton power point Exhibit 30 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations" Exhibit 31 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits" Exhibit 32 Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site Exhibit 33 Larry Toedtli CV Exhibit 34 Bob Wells Resume Exhibit 35 Lance Mueller Resume Exhibit 36 Street B rendering Exhibit 37 June 6, 2016 Site Plan PLO Exhibit 38 June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0 Exhibit 39 April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development Agreement with Land Use Applications MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural. 1. Applicant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. R, I201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle, WA, 98101 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council. Substantive; 3. Project and Site Description. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. A. Proposal. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed - use buildings. The proposal would include 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposed' to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of- way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via the development of new internal Roads A — E. The primary site access from public streets is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington, It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 — 133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to take Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10, 2010. ' The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 9 6 i7 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. Site Conditions/Superfund Designation. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying a remedy for clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA, which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e. Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15) to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2, for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site (Main Property), including placement of soil cap across the entire Main Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. C. Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. Consequently, the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 10 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 with the "proposal". 4. Surrounding Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) right of way, I-405 and undeveloped COR zoned property. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most significant impacts are individually addressed as follows: A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical Areas Map and is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. Due to the baseline assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located in the 100-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site -specific site plan review should include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6), Recommended Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200(J) a new application would be required. As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C 10, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 11 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD. It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources. Pages 3.6-14 — 3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City stormwater regulations. Following construction, a permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with City stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution -generating surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stormwater outfall pipes would be situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation. B. Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi -story structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights -of - way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures FI — F15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80 feet. At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However, in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view corridor and has also inc[uded view opportunities along the setbacks, which are significantly wider than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 12 2 H 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills. SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed by the applicant. C. Noise Privacy and Dust. The City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8 RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance regarding construction hours. With these measures in place, noise and dust impacts are adequately mitigated. The proposed building layout provides semi -private court yards between each residential tower which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy. The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the retail/restaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces. D. Drainage. Adequate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant adverse drainage impacts. The City's stormwater regulations assure that stormwater impacts are fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 stormwater manual is applicable to the project. As noted in Conclusion of Law ("COL") No. 2 of this recommendation, more current stormwater regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts. Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this analysis mitigation measures Al, A10, All, B2, and B7 were established and will become a condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private, the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained a condition of approval requires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/ property owners/ HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 13 2 2 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stonmwater facility design. The site is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City stormwater standards. Storm water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be followed in the design and construction of the project. The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16, the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre- and post - developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology. E. Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts via the City's design, view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building and site design is subject to general design review at the master plan stage and detailed design review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies with the District "C" design standards for master plan review. The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure El, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re -submittal dated 12-16-2015, Exhibit 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a I 0-Foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5, A condition of approval requires that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit I I. Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 14 4 5 6 7 8 9 K 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan. Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted in Mitigation Measures F4, G 12 and G 13. F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project site subsequent to remediation. G. Compatibility/Building Massin . As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by CQR zoned property, Lake Washington to the west and R-10 property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic issues addressed elsewhere, the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the project site. As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, F1, F8, F9, F11, and FI5 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures, the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site. H. Lighting. As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B1 l and F7 to ensure that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of downlighting and shielding among other techniques. Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F13 and H9 and the design standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re -submittal of the Preferred Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 15 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas. I. Loading and Storage Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at off peak hours. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and a 10-inch water main extending into the project site. There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDQ fee and water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction permits. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department and police protection by the City of Renton Police Department. Police and Fire staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. if EPA's ROD prohibits the fire access road within the minimum I00-foot shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail. Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface. Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. As previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space. Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation mitigation measures (Gl —G13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas. The amount of on -site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards. However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off -site park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on -site park and open space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project. As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of"Natural Public Open Space Areas" and "Other Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. The "Other Related Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current PIanning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition GI0 requires that the trail be enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials. Mitigation Document condition GI I requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in compliance with condition G11. Based on the above analysis the provided materials were not compliant with conditions G2, G7, G 10, and G I I . As such a recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G10, and Gl I for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan recording. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 17 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 The Development Agreement adds a 1.3- acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park hours are dawn to dusk., signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the site. The "street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. D. Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides.for an appropriate and safe pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline. However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private Street E either north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space, parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this condition. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 18 i� 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum. For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal, additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the I-405 improvements, staff determined that significant transportation impacts are not anticipated. The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative. As to the preferred alternative, page 1-14 of the DEIS addendum concluded that "ft]he existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build -out in 2015, with the additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative 1 traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative I clearly generated far more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 19 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative 1, the traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where WSDOT has not completed 1-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6 shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table 3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections. Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any intersection except for the Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection. The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group, in a memorandum dated January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal because single -lane approaches at each of the Street `A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. Conditions HI-H 15 of the Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document, provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and 6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who owns the old rail -road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N, and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off -site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA U01 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off -site improvements, such as southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed. In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard street cross sections is not required. However, the design of the streets shall meet minimum standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 — 15-foot sidewalk is required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6 feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to account for the curb width, and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross- section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the amended cross sections. A couple members of the public at the April 18, 2017 public hearing expressed concern over increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Condition H5 of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 4 l st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers would elect to use 1-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site. Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition H5 adequately addresses concerns over increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the "scenic" character of the road and turn it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be some legitimacy to this concern, the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and functionality considerations integrated into the City's street standards that require the additional street width. F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail -road right-of-way. This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City identifying rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review application and construction permit application submittal. Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed through an internal street system, identified as Roads A— E. The applicant has indicated that Roads A — C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City is not willing to accept the proposed public rights -of -way dedications and Roads A — C shall become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A -- C will be private streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School) and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot specific site plan review. A School Impact Fee, based on new multi -family units, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities. Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is provided via a dial -a -ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St. interchange and 1-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted, Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. Currently there are no non -motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site, however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition, the existing rail road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails" planned multi -purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi -purpose trail at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the primary form and most readily available form of alternative non -motorized transportation is bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation Document (page 26) to mitigate system -wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the applicant shall prepare a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include on -site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure weather -protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units_ Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation would not use the multi -purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi- purpose trail. 1. Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 23 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B10 requires that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site plan review and construction permit application. In addition, should the EPA ROD eliminate the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline master programs requirements for significant public access. Conclusions of Law I . Authority. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement. However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since ail permits should be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline applications. The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7- 230(I)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement" significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan applications that are merged with development agreements. In contrast to the binding site plan application, shoreline substantial development permits are classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type 11 permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and master site plan approval as Type III permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short, the three permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 24 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest -number procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not classified by the RMC. However, the CounciI's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the examiner (see Ex. 23) coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure. 2. Vesting. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows: A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vesting. FOF No. 2 of the April 19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a complete binding site plan application on February 10, 2010. The proposed development agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period often to fifteen years. The law is not actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards. Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement, rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when evaluating the vesting issue. Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of land" vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs "...at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted..." A binding site plan is neither a subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains. The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7- 230(N)(1) provided in 2010 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham Neighborhood Assn v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98 (2011), a court ruled that permit expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting, or whether it is a procedural ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting. B. Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting. The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King County stormwater manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish County v, Pollution Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater system is governed by a Phase If National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition S5.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase 11 NPDES permit "...shall apply to all [land use] applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall apply to applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022..." In short, new Phase II permit requirements not integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase lI NPDES permit will apply. The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to "any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement." (emphasis added). However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not "new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA KO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase 11 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton. 2.5 Zonin Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval for all development in the COR zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities. Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(1). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by RMC 4-7-230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9- 190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") use regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Master Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail: a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance with the review, criteria al a level of'detail appropriate for master plans. blaster plans will be evaluated. for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria. b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail and evaluate compliance with the .specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3- 2012) 4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of approval, building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more specific design features to be addressed during site plan review. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with thefollowing., a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i, Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in AMC 4-3-100. S. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding No. 222 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District "C" and consistent with Design District "C" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; X. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surroundingproperties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing andlor placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. a References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No. " References to findings from this recommendation are "FOF No. " All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any updates to the Findings addressed in the April 11, 2017 memo to the examiner, Ex. 19. MASTER PLAN, 81NDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 28 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off -site impacts are significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by FOF 6(D), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(l), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E) and lighting by FOF 5(H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including., L Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on -site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that the mixed -use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well -integrated environment for residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities. Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA, however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking trail, dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. RINK 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; iL Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation .system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas,- iv Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(D). Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No. 5(I). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(H), RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in FOF 6(C). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Hews and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and hit. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF No. 6(I). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable_ I 1. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the natural systems at the site (i.e. critical areas) will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, far phased projects. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 30 2 3 4 S IR 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is governed by the proposed development agreement. Binding Site Plan RMC 4-7-230(C): APPROVAL CRITERIA: Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the following criteria are met: 1 _ Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall he legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall notexceed the number oflots allowed in the applicable zoning district. New nonconforming lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process. 14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots 1, 6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that lots 1, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be buildable if created. The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. 2. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-150. 15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium site creation is required. 3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or mixed -use zone. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 31 2 3 4 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16. The site is located within the mixed -use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval. 4. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D. a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at the time a completed application is submitted. c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site plan may propose shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically authorized per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5, and other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's development standards. I7. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5- 010. 18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building permit approval. 6. Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways, water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by the binding site plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 32 2 4 5 6 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 6, the applicant has made adequate provisions for all drainageways, streets, water supplies, open space, solid waste and sanitary waste. This criterion is satisfied. 7. Access to Public Rights -of -Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct access or access easement approved by the City. 20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review. S. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan and the provisions of kMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions of use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism. 21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property ownerslHOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan. 9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. 22. As conditioned, the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this standard. 10. Dedication .Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan. 23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 33 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IL Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of protective improvements may be required as condition of approval. 24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the City's critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal complies with the City's critical area regulations. Shoreline Permit RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria: a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance. b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted, provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall also be adhered to. 25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No. 6(I). The commercial use regulations further require that parking is to be provided at frequent locations and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(I). The development agreement adds a 1.3- acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS mitigation requires a 100-foot setback. The proposal complies with this 100-foot setback except for a proposed water I ine. A recommended condition of approval requires the water line to be moved outside the 100-foot setback. The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 34 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the impacts of the proposal on shoreline ecological resources have been mitigated and controlled as required by RMC 4-3-090(K). DECISION For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Council approve the proposed development agreement for the reasons identified in the summary of this recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The permit applications should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document dated, August of 2015. 2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside through the binding site plan. 3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street Iights, street names, common landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare_ 4. The minimum partial sight -obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 1 I and shall be identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures E1, E2, and l; 5. 5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 35 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 8. Roads A — C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. 9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording. 10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 12. Off -site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to Mitigation Measures: • B 10 - public trail • G2 — public trail and open space • G3 -- Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N. • G7 — trail signage • G9 —crosswalk • G10 —trail amenities • H3 — frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N • H4 — trail • H5 — traffic calming measures • HS — fire access road • H 10 — bicycle lane • HI I — H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and signalization shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 36 2 4 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 18. To ensure the semi -private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and amenities as approved by the Director. 19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the site. 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows: a. 100 feet from the OPIWM of Lake Washington b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill) c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility) 21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and the semi -private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80 feet. 22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re -designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 37 2 4 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit A residential bike parking plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review, 24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. 25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for lots 2 and 5. 26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval prior to recording. 27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots I and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required. 28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi -purpose trail. 29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review. 30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan. 31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping, open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 38 F1 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 11, 2017 memo to examiner. 33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shal I be provided to the City of Renton for the public sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 34. A minimum 15-foot•wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on the subject site. 36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works Department. 37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording. 38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the facility. 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application for the site. 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the timing identified above per condition of approval 12. 41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 42. The portion of the parcel water word of the QHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 39 2 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 43. Documentation shail be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the tight -of -way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation. 44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and construction permit issuance. 1. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire property. 11. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved, a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance with the approved phasing plan. III. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on the recording Binding Site Plan. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C 10. V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G 10, and G 11 for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator. VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to condition of approval 3. VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system, including an evaluation of on -site crosswalks to ensure MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 40 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W. pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot. IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community Services. X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right- of-way. XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design. XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B 10, G3, G2, G10, GI 1 and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department. XIII. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16. XIV. Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under XIII. XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer: a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the proposed new Road A. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 41 2 3 4 5 7 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main. d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100-shoreline buffer. e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton regulations. XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and 1`12. The TDM and shared parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site -specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of any site -specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. Decision issued May 9, 20I7. PhIT A.Olbrechis Hearing Examiner MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 43 Project Name: Quendail Terminals CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, EXHIBITS Project Number: LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project Location April 18, 2017 Vanessa Dolbee, Current Campbell Mathewson, Parcel 2924059002. 5outh Planning Manager Century Pacific, L P., 1201 of the Seahawks VMAC Third Ave, suite 1680, Training Facility Seattle, WA 98101 The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing: Exhibits 1-18: Hearing Examiner Staff Report (April 2016) and Exhibits Exhibit 19 - 23: Memo to the Hearing Examiner (April 2017) and Exhibits Exhibit 24: Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017 Exhibit 25: Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 201.7 Exhibit 26: Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017 Exhibit 27: City of Renton COR maps and GIS data: http://ro.rentonwa.eov/5ilverliehtPublic/Viewer.html?Viewer=COR-Maas Exhibit 28: Google Maps: https://www.jzoogle.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl Exhibit 29: City of Renton power point Exhibit 30: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations" Exhibit 31: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits" Exhibit 32: Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site Exhibit 33: Larry Toedtli CV Exhibit 34: Bob Wells Resume Exhibit 35: Lance Mueller Resume Exhibit 36: Street B rendering Exhibit 37: June 6, 2016 Site Plan P1.0 Exhibit 38: June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0 Exhibit 39: April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development Agreement with Land Use Applications CITY OF ---momm��RentAO'% Ciry of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Stv AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 11, 2017 TO: Phil Olbrechts, Wearing Examiner FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09-151 Following the canceled public hearing from April of 2016, the Applicants have requested the City consider a Development Agreement. As such, this memorandum addresses the Development Agreement and changes to the project which result from the proposed Development Agreement. This memo is intended to supplement the staff report to the Hearing Examiner which was issued in April of 2016, for the original scheduled hearing date of April 19, 2016. Only those items identified below have been changed and/or are proposed to be changed from the original staff report. Updated Project Description: The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed - use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed -use buildings. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Super -fund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. EXHIBIT 19 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 2 of 7 April 11, 2017 The following Exhibits should be added to the Recorded: Exhibit 19 — Memorandum to Hearing Examiner, April 11, 2017 Exhibit 20 -- Draft Development Agreement Exhibit 21— Consistency Analysis Exhibit 22 — Notice of issuance of Consistency Analysis Exhibit 23 — Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing Findings of Fact (FOE : (the following FOPS are identified with letters to eliminate and confusion with the original staff report) a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement (Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. • A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner should be completed. c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 3of7 April 11, 2017 No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FE1S and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. d. A detailed master site plan has not been provided incorporating the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final details master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. e. Staff does not expect that the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative would impact the analysis and associated recommended conditions of the April 2016 staff report for all Findings of Fact except as follows: i. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Parking: The total parking stalls proposed in the Enhanced Alternative is 1,352 stalls an increase from the 1,337 stalls proposed in the Preferred Alternative, a 15 stall increases. There is no change in the residential and restaurant space; however there is an increase in, retail space from 20,025 SF to 33,190 SF which would result in a maximum of 133 stalls required for the retail space, up from 80 stalls. Together all three uses could require up to 1,469 parking stalls. ii. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Refuse and Recycling: Based on a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 33,190 SF of retail a combined total of 210.95 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 421.90 Sf of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project. iii. FOF25, Critical Areas, 6.: The reference to "NRD settlements" should be eliminated because the EPA does not approve and is not party to an NRD settlement. Therefore, Condition 44. IV, should be amended to remove the reference to "NRD settlements". iv. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, f. On Site Impacts, Structure and Scale: With the addition of retail/commercial space along the Lake Washington side of the development it is anticipated that the parking garage would no longer be the dominate structure viewed from the Lake or shoreline trail. V. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, f. Distinctive Focal Points: The "street activation" identified in the development agreement are anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. Phil albrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 7 April 11, 2017 vi. FOF26, Master Site Plan Review, Phasing: Staff recommends that the project duration be consistent with the time frames established in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20. vii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Storm water. The Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction. vi ii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, the center left -turn lane that was included as a part of Street 'A' is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the Enhanced Alternative because single -lane approaches at each of the Street 'A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly. Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the E15 alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the 1-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not anticipated ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary occupancy of the first building on the site. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 5 of 7 April 11, 2017 X. FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Time Requirement's for Shoreline Permits: The Draft Development Agreement extends the time for all land use permit applications including the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Time frames identified in the Development Agreement should be applied accordingly. f. Condition of Approval 14 should remove the word "east" as this has been included in error. g. Condition of Approval 22 contains a minor error, the word "East" should be "West". Condition of Approval 22 should be amended accordingly. h. Condition 43 requires an easement be recorded to all for public access for vehicles and pedestrians to cross the King County rail -road right-of-way. This requirement for an easement limits the type of legal documents that could be drafted to accomplish the intended purpose of the condition. As such, this condition should be amended as shown below. i. The word "Public Promenade" should be removed throughout the staff report and replaced with "fire lane and utility maintenance access road" to be consistent with the Consistency Analysis and Development Agreement. Therefore Condition of approval 41. and 44. XVI should be amended accordingly. Conclusions: All conclusions in the April 2015 staff report are to remain except as identified below: 10. The proiect Arf expiration date shall be as identified in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20set bytheHearing EXaRgir.r.r fer- the 11 as%ew Site Ulcer, e F9 7G 1,2. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-70B170. - New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified conditions below. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Amended Conditions of Approval: 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side. The new private Phil 01brechts, Hearing Examiner Page 6of7 April 11, 2017 access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 22. €ate West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re- designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 32. Any eXteRSi9R tG the pFejea appreved beyORd jaRWaFy 1, }}1,�...,,.2. 22 shall be s bjeet to the updated- r+ r4rrr.aa+-i+er manual, in of erg+ at the to fT . 41. A labiblirc PFORPRAdR fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This PFSFnenade-fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 43. of the r-.il FGad right of a.r.... to ride d . e..ir• .I-. ...d a dest.. aGr=em: to the i- Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrentiv with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation. 44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) and AIDE, Settlement completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD and NIDR C.,ttir.... eRt issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C10. Phil 0Ibrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 7 of 7 April 11, 2017 44. XI V. A #apsnekatieR study shall he completed to aRaly a the need fnr a renter , Road A street designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane arG ly and the design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under Xill. 44. XVI. if the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A pUblir. PFGFneRade fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager New Conditions of Approval: (The following numbering picks up at the end of the April 2016 staff report.) 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. 44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. 44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. Vanessa Dolbee From: Phil Oibrechts <oibrechtslaw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:52 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject; Quendall Homes Vanessa, This communication will be disclosed at tomorrow's hearing. I want to give you a chance to prepare a response to a jurisdictional question I will be asking you tomorrow: RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), pasted below, provides that if a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, the City Council applies the binding site plan standards. Consistent with this, RMC 4-7-230(W4), pasted below, authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on significant binding site plans exce t when merged with development agreements. From these provisions, it appears that once a binding site plan is merged with a DA, the City Council makes the final decision on the site plan and also bolds the hearing on it. How did staff come to a different conclusion? Also, how does staff reconcile the one hearing rule of RCW 36.70B.060, pasted below, with the request to re -open the hearing if the DA is not adopted? What happens if the DA is revised instead of rejected? RMC 4-7-230(H)2. Review Authority. Pursuant to chapter 448 RMC, the Community and Economic Development Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section, unless the applicant elects to have the binding site plan application merged with a Type III permit site plan application or a development agreement under chapter 36.70E RCW, If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a Type III site plan, then the Hearing Examiner is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the City Council is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. The final decision on a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No administrative appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. If a binding site plan is merged with a planned urban development application, the review authority shall be determined pursuant to RMC 4-9-150. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5519, 12-14- 2009; Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) RMC 4-7-230(1)4. Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by residents in the area of the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing and decision by the Nearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing will be given as for a Type III permit hearing. Binding site plans merged with development agreements shall be approved by City Council pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.708.170 et seq. (Ord. 5519, 12-14-2009) RCW 36.7013.060 Local governments planning under the growth management act to establish integrated and consolidated project permit process —Required elements. Not later than March 31, 1996, each local government planning under RCW :1 .70A.040 shall establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project permit process that may EXHIBIT 24 be included in its development regulations. In addition to the elements required by RCW 36.70B.050, the process shall include the following elements: (1) A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW 36.70B.070; (2) A notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required by RCW 36.70B.110; (3) Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, an optional consolidated project permit review process as provided in RCW 36.7013.120. The review process shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record appeal hearing; (4) Provision allowing for any public meeting or required open record hearing to be combined with any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the project by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, in accordance with provisions of RCW * 36.7013.090 and 36.70B.110; (5) A single report stating all the decisions made as of the date of the report on all project permits included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing and any recommendations on project permits that do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the agency's authority under RCW 43.21 C.060. The report may be the local permit. If a threshold determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the local government, the report shall include or append this determination; (6) Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21 C.075, if a local government elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determinations or project permit decisions, the local government shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing on such appeal. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an appeal for some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is provided after the open record hearing, it shall be a closed record appeal before a single decision -making body or officer; (7) A notice of decision as required by RCW 36.70B.130 and issued within the time period provided in RCW 36.7013.080 and * 36.7013.090; (8) Completion of project review by the local government, including environmental review and public review and any appeals to the local government, within any applicable time periods under *RCW 36.70B.090; and (9) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter or chapter 43.21 C RCW. EXHIBIT 25 Vanessa Dolbee From: FredWarnock <frednock@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 4:30 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Denis Law; Chip Vincent; lay B Covington Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Thanks for your quick response to my email. Unfortunately for us we were gone February through March and did not get your March notice of the meeting. We have our mail forwarded while we are gone, but it's hit and miss. Your document didn't get to us. We don't receive the Renton Reporter. so we didn't get that notice as well. All that being said, I would like you to put my comments into the record as follows ................. 1. How is the city or state going to deal with the addition of 600 plus cars pouring into Lake Washington Blvd, when we currently have back ups on the boulevard a mile long during rush hour? 2. It would appear that the majority of the traffic will use 43rd St as access to and from Quendall. Why not divert more of the traffic to the other two exits rather than 43rd St, which is the main entrance to Barbee Mill? Best regards Fred Warnock From: "Vanessa Dolbee" <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gcv> To: "FredWarnock" <frednock@comcast.net> Cc: "Denis Law" <DLaw@ Rentonwa.gov>, "Chip Vincent" <CVincent@ Rentonwa.gov>, "Jay B Covington" <Jcovington @ Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1:42:04 PM Subject: RE: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Fred, Thank you for your e-mail. I am assuming you are referring to the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development Project, City File number LUA09-151. There are two projects going to public hearing tomorrow, so please let me know if my assumption is incorrect. In terms of public notice for the Quendall Terminal public hearing, the original notice was sent to all parties of record on March 16, 2017 as a part of the attached "off hold notice". Notice of the Public Hearing was also provided in the Renton Reporter, published on April 7, 2017. The letter sent out last week was simply providing a reminder to all parties of record of the hearing date and providing notice of the availability of an updated Staff Report transmitted to the Hearing Examiner. The project staff report to the Hearing Examiner describing the proposal has been available on the City's website for over a year, since the cancellation of the original proposed hearing date of April 19, 2016. Understanding, attending a Tuesday morning public hearing can be difficult due to work schedules, I am happy to enter your written public comments into the record if you cannot attend. Please e-mail me your comment prior to the start of the public hearing tomorrow at 10,00 am and l will ensure that they are submitted into the record for the Hearing Examiner to consider when making a decision on this project. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Vaasa DO(bee, Current Planning Manager Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 From: FredWarnock [ma iito:fred nock@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:11 AM To: CenturyLink Customer Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; hong Clair; Mitchell, Mary; Denis Law; Len Reid; Connell, Carol; harrylharden Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendali Terminal Site Dear Ms Dolbee I guess what bothers me about this public hearing is the short notice. The letter notice is dated the 11th of April and we received it on Friday thel4th. That gives us one working day before the public hearing to try and prepare numerous questions about the Quendall project. In the past the meetings were set up with at least with one months notice, only to be cancelled at the last moment. I cannot attend the meeting because I can't adjust my schedule on such short notice. Along with the questions on the attached email from the the Taylors, I still can't find out how Renton intends to deal with the traffic problems that will be created by dumping close to 600 cars into a traffic pattern that is backed up at least one mile on Lake Washington Blvd during the morning commute. The other issues that concern our Barbee Mill residents are the impact on property values and traffic being diverted into the Barbee Mill development. So many questions so little time to get answers. Best regards Fred Warnock 1246 N 42nd PL Renton, WA 98056 From: "CenturyLink Customer" <cw7mm @ .comp To: "Vanessa Dolbee" <vdolbee@rentonwa.pov> Cc: "hong Clair" <hona.clair@epa.gov>, "Fred & Cheryl Warnock" <frednock@comcast. net>, "Donohue Patrick" < residentbarbeemillhoa@outlook.com> EXHIBIT 26 Vanessa Dolbee From: Centuryl-ink Customer <cw7mm@q,com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolhee Cc: hong.clair@epa.gov; Fred & Cheryl Warnock; Donohue Patrick Subject: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Dollbee: My wife and I are unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday morning regarding this topic so we are sending some thoughts/questions for consideration and response in lieu of our attendance. Please see items of concern/questions regarding Cugini Proposal to Stockpile Soil at Quendall Terminal Site - Who will monitor the noise? - What will be the vibration and noise decibel sound limits? - Noise and vibration limits may need to be adjusted to meet community needs. - How will vibration affect the homes along the property lines during construction? Which homes will be monitored for structural cracks and settlement from vibration? - How much setback from the property lines of existing homes for start of sediment stockpile? Should be made known to owners but shouldn't come up against fence line separating properties. (Mote: The property line is not the same as where the fence is located. It extends beyond the fenceline.) Wood rot will occur on the north side of the fence if soil is piled lip against fence. Also, for aesthetic reasons, Barbee Neill residents are requesting that stockpile not exceed middle of fence in height. - Will stockpile be covered with plastic sheeting per regulation? - Please provide City of Renton contacts during construction and on site construction inspector for EPA. Work hours should be the same as in Seattle 7:00 AM — 6.00 PM; Saturday work should be eliminated. - Construction access should have a wheel wash at exit point. How will contaminated soil track out be controlled during temporary sediment stockpile placement? - Entry and exit should not be at N42nd PL where Barbee Mill residents exit to Lake Washington Blvd. - What has EPA proposed as a preferred cleanup, and what will be done to mitigate the effect on Barbee Mill Community? - I was informed earlier that no one could enter the site without proper HAZMAT Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Does this still apply for temporary stockpile? - Has the Feasibility Study been approved by EPA? Please provide their comments/ recommendations. I will await your responses to my questions, Thank you. Sincerely, Charles E. Taylor 1252N42"dPL Renton, WA 98056 '7T HEX Public Hearing Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager April 18, 2017 F)111: EXHIBIT 29 Communi r. City of it and Economic Development oc,y .. i -.,—fie", e • Project Description —Enhanced Alternative & Development Agreement • Background • Renton Municipal Code Analysis — Compliance — Conditions o Staff Recommendation RENTON Applications: 1) Master Site Plan 2) Binding Site Plan 3) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 4) Development Agreement Environmental Impact Statement Completed - FEIS issued August 2015 - Mitigation Document issued August 2015 - Consistency Analysis For Enhanced Alternative issued March 2017 The application is vested to regulations from February 10, 2010, ORD 5520 (including the SMP —amended in 1983) RENTON TRACK :ACK RENTOT ATIEAD OF THE, CUJIVI: **G ra ph ic s were prepared for Preferred Afterna tj ve * COR Zone and Urbar Shoreline Environmei * 21.24 acre site • 7 lots — 4 with mixed use buildings & 692 multi -family residential units 0 .33190 SIF of retail/Commercial 0 9,000 SF of restaurar W Density 40.95 du/ac 0 Parking for 1,352 vehicles • Superfund site subje to EPA regulations - kv- TLAND SETBACK HWN SETBACK kND EDGE N 42nd place e/ttj R NTON Access Point GAON Rail road ROW— King. Co. Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) Pedestrian Trail Access Point %I u � Y Building Design — * Ground floor Parking or Retail/Restaurant along Road B and Lake Washington * 35 4', or 5 stories above for residential units and semi -private plaza space VI cyl Iluz, VVGIG pVPC11 GEA ICJI rICFGI IC.0 1-1Ikul I ICII,I VG PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LADE W SF INGTON -�-- *Final elevation design will be reviewed at Site Plan review. RENTON AIiEA1) OV TFtis CURVL i jd jj U Overview Applicant: Extended time frame beyond the 5 years permitted by code and associated vesting of development regulations rc City/Public: Project Enhancements — designed to provide a public benefit RENTON Provisions — Project Timing Following 5 years of the initial term a SEPA Transportation Update would be required. --- New transportation mitigation for the project may be required based on changed conditions and associated project impacts. Vest the development regulations effective on the vesting date, which is February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement. Extends code authorized land use approval time lines from 5 years to 10 years from the earlier of: . (i) the date of issuance of the EPXs Record of Decision, or .-_ (ii) The Hearing Examiners Decision and/or subsequent appeal decision dates Extension to the 10 years up to 5 additional years, could be authorized by the City if 51% of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and received Certificate of Occupancy, following a second SEPA Transporta Update. RENTON :111EAD OF 11-1.17 CL'`mvli I., TLAND SETBACK HWN SMACK %ND EDGE RE-NTON OF THE ("URVE., .Project Elements Collaborate with the .,developer on a public dock/ _pl.er 0 Permitting — City • Funding, construction x ;i mitigation developer F 0 1.3 acres of a public par Wik: in the southwest corner s j of the site • 'tilp OP T � � "'Graphics were prepared for Preferred AlternaVve JN r.j "Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative RENTON' AM-1AD OFTArT CURVIT: Project Elements Additional retail/restaurant/office space Minimum 50 percent of the building street frontage Minimum of 20 feet in depth Required along: Lakeside frontage Street B Other street frontages as necessary to meet 50% Street activation; such as -"-,-.Jountains and artwork will be provided along street B and lakeside frontage + , • Former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917--1969 • Past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments • In 2005 DOE transferred the oversight to the EPA • The site received a Superfund designation from EPA • The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study. Which will lead to a ROD. Y RE N T 0 N 1777?� 711 77� 77� • Clean up work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. (CERCLA; i.e. Superfund) • EPA Contact — Clair Hong, hong.claire(cD-epa-gov. RENTON Wave Welland A 50-ft Wrthwo 6 171-1 WetFand.K Wetland Recreation WeANd E RENTON A I I F. A 1) () F T1 I E CUR V E 0 Figure 2-6 DEIS Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design 25-ft Soil Cap This figure shows a conceptual design with a 50 ft. buffer not a 100 ft. buffer, which was required by the EPA after Public Comment on the DEIS. Assumptions are unchanged in the Addendum beyond 100 ft. setback. f '17 NT K wetland 0twM RENTON A I I EA 11 0 F T FT E CU It VE Wetland Recreation Buffer Averaging Trail with view points Figure 2-7 DEIS Buffer Width Averaging Wetland D • This figure shows conceptual desigr with a 50 ft. buffet not a 100 ft. buffe which was requirE by the EPA after Public Comment the DEIS. • Assumptions are unchanged in the Addendum for the Preferred Alternat Determination of Significance (DS) issued on February 19, 2010 — EIS Process begar DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended) ... ........... . DEIS Public Hearing EIS Addendum Issuance EIS Addendum Public Conriffi ent period FEIS Issuance EIS Public Appeal Period Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Disrhissing Appeal signed by the Appellant and Applicant Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner. Appeal Dismissed. Consistency Analysis Issuance for Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement RENTON Comprehensive Plan Compliance Zoning Compliance Design District Review Critical Areas • Master Site Plan Review • Binding Site Plan • Availability of Public Services • Shoreline Regulations RENTON ATIV.AT) OF TIIJ`: CURVY" Primary: • Compliance with the Mitigation Document • Phasing/Site Plan Review • Design Standards Compliance • Access/Roadways (vehicular and pedestrian) • Binding Site Plan (recording) Secondary: • Utilities • Code/Landscaping RENTON im ��i Condition 20 and 21: Setbacks from parent parcel edges shall be as follows: a. 100 ft. from the OHWM of Lake Washington b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill) c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawks Training Facility) Niew Corridors — a. 74 ft. width for Road B b. 80 ft. width for semi -private plaza space. Site Plan RENTON- AIII�AD 05% Condition 6 0 160�P tow. 2,im'] lj. U V.� a 6� WNW I n1tr andGi lnTW 27: N W mos MW lmrw Na- Critical Areas Pima Regulations ti Mot Baseline Assumptions assumed all recreated wetland and their r"" associated buffers ft Illy would fit within Bindin Sit Z' and 6. (M Baseline V. Wo "M ;f 4, IWO— Assumptions La 'Y RENTON All FIA 1) () F Tit r, Cill RVE Condition 27: Critical Areas Regulations 1) The outcome of the ROD and NRD Settlement details are not known at this time. 2) This conditions is need so impacts of the proposed development will comply with the City's critical areas regulations following the ROD and NRD Settlement. RENTON- A111;AD 4M AtifA '5,m)o:. ; a. wr� ,;AX60 kk OKA, ; li t. i WN " jo lk Stiff 4' �. IF= � 4 . .1 6 3. QJ �. c O CDci `f A "" �O� { �5.ii Fars CL OJ 9�3e}off o Y � 3 r`� Satisfies the following code requirements: 1. Fire Access is required along the Lake a. Required to be 20 ft. in width. b. Shall be constructed to support the weight of a fire apparatus. C. Critical Areas regulations may not permit the trail to be built to meet fire access standards. Maximum width permitted per code is 12 feet. (RMC4-3-05OC7.a.) 2. Looped waterline required 1. Located along the west side of the 2 lake front buildings. 2. 15 feet minimum width needed for maintenance access. 3. Maintenance access shall be a paved surface. 4. Not permitted within wetlands, wetland buffers, or shoreline buffer. RENTON nM EAP OF TIIE (A"U E, Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified conditions. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner. r RENTON' AITFIAD OF TItE CURVE 9 - QUENDALL TERMINALS ENTITLEMENTS HEARING MASTER PLAN REVIEW BINDING SITE PLAN SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CITY OF RENTON APRIL 1 S, 2017 EXHIBIT BINDER #2: VESTED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CITY OF Keaton Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 30 • QUENDALL TERMINALS ENTITLEMENTS HEARING MASTER PLAN REVIEW BINDING SITE PLAN SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CITY OF RENTON APRIL 18, 2017 EXHIBIT BINDER #l: SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICANT EXHIBITS -------�Ienton 0 Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 31 Expertise: Larry recently retired.as a principal at Transpo with over 30 years of experience • Development traffic impact developing area -wide and corridor level transportation plans. He directed analyses under SEPA Transpo's efforts in GMA-based transportation plans, transportation financing • Transportation analyses of strategies, and concurrency programs. He also had project management large master planned developments responsibilities for transportation analyses supporting EISs for subarea plans, •" Experience managing multiple planned action ordinances, and transportation corridor projects. He has a team members, thorough knowledge of travel forecasting and traffic operation analyses • Experience managing on -calf techniques. contracts Multimodal:transportation Larry also served local agencies in reviewing traffic impact studies for planning: under GMA developments within and outside of their jurisdiction. He recently assisted the •: Experience in facilitating:::"' Cities of Duvall and Ferndale in this role. stakeholder engagement and: public outreach programs " ",. Larry was appointed as a member of King County's Transportation Concurrency Years Employed by Transpo 30 " ' Expert Review Panel. The panel includes County staff, citizens, and representatives from the development community. The panel developed recommendations to Educations refine the Concurrency program to reflect the changes in King County to a more MS, Civil Engineering. rural County and also to improve the interface between the County's concurrency (Transportation), University of program and SEPA processes. Washington,1983 85, Civil Engineering,. University of,"` Tehaleh Employment Based Planned Community, Pierce County Colorado, 1977 Larry directed Transpo's transportation planning and traffic engineering Professional registrations assistance for this large master Planned Community located in Pierce County and licenses:: between Bonney Lake and Orting. When fully developed, the community will have PE, Washington, #25888 `1959 over 6,500 residences, a retail center, business park, schools, and golf course. PE' Colorado; #23125.1985 Transpo's assistance has included sizing of on -site roadways, design of roundabouts and street lighting, and roadway channelization for internal Professional. Associations: roadways. Transpo has also assisted in monitoring the transportation mitigation Institute of Transportation.., triggers based on the approved development agreement. Transpo has assisted Engineers, (rrE), the project team and agency staff in defining the off -site roadway and mitigation strategies to support future development phases. Larry also led the initial tasks Contact larry.toedti i@comcast.net for the detailed transportation analyses to support the Phase 2 application for the development. Redmond Ridge/Trilogy/Redmond Ridge East Master Planned Communities ElSs, King County, WA Larry managed the analysis of traffic impacts and development of a subarea transportation improvement program for the EIS for a large mixed -use community planned for rural King County. At buildout, the development will include 5,400 dwelling units, neighborhood retail, 1.2 million 5F of business park, golf course and soccer fields. The analysis included assessing roadway improvement needs and non -motorized system facilities, transit opportunities, and financing. Key issues included accommodating urban traffic levels in an otherwise rural area and potential traffic impacts on other jurisdictions. Larry supported the projects through coordination with WSDOT and Redmond. EXHIBIT 33 Orton !unction Urban Growth Area EIS, Sumner, WA Larry managed the transportation _analysis for the EIS fdr this subarea located south of SR 410 in Sumner. The City proposed to increase densities and expand the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to accommodate a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The analysis addressed impacts and transportation improvement needs in the immediate vicinity of the subarea. Overlake Urban Center Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, Redmond Larry managed an analysis of the potential traffic impacts of the additional multi- family residential development within the proposed Overlake Urban Center. The analysis focused on evaluating the impacts within the Overlake Transportation Management District (TMD) and surrounding area of Bellevue. The City of Redmond's proposal to change the designation for the Overlake area from a Manufacturing/Industrial Center to an Urban Center would not affect zoning or the potential for residential growth in the area. Actual development of additional residential units in the area would, however, result in some traffic impacts. The impacts would primarily be in the immediate vicinity of the Overlake Urban Center, with impacts decreasing further from the site. Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel; King County, Washington. Larry serves on the King County Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel. The panel provides policy and technical guidance to Icing County staff as part of their ongoing refinement of County policies and programs related to level of service standards and concurrency. The panel has assisted in defining changes to the programs as the County focuses on rural areas as annexations and incorporations have greatly reduced the suburban areas under the jurisdiction of Icing County. Ferndale Main Street Master Plan and Planned Action EIS, Ferndale, WA Larry managed the transportation analysis for the planned action EIS for I=erndale's Main Street near the I-5 interchange. The planned action would allow over 1 million square feet of commercial developments. The EIS evaluated the use of roundabouts vs. traffic signal improvements to address potential traffic operations and safety impacts due to the increased level of development. The analysis included comparison of levels of service, corridor travel speeds and cost differences. The EIS also identified development mitigation strategies including potential updates to the City's transportation impact fee and concurrency programs. He also coordinated with WSDOT on improvements related to impacts on I-5 and interchanges at Main Street and Slater Road. Pacific Ridge Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS, Des Moines Larry assisted the City of Des Moines in evaluating the transportation -related impacts associated with 4,200 additional dwelling units and 6,900 additional employees located within the Pacific Ridge subarea. To mitigate impacts, a variety of strategies were identified, including a reduction in the amount of new development, creation of a transit and transportation demand management program, and/or funding and building necessary improvement projects through one or more Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) or Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). The Planned Action Ordinance took into account the City's impact fee requirements and street standard requirements. LANCE M'U-E.L L E R & A'SS0CIATES' BOB WELLS ASSOCIATE Education: Bachelor of Architecture - 1969 University of Idaho, Moscow, ID Professional Registrations: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, USA -1975 Experience: Bob has worked full-time in architecture since college graduation. Consequently, he has many years of varied experience in the Seattle area with project types including low and mid -rise commercial structures and industrial structures. Responsibility: Bob has been with Lance Mueller & Associates since 1973 and an associate since 1950. His responsibilities have been for the design, documentation and contract administration of numerous office, retail, flex -tech, industrial, residential, and corporate facilities. Representative Projects: ROCKWELL COLLINS, Wilsonville, OR This 221,000 sf manufacturing and office consolidated Rockwell's Portland area operations in one building in a wonderful natural setting. Our roll was shell architect and coordinating shell revisions with the TI Architect. Later we assisted Rockwell on a number of smaller tenant improvements. DWFRITZ PRECISION AUTOMATION, Wilsonville, OR From 2009 to 2017 we were the Architects on three separate projects totaling 273,000sf for this hi -tech manufacturer. The first two are new 2-story buildings and the last is a conversion of an existing industrial building into an office and manufacturing facility filled with natural light. LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES B0.13.-WELLS P A G E 2 COMPACT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Redmond, WA This 50,000 sf two story for a very sophisticated mailing label business. In addition to the usual office, warehousing, and expansion requirements, the facility included a nursery for the employee's children, a very high -end lunch area, and adjacent private park. If needs change, the park can convert to parking. ONVIA BUILDING, Seattle, WA The Onvia.com Building is a full block corporate development with 95,000 sf of office plus structured parking with many employee amenities in Seattle. The four-story office ells around a large naturally landscaped plaza and integrates with a separate conference center building at the street corner. The restful plaza includes a pond and seating for relaxing or strolling opportunities. The service area and parking are underground on two levels. ZETRON BUILDING, Redmond, WA Zetron centralized their office and manufacturing headquarters into this four-story 210,000 sf facility. The facility includes basement parking and storage area and substantial areas dedicated to greenbelt and wetlands. THE GILBERT, Seattle, WA A 3-story traditional brick apartment complex on top of bustling Queen Anne hill with 54 units and 9,500 sf of street front retail with the basement parking accessed from the alley. 0 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES y LANCE MUELLER, AIA PRESIDENT Education: University of Washington College of Architecture - 1962-1967 Professional Registration: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, 1973. Other States; California, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon. Certificate - National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1974. Professional Affiliations: Member - American Institute of Architects Lambda Alpha International Land Economics Honorary International Conference of Building Officials Experience: 1965 to 1970: Worked in three small Seattle architectural firms. 1970 to present: Joined Richard Bouillon & Assoc./Architects in 1970. Became owner of firm in 1973 upon death of R. Bouillon. Renamed firm in 1975. Experience covers a wide variety of project types including shopping centers, large retail stores, apartments, banks, business parks, distribution centers, manufacturing buildings, offices, parking garages and restaurants and planning of major office and business parks. Responsibility: Project conceptual and preliminary design and design development. Project administration, contractual agreements and general office administration. Honors: National Association of Industrial and Office Parks 2005 Hall of Fame Inductee EXHIBIT 35 .y "E K � y im TM Y { { NO� � ,yj i� .. •s,' ,r ^�z E �- 1 "�' } , gt°k`��d 1 - ��i`4 _, � �•, � }} 'u�qp 3 E el Y i M - e 6ae :.z y Alrw' I9. s fAly i E gxt�.4-511 aPc »mwa i "y'= -g � u f� w±l� � - ¢tied ■ - � r � �, t � 74 444Z7l�H/NG;uv ,. eJG�YE�L. et, - LEGENDOHWM 50' ONWM SETBACK 1Oo'vHWM SMACK .: ■ - ® DUMPSTER / RECYCLE BIN ' °P, 3< FM liiILRYAND ELECTRICAL SPACE L0139YAREAp,', AREA SUMMARY a FROM COLOR LEGEND 33,1.90 S.F. (RETAIL) 0 RFTAILAND RESTAURANTS ` 9,Ooo S.F. (RESTAURANTS) OPEN SPACE AREAS 21797 S.F. (0.50 AC.) ) PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE 65,565 S.F. (L5 AC.) ) 0 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 129,122 S.F. (2.96 AC.) � sTTE LANDSCAPE, PARK AND OPEN SPACE 148,170 S.F.(3.4 AC.) ) 100' SROREUNE SETBACK 50,725 S.F. (L2 AC.) � LOT 7 (ISOLATED) 2No nonR sill Laroswn��eo.o) •561,953 S.F-(12.9 AC.)TOTAL NDEtYNlF �'v4s EM E' 4REN'ALN1 �Gv" / C 6' S0tt SVRFAFE ll (� YapifovE➢ BY [F E><tsrnic AnoreRn LNE RIME LANE GRADE LEVEL PLAN y' cvaPN,c sGIL ' 6 SGLE�w ,^ cCl- f Site & BuildIn9 Samma*y: Z.ftlAIAFI cc, C.Ft fix:kxaNa tv,.eu,Fwf rrr.. I. 4�nkksA rsy,yL.�.cr.:Al Statistics: 6u1MEnp A£.+9ulmury: Mr�Embal tk�U 11V : iF:� ri+rw>�..r^alr Rnb£FwM Y cow i Mr � cr!oa sru ese s � ultra iFl '.afAfl f Yk,InY N,.:.,ni<pu 6V iroi LNR. M �Le.�t, nmreu m 1dNEnrlmn hrlMy 4,. b�F. u.. sN,mn.ry: M N1-WY P"q Summery; P.d^96Y Vl.r, worry Yl.oNe A,I£. Axmnt WA .:y ..]m.n EAfYK—t,mr gcar![3 4 ' l�xYiom m,�<. rkT aPw .N..i so,��es�ts�r �i sYm •,Nam ,AI r, i. QUENDALL TERMINALS - ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE RENTON, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 37 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP r- m MIMI rMn c m z m z ox > mmr— zz j--lc/) c 0 X z -u >�m ocnz zn- m z �G)D C) Z z m 0 ond PLAN - ENHANCED ALT. �ANCN 111-1-9 iL� QUENDALL TERMINALS I -ttgt4A .. entu'll SUBJECT/TITLE: RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPARTMENT: STAFF CONTACT: EMT.: N/A City. Council-- Regular Meeting- 03 Apr 201 ; Quendal) Terminals Public Hearing Council Concur Community & Economic Development Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager 7314 The proponents for the Ciuendall Terminals land use application have requested the City consider a Development Agreement. The Land Use application consists of a request for Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and now a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant),1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the subject land use application on April 18, 2017. The requested Development Agreement establishes the new Enhanced Development Alternative and allows for an extended time frame for the land use entitlements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10 years, with a possible 5 year extension, for a total of 15 years. A public hearing is required to be held by City Council when considering a Development Agreement. However, there is an opportunity to consolidate the required public hearing for the Development Agreement with the public hearing for the land use entitlements with the City's Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the development agreement, the public will be able to comment on both the development project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing. Second, the Hearing Examiner would have the benefit of considering all aspects of the project and associated public comments when making a decision on the land use entitlements and a recommendation to City Council. A consolidated public hearing process would streamline and simplify the public process for the overall project. The final decision authority on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the City's Hearing Examiner. A. Draft Development Agreement The Administration recommends consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the development agreement and deferring this process to the City's Hearing Examiner. EXHIBIT 39 When Recorded, Return to: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendal[ Terminals Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A) Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number.,;:: 2524059002 QW -❑ NOT YET ASSIGNE❑ THIS DEVEL©PMENT"AGREEMENT ("Agreement")'byyand between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized;and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and: assigns ("Developer") is made and entered into this day of 2016 (the."Effective. Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development agreement page 1 C. -The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Developer is currently working on a remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable development authorized by the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Master Plan and subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan. Development would occur in a manner consistent with post=remediation site conditions and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur first on remediated areas of the Property, pending 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 "LEIS") 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, 20121.which addressed the Preferred Alternative (the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation Document were issued on August 31, 2015. F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial Project Applications plan sets.to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures. G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq. ("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project, as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended permit duration. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-5-070(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 12017. 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 consider'atio'hizf 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 1V of the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date. Enhanced Alternative,means the Project substantially as described in the Project Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as approved by the Hearing Examiner. Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting Date. Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications under LUA09-151. RMC means the Renton Municipal Code. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete. 2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT. 2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but not limited to Developer commitments that development of'the Master Plan shall be consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any associated land: use decisions for the project. It is the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the principles set out in this Agreement, subject.td 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; arein 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 4-5-070(J). 3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk; 3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet of the project site; 3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction ("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits. The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan. 3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Terra 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 toAhe 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 b-; 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. 32= 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 PI an Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permitconditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation. Plan also. will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted. 3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 components, The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing: 3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots. Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151. 3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate°of occupancy, sufficient to provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and; public facilities including parking areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi -private open space. 3.3.3 Development of, Lots or Buildings abutting Street B maybe 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 6 5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement. 5.3 City's Reserver! 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 mayapprove administrative minor modifications to the Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7 6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be recorded with the icing 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 addressor 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 Quendail Terminals; Quendali 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 Quendali Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Davis Wright Tremaine Attn: Lynn Manolopolous 777108th 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 Kind County Superior Court, Washington. 6.6 = Multiple" Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute, one instrument. 6.7 Headings °Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. 6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement, the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute. 6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding judge of the king County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that, in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action. 6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or an arbitrator equally. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10 Denis Law Mayor IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below. DATED this day of 2017 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS By: Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF ) ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of , County of , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her power and authority to execute and sign the instrument irr 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. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 STATE OF ) ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY.PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (prjnt): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A —Legal Description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND POUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT. LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT--OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29"44154" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 55028'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59024'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT--OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 11/11/16 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 Page 15 Exhibit A-1 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. - -�� — — — _ / N66'12'12"W TAX ACCT. NO. — 107.51 / N 292405-9012-01 TAX ACCT. N0. 6'/ 292405900203 0• TRUE POINT 10 / 300 0 150 300 VIA/ OF BEGINNING O' �y TAX ACCT. NO.ER / 4) PO� Sgy,ga 292405-9001-04/�h$ +so'_ ry$, r 1 inch = 300 it_� S� ��'i '1'� o^ '1 / a 100.01'�:.. /00• �s1 � TAX ACCT. NO. POINT A ��j r 292405-9002-03 Z)� -w� +�, / p Gov, LOT 5 ORDINARY HIGH Off/ r0 ! Z +� WATER MARK Gf ra IELEVATION �N30'56'16"EaO. 90.80' w 1 4 N3b'56'16"E 3 I O r SECTION 29, DEEDED PER AFN ��,� VAC 80TH ST } CORNER ' 20080619001175 T24N, 45E 6=U2"11'12- ' / js.9& , REC. fi44 2260427, OF SEC. 29 _ 11/1 2016 N88.48'56"W 1016.36' R=1500.00 \ 6a0 7" ' -�------- L=57.25 i V;v . 4 ly 1,113.05 — PLAT OF BARBEE MILL 963 �t1 A. L' _ I 1 LJVOL. 246, PGS. 25-39, /� 149.74' REC. NO. 20080208000182 �.h�� ey=v 32.50' VAC N 44T 5T //N2845'04" E GOV'T LOT 1 r 10, LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT./ BUSH, RCED & HITCHINGS, INC. 37 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP. r LAND SURVEYORS u CIVIL ENGINEERS 'A 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (20E) 323-4144 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON � � 98 02 3513 ashington JOB NO 2009050.03 Page 16 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 Legai Description: TO BE INSERTED Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A) Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR ❑ NOTYETASSIGNED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Developer is currently working on a remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable development authorized by the Hearing Examinees Decision on the Master Plan and subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan. Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any subsequent land use actions. D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the "Initial Project Applications"). E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"), the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10, 2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151 and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative (the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation Document were issued on August 31, 2015. F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures. G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq. ("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project, as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended permit duration. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J). J. The City's Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together constitute the "Project -level SEPA Review." K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on . 2017. L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: AGREEMENTS 1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS. Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date. Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as approved by the Hearing Examiner. Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting Date. Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications under LUA09-151. RMC means the Renton Municipal Code. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete. 2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT. 2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision. 3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the Project Elements which includes the following: 3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-5-070(J ). 3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk; 3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet of the project site; 3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction ("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits. The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan. 3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions, and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such unmitigated Project impacts. 3.1.S Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking. 3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted. 3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing: 3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots. Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151. 3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi -private open space. 3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to sequenced remediation. 3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any extensions under Section 4. 4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value ((excluding any City -owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA Transportation Update, upon Developer's request 30 days in advance of the sunset date, for one additional five-year period of time. S. VESTING. 5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to City of Renton ordnance number 5523. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6 5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement. Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton. 5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.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, (H) the Parties agree to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii) neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement until the modification to this Agreement has been completed. 6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off -site mitigation, other obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7 space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section. 6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.708.190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or communication shall be given. If to the City of Renton: Renton City Hall Attn: Mayor Attn: Development Services Director 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 If to Quendall Terminals: Quendall Terminals Attn: Robert Cugini P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 and to J.H. Baxter & Co. Attn: Georgia Baxter P.O. Box 5902 San Mateo, CA 94402-0902 With a copy to: Draft Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 Campbell Mathewson CenturyPacific, LLI_P 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Davis Wright Tremalne Attn: Lynn Manolopolous 777108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149 Cable Huston LLP Attn: James E. Benedict 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 T. Ryan Durkan Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98101 6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington. 6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. 6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement, the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that, in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action. 6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or an arbitrator equally. Draft Quendall Terminols Development Agreement Page 10 Denis Law Mayor IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below. DATED this day of , 2017 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS By: Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative By: Robert Cugini Its: Vice President Date: CITY OF RENTON By: Date: ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft 4uendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF } ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of , County of , personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of QUEN DALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 STATE OF } ss: COUNTY OF } On this day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A— Legal Description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29°94'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF --WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29044'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56°28'50" LEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59024'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 5902456" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. I1/l1/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO, 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 11/11/16 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 �206} 323-4144 Page 15 A N 300 0 150 300 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 300 It _ j.L L2016 Exhibit A-1 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. -- 7 — --- — _ / N66`12`12"W TAX ACCT. NO. O. 107.51 / 292405-9012-01 TAX ACCT. N0. 6 i 292405900203 0' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING - r00, h +fir ry TAX ACCT. NO. S8y3, 292405--9001-04,'.'#j' ff 'i. 0 . 1 r `V A� POINT/A" TAX ACCT. NO. �tij ah Q 292405-9002-03 / ��/ gci' �rVsg ?s `C �� ,!�� .•� o� GOV'T LOT 5 ORDINARY HIGH aZ WATER MARK C'� AT 18.8` / ELEVATION C N30 5fi 16"E 90,80 S 4 N30-5616'E � o r SECTION 29, DEEDED PER AFN Sao, _� (SE 80TH ST) } CORNER 20080619001179 f VAC N 44TH ST ' OF SEC. 29 T24N, 45E � 0 00 oa //sob REC 7602260427, N88'48'56"W 1016.36' L= 57.25 ♦ ,. 2� g4'!y 1 i 13 05' '- — -" I`' ' 'PLAT OF BARBEE MILL NjAL.. �" _ 1 L �VOL. 246, PGS, 25-39,REC, NO. 20080208000182LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT �I CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 149.74` 9--- 6�3 31 32.50' VAC N 44T ST 28•4 GOV'T LOT 1 18.10' BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS �rrr�rrw 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 BRM SEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11/11/15 98102-3513 JOB NO.:2009050.03 Page 16 City of Renton I DNA IISF PERMIT rY o� Renter Planning Division Nov 18 2009 MASTER APPLICATION n�� r�r�� PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Co ADDRESS: 800 S. Third Street CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 226-3900 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Campbell Mathewson COMPANY (if applicable): Centuryy Pacific, L.P. ADDRESS: 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 CITY: Seattle, WA ZIP: 98101 TELEPHONE NUMBER (206) 757-8893 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Campbell Mathewson COMPANY (if applicable): Century Pacific, L.P. ADDRESS: 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 CITY: Seattle, WA ZIP: 98101 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: (206) 757-8893 (206) 757-7899 (fax) cmathewson cent acifl .00m PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 4353 0 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA 98045 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S), 2924059002 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE(S): CommerciaVOffice/Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CommerciallOfficelResidential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): CommerciaVOfficelResidental (unchanged) EXISTING ZONING: COR: Commercial/Office/Residential PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): COR SITE AREA (n square feet): 934,874 SF, 21.4E Ac SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 159,149 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): 46.4 CADocuments and 5ettingslrobertcTocal SettingslTemporary Intemet Files�Content_IE51ADWIOPG11Quendall Terminals Master Application City of Renton[i].doc- I - �. PRL. ECT INFORMATION control._) NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 800 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (f applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS(if appi):245,000 SF (Office) 30,600 SF RetaillRest SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if appl): 21 D,000 SF (Office) 27,500 SF Retail/Rest PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. a GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ® SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 1,583 _ lin. ft. ® WETLANDS 38788 so. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach lenal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE Southwest QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASH!NGTONJ. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Master Site Plan 2. Site Plan Review Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3. Environmental Review 4, Shoreline Substantial Development Review 5. Binding Site Plan I AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I I, (Print Namels) , declare that I am (please check one) X_ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authoriz epresentative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of author¢ation) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I cer* that I know or have satisfactory evidence that. 1� o f i ft t (j. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary a for the 14,{�s and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of OwnnerlRepreUtative);�A Allo va- ��,��a��ttut+tt tt i r -�� GGA�L @(� /ft?,�i �• $Id1Y�4'�r � i� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington �? o"� a►��A +�''f'; �; /i}+ Lid. 1%�`t1 c F i (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) '%� 'olie �54. Notary (Print) MY appointment expires: Qo� r o�Q%% Aso ��=� ` C-0ocuments and SettingslrobertclLocal SettingsUemporary lnternct FileslContentlE51ADWJOPGRQuendall Terminals Master Application City of Renton[l].doc-2 - I/ PROJECT INFORMA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 600 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE" FOOTAGE OF PROPOSER NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS(Ef appl):245,000 SF (Office) 30,600 SF Retail/Rest SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if appl): 210,000 SF (Office) 27,500 SF RetaillRest TIDN continued NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA PROJECT VALUE: IS THE: SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASIE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE. (if applicable): O AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE O AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq, ft, ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. 0 SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 7 5W _ lin. ft. ft_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ! (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the followinq information included) ! SITUATE IN THE _Southwest QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Master Site Plan 2. Site Plan Review Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3. Environmental Review 4. Shoreline Substantial Development Review 5. Binding Site Plan I AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I I, (Print Namels) t7 declare that I am (please check one) _X the current owner of the property involved in this application bir the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. certify that I know or have satisfactory evldence that si d this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislher/their free and voWntary act for the ses an urposes mentioned in the Instrument. (8ignature of w"'mepresentathre) (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the State of Notary (Print) My appointment expires: n c+6LA -� C:1Documents and Scttingslgbaxterli,acal SettingsXemporary Internet FilesIOLK51)�Qucndall Texminals Master Application City of Rentomdoc - 2 - CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of !'M On n('�I, gffl �V (j 2G' before me, �.Z-t l7ete era InS rt Name aw Tllle of the Otka personally appeared ivy 7"1 lll�- RAOUH. t.YNN t]ir~ARKRi camMasim # 1811674 Hotx+r PWO- caRlarnis Sawa, Meer+ comer � My Callow.6pinis hin 3L LYi]C ------------- who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person* whose name) is/al ksubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that N/shelthey executed the same inXs/her:A eir authorized capaclty(ieq, and that by tiWher:Mlair signatureN on the instrument the person1s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person'(.) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forpnninn naranranh is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature Place Notary Seal Above rya re o ary Publfo OPTIONAL Though the information below is not squired by law, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the aocwfiant and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document_ Description of Attached Document``� Title or Type of Document: City Q (2kr&Z)'1 : M d � �c'e ae'rW4 1 Mtn it i / Document Date:. %�,�f'� Number of Pages: �,- Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signers Name: �� ✓Signers Name, individual ❑ Individual © Corporate Officer — Title(s); .... ❑ Corporate Officer -- Title(s): _ 0 Partner — u Limited � i General Ej- Partner — Li Limited 0 General 0 Attorney in Fact • Top of thumb here © Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: © Attorney in Pact 0 Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: Signer Is Representing: ,RIGHT THUM9PRiNi OF SIGNER 02007National NoteryAssoclatign•93SDDoSoto Ave.,P.O.5m2402-Chamvafln.CA91313-2a02•wwwAaborwiNolaryorg Item*B907 Reorder Call T&Frea1•s00,8766827 _..'If November 11, 2009 Vanessa Dolby Acting Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Quendall Terminals Master Plan Application Dear Vanessa: Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Co. together own the 21.46 acre property commonly known as Quendall Terminals located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Per your request, this letter will confirm that CenturyPacific is authorized to submit the Land Use Permit Master Application and other related applications on our behalf. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Altino Properties, Inc. By: V--v6eQT C jr-ir f Its: \.! F Cc: CenturyPacific J.H. Baxter & Co. Its: C:lDocuments and SettingslrobcrtclLocal SettingsUemporary Internet FileslContent.IE51KXOZQ3UZ1Quendall letter of authorizationtl J DOC November 11, 2009 Vanessa Dolby Acting Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Quendall Terminals Master Plan Application Dear Vanessa: Altino Properties, Inc. and J,H. Baxter & Co. together own the 21.46 acre property commonly known as Quendall Terminals located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Per your request, this letter will confirm that CenturyPacif c is authorized to submit the Land Use Permit Master Application and other related applications on our behalf Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Altino Properties, Inc. Its: Cc: CenturyPacific J.H. Baxt r & Co. By: "� � _ rc-USC Its: �U CADocuments and Set ings,gbaxla� Lnca! SettingslTernporary Intemet Hes\OLK5MQuenda11 ietterofatiiiwrization.DOC City of,, rY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (DS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: QUendall Terminals PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21,46 acres and Is zoned CommerciallOfFicelResidential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided Into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed -use buildings. Overall, the development would .consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements Include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCS 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist, or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts, are available for viewing in the lead agency's office. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee THE LEAD AGENCY HAS INITIALLY IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING AREAS FOR DISCUSSION IN THE EIS: Earth, AestheticsNiews, Critical Areas, Land and Shoreline Use, Recreation/Public Shoreline Access, Public Services Utilities, Vegetation, and TransportationlTraffic. ALTERNATIVES: This is a proposal for a private project. The applicant may study reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain or approximate the proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. In this case, the alternatives will include the no -action alternative. A lower density alternative, with fewer residential units and less commercial development, may also be included. SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00 a.m. on March 12. 2010. All written EIS scoping comments must be sent to Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner at the address noted below. PUBLIC MEETING/OPEN HOUSE: A public EIS scoping meetinglopen house will be held to provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the proposed actions and to provide input into the environmental review process. An EIS public scoping meeting will be held at Renton City Hall at a date and time to be determied, additional notice will be provided of the meeting date and time. PROJECT PROPONENT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacifica, L.P. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City of Renton Environmental Rev low Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SEND COMMENTS TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Seinor Planner Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-7314 To appeal this Determination, you must file your appeal document with the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the Determination of Significance (DS) has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110.E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Determination of Significance and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4- 8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Denis Law --_- Mayor city of, lk. February 1$; 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Attn: John hefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF; BSP, SM, SA-M Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of the TIA for the subject land use application along with a copy of the proposed site plan. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them viamail or email them to meat vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. The Environmental Review Committee (ERQ on February 15, 2010, issued a Determination of Significance and has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6,-Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other. information, on'file with the lea_ d agency and is available to the public on request: Agencies affected are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS and must be submit comments by 5:00 p:m".. on. March.12, 2010." Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner Enclosures cc: Project File. Arneta Henninger, City of Renton — Plan Review Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. + rentonwa.gov Denis Law City Of ' Mayor Jrr February17, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator, .Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201.Third Avenue #1680 . Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Quendall Terminals, LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M Dear Mr. Mathewson: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform.you that.they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above -referenced project. The Committee, on February 15, 2010, decided that your. project will be issued a Determination of Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)'is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the.ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the- lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination. must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 - p.m. on March 5; 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the -required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of.Renton, 1055 South Grady.Way, Renton, WA 98057. , Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal .Code Section 4-8 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. 'If the. Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please. call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Planner Name (Acting) Senior Planner. cc: Altino Properties, ;nc. & J.H. Banter & Co. / Owner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. 0 rentonwa.gov Denis Law �1 O `t Mayor _ `I I '} .. t .r February 18, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology .Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703. Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the fallowing project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) an February 15, 2010: DETERMINATION OF -SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals. PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP,,5M; SA-M LOCATION: 4350Lake Washington -Blvd N :DESCRIPTION: The applicant.is requesting- Master Plan Review, Binding Site •Plah,.Shoreline. Substantial Development Permit and SEPA:Erivi.ronme'ntal Review for amixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd, _ The site is 21.46_ acres .and is zoned Commercial/Office/1REsidential: (COR) and located.with'in the Urban Shoreline designation. The 2L46-acre site would be. divided .into 7 lots :of which 4 would "contain 6.-. 7.story "mixed -use buildings. OVerall,.the development would consist of 800-residentiall-units (resulting in a net residential density. of 46.4. units/acre),145,000 square feet of office, 21,60d :square feet --of "retail' and .9,000 square feet of -restaurant: 'The •applicant has :- proposed #o dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of�-way, which would provide access to -the 7'.prop6sed fats. Surface and structured parking would be' provided for 2,171 vehicles: The site contains approximately .0.81..acres of ' wetlands and 1,583 linear feet.of thoreline=along Lake Washington. The subiect site_ has received.a Superfund designation from the U,S. Environmental . Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA.. Proposed, improvements. include-remediation of " existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed -in writing on.or before' 5:00 : p.m. on.:March.6, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the, required fee T withr Hearing -Examiner, City of Renton, 1055.South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, Appeals to the Examiner are governed -by City of -Renton Municipal Code Section. 4=8- Renton City Hall v 1055 South Grady Way • Rentoh,Washington 980.57. • rentonwa.gov City of r DEPARTMENT OF COMMU AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (DS) AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) APPLICATION NUMBER(S): LUA09-151, ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed -use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of- way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist, or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts, can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: Earth, Asthetics/Views, Critical Areas, Land and Shoreline Use, Recreation/Public Shorline Access, Public Services Utilities, and Transportation/Traffic. SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before March 12, 2010. ERC DETERMINATION OFSIGMFICANCE/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PAGE 2of2 Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.B, accompanied with the non-refundable required appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2010, to: Renton Hearing Examiner City Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the Declaration of Non -significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110.E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non -Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: February 19, 2010 February 15, 2010 r A�p brE<g Zim Xpbarttnt inistrator Date Mark Peterson, Interlm Administrator Date Public W rk D Fire & Emergency Services Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Alex Pie sch, Adknistrat r Date Community Services Department Department of Community & Economic Development AGENDA ITEM #l. � AB - 1920 CITY OF enton SUBJECT/TITLE: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement and Land Use Decisions RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Committee of the Whole DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development STAFF CONTACT: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager EXT.: 7314 N/A The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City approve Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. A Public Hearing was held by the Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 for both the land use permits and the development agreement. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation to Council on May 9, 2017. The Hearing Examiner recommends that Council approve the applications, subject to the conditions identified in his decision. It is also recommended by the Hearing Examiner that Council approve the proposed development agreement, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). A. Hearing Examiner Recommendation B. Hearing Examiner Exhibits C. Draft Resolution D. Development Agreement Approve the land use applications (Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit), subject to the conditions in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Additionally, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a development agreement between the City of Renton and Quendall Terminals. AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Quendall Terminals Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA09-151, FCF, FIS, SA-M, SM RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION Summary The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the development agreement. The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009, the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access, open spaces, landscaping, view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures composed of 46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was appealed. By the date of the April 18, 2017 hearing, the appeal had been withdrawn and only five members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 4 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 project. One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit, Remediation is anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site, including placement of a soil cap across the project site and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need for the proposed development agreement since the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards during the extended expiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurantlofftee space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area. The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation) are traffic and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project use the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024_ However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to assess a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41st to discourage long distance travel along that MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 4 6 8 r 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use I-405 than the City streets to the south of the project. View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little question that the multiple six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a building that is 115 feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts, the proposal includes a widened central road (Road B) to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback requirements. Testimony Note: This summary should not he considered apart of the Examiner's Recommendation. It is solely provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony_ Nothing in this summary should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signing any priority or importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing. Staff Opening Presentation: Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23, the City Council expressly authorized the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4. Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement. Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and that precise details of design will be reviewed and approved during subsequent site plan review. The heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and north of the project. The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re- evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 3 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains. The site is a former creosote facility and was subsequently designated a superfund site. The EPA will be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain how the project site would be configured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort. In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA. There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks. There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill and a 38-foot setback from the Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi -private plaza spaces. Pursuant to Condition 27, Lots I and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas, they proposal will have to be amended. Condition 41 requires afire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped water line. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re -opening of the hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the City Council. Applicant Presentation: Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations. She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project. She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The applicant has the burden of proof in establishing consistency with decision criteria. The examiner is also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development agreement. Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 4 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation mitigation, including both on and off -site roadway improvements, a transportation demand management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and compliance with City eoncurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of Transportation ("WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of4151 to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets. On -site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and programs to reduce reliance upon single -occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation coneurrency certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has adequate capacity to serve the development. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation information available to the City, such as the work associated with the I-405 WSDOT interchange improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off -setting traffic impacts. Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last two years, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly environment. The project is consistent with the City's design standards. Campbell Mathewson, project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA AGENDA ITEM V. 0 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation, landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of the public and the Seahawks, Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation of approval. However, the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront retail and the public park along the southwest corner of the site and the potential for a new dock. The buildings were also set back another 20 feet. Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review. Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks arc at a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills. As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards between residential blocks, pedestrian orientation in design, added retail use and restaurants and trails. The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park. The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the first time in decades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April 11, 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the 1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five. Public Comments: Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern. He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently has to twelve -foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 6 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock. Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed -use site and she doesn't want it to be an elitist area. Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of residents and also that the developer has been very accommodating. Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts. Staff Rebuttal: In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts, a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil contaminants being moved with pile driving, the EPA will be addressing that issue_ As to the aesthetic impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 4 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Applicant Rebuttal; Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site. In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions of approval. Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides for public access and use of shoreline areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the project. Exhibits Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18, 2017 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017 public hearing as well: Exhibit 24 Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017 Exhibit 25 Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017 Exhibit 26 Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017 Exhibit 27 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data Exhibit 28 Google Maps Exhibit 29 City of Renton power point Exhibit 30 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations" Exhibit 31 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits" Exhibit 32 Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site Exhibit 33 Larry Toedtli CV Exhibit 34 Bob Wells Resume Exhibit 35 Lance Mueller Resume Exhibit 36 Street B rendering Exhibit 37 June 6, 2016 Site Plan PLO Exhibit 38 June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0 Exhibit 39 April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Agreement with Land Use Applications MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA Development AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle, WA, 98101 2. Hearer. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council. Substantive: 3. Project and Site Description. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. A. Proposal. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed - use buildings. The proposal would include 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ff. of commercial uses f retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposed' to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of- way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via the development of new internal Roads A — E. The primary site access from public streets is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 — 133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10, 2010. The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA z AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 4 6 7 S 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. Site Conditions/Superfund Designation. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying a remedy for clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA, which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e. Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15) to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2, for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site (Main Property), including placement of soil cap across the entire Main Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanuplrcmediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. C. Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. Consequently, the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA U AGENDA ITEM #i. 0 P IO 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 with the "proposal". 4. Surrounding_ Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) right of way,1-405 and undeveloped COR zoned property. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most significant impacts are individually addressed as follows: A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical Areas Map and is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. Due to the baseline assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located in the 100-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site -specific site plan review should include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6), Recommended Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200(J) a new application would be required. As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C 10, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 1 application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be 2 submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD. 3 It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources. Pages 3.6-14 — 3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline 4 resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the 5 DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and 6 sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City stormwater regulations. Following 7 construction, a permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with City 8 stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution -generating 9 surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stormwater outfall pipes would be situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed 10 during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation. 11 B. Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The 12 subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake 13 Washington Blvd_, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi -story structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These 14 impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred 15 Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center 16 of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking 17 garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights -of - way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures FI — 18 F15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 19 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 20 80 feet. 21 At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between 22 the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum_ However, 23 in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating 24 view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes 25 almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view 26 corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks, which are significantly wider than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 12 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills. SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed by the applicant. C. Noise. Privacy and Dust. The City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8 RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance regarding construction hours. With these measures in place, noise and dust impacts are adequately mitigated. The proposed building layout provides semi -private court yards between each residential tower which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy. The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road H and the retail/restaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces. D. Drainage. Adequate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant adverse drainage impacts. The City's stormwater regulations assure that stormwater impacts are fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 stormwater manual is applicable to the project. As noted in Conclusion of Law ("COL") No. 2 of this recommendation, more current stormwater regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts. Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this analysis mitigation measures Al, A10, Al 1, B2, and B7 were established and will become a condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private, the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained a condition of approval requires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/ property owners/ HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 13 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 R 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City stormwater standards. Storm water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be followed in the design and construction of the project. The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16, the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre- and post - developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology. E. Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts via the City's design, view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building and site design is subject to general design review at the master plan stage and detailed design review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies with the District "C" design standards for master plan review. The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure El, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re -submittal dated 12-16-2015, Exhibit 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a l0-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11. Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 14 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan. Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted in Mitigation Measures F4, G 12 and G13. F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project site subsequent to remediation. G. Com atibilit /Bui [ding Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the west and R-10 property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic issues addressed elsewhere, the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the project site. As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, FI, FS, F9, F11, and F15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures, the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site. H. Li tin . As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition F 13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B I 1 and F7 to ensure that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of downlighting and shielding among other techniques. Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F13 and H9 and the design standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re -submittal of the Preferred Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA ILI AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas. L Loading and Storage Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at off peak hours. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and a 10-inch water main extending into the project site. There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic, landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction permits. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department and police protection by the City of Renton Police Department. Police and Fire staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If EPA's ROD prohibits the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail. Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface. Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 16 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 2 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. As previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space. Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation mitigation measures (Gl —G13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas. The amount of on -site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards. However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off site park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on -site park and open space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project. As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas" and "Other Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. The "Other Related Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition G10 requires that the trail be enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials. Mitigation Document condition GI requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in compliance with condition GI 1. Based on the above analysis the provided materials were not compliant with conditions G2, G7, G10, and GI 1. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G 10, and G I I for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan recording. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 17 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Development Agreement adds a 1.3- acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the site. The "street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. D. Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline_ However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private Street E either north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space, parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this condition. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 18 AGENDA ITEM #7- 0 K 4 C 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum. For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal, additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the I-405 improvements, staff determined that significant transportation impacts are not anticipated. The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project, off -site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off -site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative. As to the preferred alternative, page 1-14 of the DEIS addendum concluded that "Nhe existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build -out in 2015, with the additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative I traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative 1 clearly generated far more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 19 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative 1, the traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 20I5, both in circumstances where WSDOT has not completed 1-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6 shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table 3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections. Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any intersection except for the Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection. The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group, in a memorandum dated January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal because single -lane approaches at each of the Street `A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. Conditions H 1-H 15 of the Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document, provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and 6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who owns the old rail -road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N, and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off -site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 20 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 4 7 8 T 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off -site improvements, such as southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed. In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard street cross sections is not required. However, the design of the streets shall meet minimum standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each building. [n general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 — 15-foot sidewalk is required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground floor. on street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6 feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to account for the curb width, and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross- section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the amended cross sections. A couple members of the public at the April 18, 2017 public hearing expressed concern over increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 21 AGENDA ITEM! #1, 0 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Condition H5 of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers would elect to use 1-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site. Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition H5 adequately addresses concerns over increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the "scenic" character of the road and turn it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be some legitimacy to this concern, the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and functionality considerations integrated into the City's street standards that require the additional street width. F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail -road right-of-way. This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City identifying rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review application and construction permit application submittal. Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed through an internal street system, identified as Roads A — E. The applicant has indicated that Roads A -- C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City is not willing to accept the proposed public rights -of -way dedications and Roads A — C shall become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A — C will be private streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School) and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 22 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 4 Z 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot specific site plan review. A School Impact Fee, based on new multi -family units, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities. Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is provided via a dial -a -ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St. interchange and I-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted, Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. Currently there are no non -motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site, however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition, the existing rail road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails" planned multi -purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi -purpose trail at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the primary form and most readily available form of alternative non -motorized transportation is bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation Document (page 26) to mitigate system -wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the applicant shall prepare a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include on -site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure weather -protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation would not use the multi -purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi- purpose trail. 1. Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 23 AGENDA ITEM #i. 0 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B 10 requires that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site plan review and construction permit application. In addition, should the EPA ROD eliminate the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline master programs requirements for significant public access. Conclusions of Law I . Authority. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement. However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline applications. The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7- 230(I)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement" significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan applications that are merged with development agreements. In contrast to the binding site plan application, shoreline substantial development permits are classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type II permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and master site plan approval as Type III permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short, the three permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 24 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 4 7 U. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest -number procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the examiner (see Ex. 23) coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure. 2. Vesting, One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows: A_ Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vesting. FOF No. 2 of the April 19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of complete binding site plan application on February 10, 2010. The proposed development agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period often to fifteen years. The law is not actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards. Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement, rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when evaluating the vesting issue. Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of land' vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs "...at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted..." A binding site plan is neither a subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains. The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7- 230(N)(1) provided in 2010 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham Neighborhood Assn v. F.G_ Associates, 162 Wn. App_ 98 (2011), a court ruled that permit expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 25 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 2 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting, or whether it is a procedural ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting. B. Stormwater_Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting. The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King County stormwater manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater system is governed by a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition S5.C.4a.iii of the Phase 11 NPDES permit requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase Il NPDES permit "...shall apply to all [land use] applications submitted on or after.July 1, 2017 and shall apply to applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022..." In short, new Phase 11 permit requirements not integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase 11 NPDES permit will apply. The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to "any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement." (emphasis added). However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not "new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following should be added to the end of Section 5.2. Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 26 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 I from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase H National Pollution Discharge 2 Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton. 3 2.5 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned and has a 4 comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). 5 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval for all development in the COR zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities. 6 Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property 7 pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(1). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria 8 for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by 9 RMC 4-7-230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9- 190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") use 10 regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through I I corresponding conclusions of law. 12 Master Plan 13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail: 14 a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance 15 with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate.for master plans. Master plans will 16 be evaluated.for general compliance with they criteria anti to ensure that nothing in the 17 master plan will preclude development qfa site plan infull compliance with the criteria. I g h. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail 19 anti evaluate compliance withthe specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3- 2012) 20 4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan 21 review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude 22 development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of approval, building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more 23 specific design features to be addressed during site plan review. 24 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must f nd a proposed project to be in 25 compliance with the following: 26 a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including. - MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 27 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100, 5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding No. 222 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District "C" and consistent with Design District "C" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize viewsfrom surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting. Designing andlor placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No. References to findings from this recommendation are "FOF No. _ _." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any updates to the findings addressed in the April 11, 2017 memo to the examiner, Ex. 19. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 28 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off -site impacts are significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by FOF 6(D), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(I), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E) and lighting by FOF 5(11). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): On Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: 4 Structure Placement. Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; H. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and f lling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7, The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on -site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that the mixed -use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well -integrated environment for residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities_ Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA, however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking trail, dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: 1 Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties,- U. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 29 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(D). Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No. 5(1)_ The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas forpassive and active recreation by the occupants users of the site. 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in FOF 6(C). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(t): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt_ Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF No. 6(I). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the natural systems at the site (i.e. critical areas) will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use_ 12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 30 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 4 6 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is governed by the proposed development agreement. Binding Site Plan RMC 4-7-230(C): APPROVAL CRITERIA: Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the following criteria are met: 1. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more contiguous, legally created lots_ Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district. New nonconforming lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process. 14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots 1, 6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that lots 1, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be buildable if created. The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. 2, If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-150. 15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium site creation is required. 3_ Commercial or Industrial Property-, The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or mixed -use zone. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA M AGENDA ITEM #l. 0 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16. The site is located within the mixed -use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval_ 4. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D. a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at the time a completed application is submitted. e. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site plan maypropose shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically authorized per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-05017, and 4-4-100E5, and other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's development standards, 17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5- 010. 18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building permit approval. 6. Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or in a supporting document, have been made far drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways, water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by the binding site plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 32 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 5 7 S l0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 19. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 6, the applicant has made adequate provisions for all drainageways, streets, water supplies, open space, solid waste and sanitary waste. This criterion is satisfied. 7. Access to Public Rights -of -Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct access or access easement approved by the City_ 20, The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted in FOF No. 60), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review. 8. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan and the provisions of RUC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions oj' use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment ofshared open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements shall he identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism. 21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a covenant or 140A documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan. 9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. 22. As conditioned, the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this standard. 10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan. 23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 33 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11. Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of protective improvements may be required as condition of approval. 24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the City's critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal complies with the City's critical area regulations. Shoreline Permit RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria: a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance- b. 411 policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted, provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. c_ Forprojects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90, 58.020 regarding shorelines of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall also be adhered to_ 25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No. 6(l). The commercial use regulations further require that parking is to be provided at frequent locations and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(l). The development agreement adds a 1.3- acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as determined in FOF No. 5(13). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS mitigation requires a 100-foot setback. The proposal complies with this 100-foot setback except for a proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval requires the water line to be moved outside the 100-foot setback. The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 34 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 2 4 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the impacts of the proposal on shoreline ecological resources have been mitigated and controlled as required by RMC 4-3-090(K). DECISION For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Council approve the proposed development agreement for the reasons identified in the summary of this recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The permit applications should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document dated, August of 2015. 2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside through the binding site plan. 3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The minimum partial sight -obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 1 I and shall be identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures EI, E2, and F5. 5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 35 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 8. Roads A — C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. 9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording. 10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 12.Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to Mitigation Measures: • B10 -public trail • G2 — public trail and open space • G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N. • G7 —trail signage • G9 — crosswalk • G 10 — trail amenities • H3 — frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N • H4 — trail • H5 — traffic calming measures • H8 — fire access road • H l0 — bicycle lane • HI I — H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and signalization shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are internal Roads_ MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 36 AGENDA ITEM #l. 0 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 18. To ensure the semi -private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and amenities as approved by the Director. 19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the site. 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows: a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill) c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility) 21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and the semi -private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80 feet. 22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re -designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 37 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review. 24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. 25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for lots 2 and 5. 26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval prior to recording. 27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i_e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots I and 6) Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. [f the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required. 28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi -purpose trail. 29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit [6 at the time of construction permit review. 30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan. 31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping, open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan, MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 38 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 4 6 7 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 1 1, 2017 memo to examiner. 33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 34. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on the subject site. 36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works Department. 37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording. 38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the facility. 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off -site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application for the site. 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the timing identified above per condition of approval 12. 41. A fire Iane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 39 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation. 44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and construction permit issuance. I. 'Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire property. 11. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved, a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance with the approved phasing plan. Ill. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on the recording Binding Site Plan. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C 10. V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other neccssary materials to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and GI I for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator. VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to condition of approval 3. VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system, including an evaluation of on -site crosswalks to ensure MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 40 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. H4 and H9. The final approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. Vill. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot. [X. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community Services. X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right- of-way. X1. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design. XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B 10, G3, G2, 610, GI I and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department. XIII. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16. XIV. Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under X1I1. XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer: a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the proposed new Road A. MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA LF AGENDA ITEM #i. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main. d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the I 00-shorel ine buffer. e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton regulations. XVI_ if the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire Iane and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division. XVIR. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site -specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of any site -specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 42 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. Decision issued May 9, 2017. Phi A.01brechts Hearing Examiner MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA 43 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND +� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project Location April 18, 2017 Vanessa Dolbee, Current Campbell Mathewson, Parcel 2924059002. South Planning Manager Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 of the Seahawks VMAC Third Ave, suite 1680, Training Facility Seattle, WA 98101 The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing: Exhibits 1-18: Hearing Examiner Staff Report (April 2016) and Exhibits Exhibit 19 - 23: Memo to the Hearing Examiner (April 2017) and Exhibits Exhibit 24: Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017 Exhibit 25: Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017 Exhibit 26: Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017 Exhibit 27: City of Renton COR maps and GIS data: http://ro, rentonwa.gov/SilverliehtPu blic/Viewer.htm I?Viewer=COR-Maas Exhibit 28: Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl Exhibit 29: City of Renton power paint Exhibit 30: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations" Exhibit 31: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits" Exhibit 32: Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site Exhibit 33: Larry Toedtli CV Exhibit 34: Bob Wells Resume Exhibit 35: Lance Mueller Resume Exhibit 36: Street B rendering Exhibit 37: June 6, 2016 Site Plan P1.0 Exhibit 38: June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0 Exhibit 39: April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development Agreement with Land Use Applications entonCITY OF Is AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D l-j �f AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 11, 2017 TO: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09-151 Following the canceled public hearing from April of 2016, the Applicants have requested the City consider a Development Agreement. As such, this memorandum addresses the Development Agreement and changes to the project which result from the proposed Development Agreement. This memo is intended to supplement the staff report to the Hearing Examiner which was issued in April of 2016, for the original scheduled hearing date of April 19, 2016. Only those items identified below have been changed and/or are proposed to be changed from the original staff report. Updated Proiect Description: The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed - use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed -use buildings. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. EXHIBIT 19 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 Phil oibrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 2 of 7 April 11, 2017 The following Exhibits should be added to the Recorded: Exhibit 19 — Memorandum to Hearing Examiner, April 11, 2017 Exhibit 20 — Draft Development Agreement Exhibit 21— Consistency Analysis Exhibit 22 — Notice of Issuance of Consistency Analysis Exhibit 23 — Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing Findings of Fact (FOFI: (the following FOPs are identified with letters to eliminate and confusion with the original staff report) a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement (Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc,) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. • A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner should be completed. c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Phi! Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 3 of 7 April 11, 2017 No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. d. A detailed master site plan has not been provided incorporating the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final details master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. e. Staff does not expect that the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative would impact the analysis and associated recommended conditions of the April 2016 staff report for all Findings of Fact except as follows: i. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Parking: The total parking stalls proposed in the Enhanced Alternative is 1,352 stalls an increase from the 1,337 stalls proposed in the Preferred Alternative, a 15 stall increases. There is no change in the residential and restaurant space; however there is an increase in retail space from 20,025 SF to 33,190SFwhich would result in a maximum of 133 stalls required for the retail space, up from 80 stalls. Together all three uses could require up to 1,469 parking stalls. ii. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Defuse and Recycling: Based on a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 33,190 SF of retail a combined total of 210.95 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 421.90 Sf of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project. iii. FOF 25, Critical Areas, b.: The reference to "NRD settlements" should be eliminated because the EPA does not approve and is not party to an NRD settlement. Therefore, Condition 44. IV, should be amended to remove the reference to "NRD settlements". iv. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, f. On Site Impacts, Structure and Scale: With the addition of retail/commercial space along the Lake Washington side of the development it is anticipated that the parking garage would no longer be the dominate structure viewed from the Lake or shoreline trail. V. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review,1. Distinctive Focal Points: The "street activation" identified in the development agreement are anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 Phil 01brechts, Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 7 April 11, 2017 vi. FOF 26, Master Site Pion Review, Phasing: Staff recommends that the project duration be consistent with the time frames established in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20. vii. FOF 28 Availability and impact of Public Services, Storm water: The Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction. viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, the center left -turn lane that was included as a part of Street 'A' is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the Enhanced Alternative because single -lane approaches at each of the Street 'A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly. Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the 1-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not anticipated ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the site. AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Phil Qlbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 5 of 7 April 11, 2017 X. FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Time Requirements far Shoreline Permits: The Draft Development Agreement extends the time for all land use permit applications including the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Time frames identified in the Development Agreement should be applied accordingly. Condition of Approval 14 should remove the word "east" as this has been included in error. g. Condition of Approval 22 contains a minor error, the word "East" should be "West". Condition of Approval 22 should be amended accordingly. h. Condition 43 requires an easement be recorded to all for public access for vehicles and pedestrians to cross the King County rail -road right-of-way. This requirement for an easement limits the type of legal documents that could be drafted to accomplish the intended purpose of the condition. As such, this condition should be amended as shown below. i. The word "Public Promenade" should be removed throughout the staff report and replaced with "fire lane and utility maintenance access road" to be consistent with the Consistency Analysis and Development Agreement. Therefore Condition of approval 41. and 44. XVI should be amended accordingly. Conclusions: All conclusions in the April 2016 staff report ore to remain except as identified below: 10. The project Ao expiration date shall be as identified in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20set by the HE i_ cvar„. -er f.-r the IiA@rter C0te P1-.r 5 e a ClIC 2 12. The Development_ Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-70B- 170. _ New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified conditions below. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Amended Conditions of Approval: 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side. The new private AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 6 of 7 April 11, 2017 access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include S feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 22. €ash West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re- designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 32. Any exteRsweRte the pFejeei appFeyed bey8REdaRWaFy 1, 2922 aF buildift ar�d e_@R1_Ar-,_,r_-t,9F1 peFFHAS 51_1_hR;ii4P_d_ that would extend the ff9jerzt beyond japuaFy 2922 shall be sub ea to the, u p dateYr1 rt.tr.Yeator RI @IiA P_"P_. # time. 41. A public pFeweRade fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This afire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the pFemenades-fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 43. nR " ^nt rhall be r red fr.- Im. ViRg !'9URt y rir Gthar f„tu Fe PFOPerty 9W Re Fs of then it ad right _of_way to pFeyid—erl ehir .I.. r.rl pederUiap areess, to the Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation. 44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) and Al °^ Settlement completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD ,rep "1DR Cesttle,mnnt issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C10. AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 7 of 7 April 11, 2017 44. XIV. A tFaR&POFtatiOR study shall be completed te aRalyi5e the Reed f9F a G@RteF , Road A street designs shall be amended to remove the center turn laneaGeeFdinglly and the design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under XIII. 44. XVI, If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A publie fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager New Conditions of Approval: (The following numbering picks up at the end of the April 2016 staff report.) 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. 44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. 44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. AGENDA ITEM #i. 0 Vanessa Dolbee From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:52 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Homes Vanessa, This communication will be disclosed at tomorrow's hearing. I want to give you a chance to prepare a response to a jurisdictional question I will be asking you tomorrow: RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), pasted below, provides that if a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, the City Council applies the binding site plan standards. Consistent with this, RMC 4-7-230(l)(4), pasted below, authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on significant binding site plans except when merged with development agreements. From these provisions, it appears that once a binding site plan is merged with a DA, the City Council makes the final decision on the site plan and also holds the hearing on it. How did staff come to a different conclusion? Also, how does staff reconcile the one hearing rule of RCW 36.7013.060, pasted below, with the request to re -open the hearing if the DA is not adopted? What happens if the DA is revised instead of rejected? RMC 4-7-230(H)2. Review Authority: Pursuant to chapter 4-8 RMC, the Community and Economic development Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section, unless the applicant elects to have the binding site plan application merged with a Type III permit site plan application or a development agreement under chapter 36.70B RCW. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a Type III site plan, then the Hearing Examiner is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the City Council is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. The final decision on a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No administrative appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. If a binding site plan is merged with a planned urban development application, the review authority shall be determined pursuant to RMC 4-9-150. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5519, 12-14- 2009; Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) RMC 4-7-230(1)4. Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by residents in the area of the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner_ Notice of the public hearing will be given as for a Type III permit hearing, Binding site plans merged with development agreements shall be approved by City Council pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36,708.170 et seq. (Ord. 5519, 12-14-2009) RCW 36.70B.060 Local governments planning under the growth management act to establish integrated and consolidated project permit process —Required elements. Not later than March 31, 1996, each local government planning under RCW .36.70AR40 shall establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project permit process that may EXHIBIT 24 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 be included in its development regulations. In addition to the elements required by RCW 36.7[l O50, the process shall include the following elements: (1) A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW 36.7013.070; (2) A notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required by RCW 36.70B.110: (3) Except as provided in RCW 36.7013.140, an optional consolidated project permit review process as provided in RCW 36.701B.120. The review process shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record appeal hearing; (4) Provision allowing for any public meeting or required open record hearing to be combined with any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the project by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, in accordance with provisions of RCW * 36.70B.090 and 36.7013.110; (5) A single report stating all the decisions made as of the date of the report on ail project permits included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing and any recommendations on project permits that do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the agency's authority under RCW 43.21 C.060. The report may be the local permit. If a threshold determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the local government, the report shall include or append this determination; (6) Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21 C.0751 if a local government elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determinations or project permit decisions, the local government shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing on such appeal. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an appeal for some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is provided after the open record hearing, it shall be a closed record appeal before a single decision -making body or officer; (7) A notice of decision as required by RCW 36.7013.130 and issued within the time period provided in RCW 36.7013.080 and ' 36.70B.090; (8) Completion of project review by the local government, including environmental review and public review and any appeals to the local government, within any applicable time periods under "'RCW 36.7013.090; and (9) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter or chapter 43.21 C RCW. MITEM #7.E*Nt� Vanessa Dolbee From: FredWarnock <frednock@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 4:30 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Penis Law; Chip Vincent; Jay B Covington Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Fallow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Thanks for your quick response to my email. Unfortunately for us we were gone February through March and did not get your March notice of the meeting. We have our mail forwarded while we are gone, but it's hit and miss. Your document didn't get to us. We don't receive the Renton Reporter. so we didn't get that notice as well. All that being said, I would like you to put my comments into the record as follows ................. 1. How is the city or state going to deal with the addition of 600 plus cars pouring into Lake Washington Blvd, when we currently have back ups on the boulevard a mile long during rush hour? 2. It would appear that the majority of the traffic will use 43rd St as access to and from Quendall. Why not divert more of the traffic to the other two exits rather than 43rd St, which is the main entrance to Barbee Mill? Best regards 12=17PFR& 51 From: "Vanessa Dolbee" <VDolbee @ Rentonwa.gov> To: "FredWarnock" <frednock@comcast.net> Cc: "Denis Law" <DLaw@ Rentonwa.gov>, "Chip Vincent" <CVincent @ Rentonwa.gov>, "Jay B Covington" <Jcovington @ Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1:42:04 PM Subject: RE: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Fred, Thank you for your e-mail. I am assuming you are referring to the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development Project, City File number LUA09-151. There are two projects going to public hearing tomorrow, so please let me know if my assumption is incorrect. In terms of public notice for the Quendall Terminal public hearing, the original notice was sent to all parties of record on March 16, 2017 as a part of the attached "off hold notice". Notice of the Public Hearing was also provided in the Renton Reporter, published on April 7, 2017. The letter sent out last week was simply providing a reminder to all parties of record of the hearing date and providing notice of the availability of an updated Staff Report transmitted to the Hearing Examiner. The project staff report to the Hearing Examiner describing the proposal has been AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 available on the City's website for over a year, since the cancellation of the original proposed hearing date of April 19, 2016. Understanding, attending a Tuesday morning public hearing can be difficult due to work schedules, I am happy to enter your written public comments into the record if you cannot attend. Please e-mail me your comment prior to the start of the public hearing tomorrow at 10:00 am and I will ensure that they are submitted into the record for the Hearing Examiner to consider when making a decision on this project. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 1055 5 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 From: FredWarnock [mailto:frednock@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:11 AM To: CenturyLink Customer Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; hong Clair; Mitchell, Mary; Denis Law; Len Reid; Connell, Carol; harrylharden Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Dear Ms Dolbee I guess what bothers me about this public hearing is the short notice. The letter notice is dated the 11th of April and we received it on Friday thel4th. That gives us one working day before the public hearing to try and prepare numerous questions about the Quendall project. In the past the meetings were set up with at least with one months notice, only to be cancelled at the last moment. I cannot attend the meeting because I can't adjust my schedule on such short notice. Along with the questions on the attached email from the the Taylors, I still can't find out how Renton intends to deal with the traffic problems that will be created by dumping close to 600 cars into a traffic pattern that is backed up at least one mile on Lake Washington Blvd during the morning commute. The other issues that concern our Barbee Mill residents are the impact on property values and traffic being diverted into the Barbee Mill development. So many questions so little time to get answers. Best regards Fred Warnock 1246 N 42nd PI_ Renton, WA 98056 From: "CenturyLink Customer" <cw7mm @ q.com> To: "Vanessa Dolbee" <vdolbee@rentonwa.gov> Cc: "hong Clair" Ehong.clair@epa.go_v>, "Fred & Cheryl Warnock" <frednock@comcast.net>, "Donohue Patrick" <presidentbarbeemillhoa@outlook.com> AGENDA ITEM #7. fj EXHIBIT 26 Vanessa Dolbee From: Centuryl-ink Customer <cw7mm@q.com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 515 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: hong.clair@epa.gov; Fred & Cheryl Warnock; Donohue Patrick Subject: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site Fallow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Dolbee: My wife and I are unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday morning regarding this topic so we are sending some thoughts/questions for consideration and response in lieu of our attendance. Please see items of concern/questions regarding Cugini Proposal to Stockpile Soil at Quendall Terminal Site Who will monitor the noise? - What will be the vibration and noise decibel sound limits? - Noise and vibration limits may need to be adjusted to meet community needs. How will vibration affect the homes along the property lines during construction? Which homes will be monitored for structural cracks and settlement from vibration? How much setback from the property lines of existing homes for start of sediment stockpile? Should be made known to owners but shouldn't come up against fence line separating properties. (Note: The property line is not the same as where the fence is located. It extends beyond the fenceline.) Wood rot will occur on the north side of the fence if soil is plied up against fence. Also, for aesthetic reasons, Barbee Mill residents are requesting that stockpile not exceed middle of fence in height. - Will stockpile be covered with plastic sheeting per regulation? - Please provide City of Renton contacts during construction and on site construction inspector for EPA. - Work hours should be the same as in Seattle 7:00 AM — 6:00 PM; Saturday work should be eliminated. - Construction access should have a wheel wash at exit point. How will contaminated soil track out be controlled during temporary sediment stockpile placement? - Entry and exit should not be at N42nd PL where Barbee Mill residents exit to Lake Washington Blvd. - What has EPA proposed as a preferred cleanup, and what will be done to mitigate the effect on Barbee Mill Community? I was informed earlier that no one could enter the site without proper HAZMAT Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Roes this stall apply for temporary stockpile? Has the Feasibility Study been approved by EPA? Please provide their comments/ recommendations. I will await your responses to my questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles E. Taylor 1252 N 42"d PL Renton, WA 98056 s (LUA09=1 51) HEX Public Hearing Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager April 18, 2017 EXHIBIT 29 i-",+" ^-f unity and Economic Development m v t • Project Description —Enhanced Alternative & Development Agreement • Background • Renton Municipal Code Analysis — Compliance — Conditions • Staff Recommendation RENTON AHEAD OF TIII: CURVE _1 #1 sI fis)'4 1 1 if-;i (:-M W•I•+:1 i If 4. f a t• �a � -`��'� �Z'+A � • r1 � � • .yam ` I • it i. Proposal Enhanced Alternative "Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative RENTON * AHEAD OF THE CURVE COR Zone and Urban Shoreline Environment 21.24 acre site 7 lots — 4 with mixed use buildings 692 multi -family residential units 331190 SF of retail/Commercial 9,000 SF of restaurant Density 40.95 du/ac Parking for 1,352 vehicles *Superfund site subj4 to EPA regulations ;� �47 �-4 AGENDA ITEM #7. + 0 c (n 4-0 (n �r 0 + �e" * (n (D (D 4 1 �40 0 < n roo W - w3* eu OwIn4 tf fd W"d aW �Wll I 0 sook goes 74"M kw ULS 'MUGOOM L 3N re sum it � AV bM r ss IRLKIMM r Mir :30 ouwvi - ON Wnu OPVW ru a) go* W49XMSU 3� 13S eS�5o�dnmae~l wate s"as 'PALMAM a 3 is uj W Mo Lw 0 L2 Proposal enhanced Alternative Building Design — * Ground floor Parking or Retail/Restaurant along Road B and Lake Washington * 33 4, or 5 stories above for residential units and semi -private plaza space V IQIJI III�J VVGIG IJI G_V<AI GU IVI 1 $s I G I ICU F 1LGI I ICLI VG BUILDING NW 2 BUILDING N%A%l 1 PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON *Final elevation design will be reviewed at Site Plan review. RENTON AI-IVAD 0F I'llF I I V V I 7 AA Z-z- is-, U140111 .4 srl 1S �w-.�• ♦_ �32 Ss = SF ie a. sr w V a k % L a L 4L r M I oral %L%, hzn Development Overview Applicant: Extended time frame beyond the 5 years permitted by code and associated vesting of development regulations City/Public: Project Enhancements — designed to provide a public benefit RENTON ,iiii.AD OF TI-IE CURVL u Development Agreement Provisions — Project Timing Following 5 years of the initial term a SEPA Transportation Update would be required. New transportation mitigation for the project may be required based on changed conditions and associated project impacts. Vest the development regulations effective on the vesting date, which is February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement. Extends code authorized land use approval time lines from 5 years to 10 years from the earlier of: (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of Decision, or (ii) The Hearing Examiners Decision and/or subsequent appeal decision dates Extension to the 10 years up to 5 additional years, could be authorized by the rn City if 51% of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and o received Certificate of Occupancy, following a second SEPA Transporta l Update. + h\ RENTON SEND TLAND SETBACK HWN SETBACK MD EDGE RENTON ;11-1LiAD 0P 'i']iL G U R V L 44K�-W4S,,yiV'%1V Ile PIp K�O4� 1 •• l� R • Project Elements Collaborate with the developer on a public dock/pier • Permitting — City • Funding, construction, mitigation - developer 1.3 acres of a public park in the southwest corner of the site )b. 07 97 IFr i , �. !`ME -7 Tit r ,,. "Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative r y r�%'1�• rl,Ll 'Zb Enhanced Alternative �KEW�H�ryGro/V rw 0010 lim Cal x � "Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative RE�N �TO�N �IIFAn OF Tilk CURVI. Project Elements Additional retail/restaurant/office space • Minimum 50 percent of the building street frontage • Minimum of 20 feet in depth Required along. - Lakeside frontage r Street B • Other street frontages as necessary to meet 50% Street activation; such as G) hn ., fountains and artwork will be Z provided along street B and °n lakeside frontage r- Y V �> M NI • Former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917-1969 • Past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments • In 2005 DOE transferred the oversight to the EPA • The site received a Superfund designation from EPA • The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study. Which will lead to a ROD. RENTON .MEAD OF THE CURVE �Y M A u • Clean up work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. (CERCLA; i.e. Superfund) • EPA Contact — Clair Hong, hong.claire _ epa.goov. t.. RENTON AHEAD OF T]Ili CURVE background a Background (baseline assumptions) Wetland Recreation Wetand D Continuous Wane Attenuation Berm f DLWM , E 5eafieure27 Soil Cap Wkmum 2" Wetia d Buffer -10d1 bu &M Setback 1 / • f L _ WetlandF Wet4 d A wetland G tiJ Wetland t ' Wm Attenus0c m Sonm Weiland A lah Aulkdin� Setback .: Wetland Euffer 9 9 ! Wlitind N ` •: RENTON MEAD OF T11L r:t'ttVi; Wettand k • Figure 2-6 DEIS Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design This figure shows a conceptual design with a 50 ft. buffer not a 100 ft. buffer, which was required by the EPA after Public Comment on the DEIS. Assumptions are unchanged in the G) Addendum beyonQ 100 ft. setback. ��Y Background (baseline assumptions) Wove Attenuation Berm awM R E�N �TO�N 'MEAD OF THE CURVE Wetland Recreation Buffer Averaging Trail with view points Reduced Wedand Buffer Am `- Wetland Buffer Area Increased Wetland Buffer Area Figure 2-7 DEIS Buffer Width Averaging Wetland D 0 This figure shows a conceptual design with a 50 ft. buffer not a 100 ft. buffer, which was required by the EPA after Public Comment on the DEIS. Assumptions are unchanged in the Addendum for th Preferred Alterna e rn z v ♦$ +� Al Y Determination of Significance (DS) issued on February 19, 2010 — EIS Process began: EIS Public Scoping Period, 70 days (extended) Public Scoping Meeting DEIS Issuance DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended) DEIS Public Hearing EIS Addendum Issuance EIS Addendum Public Comment Period FEIS Issuance EIS Public Appeal Period Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Appellant and Applicant Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner. Appeal Dismissed. Consistency Analysis Issuance for Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement RENTON G) a rn 3''Vr � V • Renton Municipal Code Analysis Comprehensive Plan Compliance Zoning Compliance Design District Review Critical Areas Master Site Plan Review Binding Site Plan Availabilit y ervices of Public S0 m Shoreline Regulations RENTON� AHEAD OF THE CURVE. z v UL ANT � 64 Conditions of Approval Recommend by Staff Primary: • Compliance with the Mitigation Document • Phasing/Site Plan Review • Design Standards Compliance • Access/Roadways (vehicular and pedestrian) • Binding Site Plan (recording) Secondary: • Utilities • Code/Landscaping RENTON \IIF.AD 0F TI-IL• CUI:Y1: Staff Analysis/Conditions Condition 20 and 21: Setbacks from parent parcel edges shall be as follows: a. 100 ft. from the OHWM of Lake Washington b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill) c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawks Training Facility) View Corridors — a. 74 ft. width for Road B b. 80 ft. width for semi -private plaza space. Site Plan RENTQN - %Ft EAI) (11 'I'll 1; Ct, kVI Condition 6 and 27: Critical Areas Regulations Baseline Assumptions, assumed all recreated wetland and their associated buffers would fit within Binding Site-PlaaIGts-IW and 6. Baseline Assumptions RENTON n �u�w logo .a wrap ax M .. Mr -+on ww a IlR srIIr na u rrwra.y nr cx rr.r aMnr .►rd U wrrR• 1►R ca 4R RrTT qw' U 1/�"N]i. fYuII L+ IlR Elf1'X }1M' U r11fY.IIY TL�P N t..P �Tr�." }; U WTrWa r.J7 a MR lrX.r Vi/ P✓ /� �t�r /r u �Tuira n.r n v nrar tea- � � tr- rtK OF I Kq \ for T k �} • q MTi . rc�suat b ro-..a w r +v+vr V w _ warn � waaa,ri ry (�I� wrr awe[ r� �� m �crret. IMM s , - Ar M tf Ift11'M M lial L[IOK MM y f �n 0 e Jj ith /f - _w+b Staff Analysis/Conditions Condition 27: Critical Areas Regulations 1) The outcome of the ROD and NRD Settlement details are not known at this time. 2) This conditions is need so impacts of the proposed development will comply with the City's critical areas regulations following the ROD and NRD Settlement. RENTaN- AHEAP OF THE CURVE Condition 41: Requires a fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington r,. RENTON� AlILAD OF Till, r.1"RVI N S, Condition 41: Staff Analysis/Conditions Satisfies the following code requirements: 1. Fire Access is required along the Lake a. Required to be 20 ft. in width. b. Shall be constructed to support the weight of a fire apparatus. C. Critical Areas regulations may not permit the trail to be built to meet fire access standards. Maximum width permitted per code is 12 feet. (RMC4-3-05OC7.a.) 2. Looped waterline required 1. Located along the west side of the 2 lake front buildings. 2. 15 feet minimum width needed for maintenance access. 3. Maintenance access shall be a paved surface. z 4. Not permitted within wetlands, wetland buffers, or shoreline buffer. RENTON .to� M IE,, a cat• THE CURVE - 'J J J Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified conditions. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner. RENTON AHEAD OF TIIE CURVE G� r ri z v m R it N AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 - QJENDALL TERMINALS ENTITLEMENTS HEARING MASTER PLAN REVIEW BINDING SITE PLAN SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CITY OF RENTON APRIL 18, 2017 EXHIBIT BINDER #2: VESTED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS t+rr aF RentonC) Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 30 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 QUENDALL TERMINALS ENTITLEMENTS HEARING MASTER PLAN REVIEW BINDING SITE PLAN S1I0RELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CITY OF RENTON APRIL 18, 2a 17 EXHIBIT BINDER #1: SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICANT EXHIBITS Renton Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 31 * i- iw � C O I O1 N q s .1 y � C L Y Q U c R s c Wm H m R w C a 3 H m J L R � _ � m ryma V K U AGENDA ITEM #7. Larry Toedtli, PE Principal Expertise: Larry recently retired as a principal at Transpo with over 30 years of experience • Development traffic impact developing area -wide and corridor level transportation plans. He directed analyses under SEPA Transpo's efforts in GMA-based transportation plans, transportation financing • Transportation analyses of strategies, and concurrency programs. He also had project management large master planned responsibilities for transportation analyses supporting EISs for subarea plans, developments • Experience managing multiple planned action ordinances, and transportation corridor projects. He has a team members thorough knowledge of travel forecasting and traffic operation analyses • Experience managing on -call techniques. contracts • Multimodal transportation Larry also served local agencies in reviewing traffic impact studies for planning under GMA developments within and outside of their jurisdiction. He recently assisted the • Experience in facilitating Cities of Duvall and Ferndale in this role. stakeholder engagement and public outreach programs Larry was appointed as a member of King County's Transportation Concurrency Years Employed by Transpo: 30 Expert Review Panel. The panel includes County staff, citizens, and representatives from the development community. The panel developed recommendations to Education: refine the Concurrency program to reflect the changes in King County to a more MS, Civil Engineering rural County and also to improve the interface between the County's concurrency (Transportation), University of program and SEPA processes. Washington,1983 BS, Civil Engineering, University of Tehalleh Employment Based Planned Community, Pierce County Colorado, 1977 Larry directed Transpo's transportation planning and traffic engineering Professional registrations assistance for this large master Planned Community located in Pierce County and licenses: between Bonney Lake and Orting. When fully developed, the community will have PE, Washington, #25888, 1989 over 6,500 residences, a retail center, business park, schools, and golf course. PE, Colorado, #23125, 1985 Transpo's assistance has included sizing of on -site roadways, design of roundabouts and street lighting, and roadway channelization for internal Professional Associations roadways. Transpo has also assisted in monitoring the transportation mitigation Institute of Transportation triggers based on the approved development agreement. Transpo has assisted Engineers (ITE) the project team and agency staff in defining the off -site roadway and mitigation strategies to support future development phases. Larry also led the initial tasks Contact larry.toedtli@comcast.net for the detailed transportation analyses to support the Phase 2 application for the development. Redmond Ridge/Trilogy/Redmond Ridge East Master Planned Communities EISs, King County, WA Larry managed the analysis of traffic impacts and development of a subarea transportation improvement program for the EIS for a large mixed -use community planned for rural King County. At buildout, the development will include 5,400 dwelling units, neighborhood retail, 1.2 million SF of business park, golf course and soccer fields. The analysis included assessing roadway improvement needs and non -motorized system facilities, transit opportunities, and financing. Key issues included accommodating urban traffic fevels in an otherwise rural area and potential traffic impacts on other jurisdictions. Larry supported the projects through coordination with WSDOT and Redmond. EXHIBIT 33 %transpoGRouF AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Orton Junction Urban Growth Area EIS, Sumner, WA Larry managed the transportation analysis for the EIS for this subarea located south of SR 410 in Sumner_ The City proposed to increase densities and expand the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to accommodate a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The analysis addressed impacts and transportation improvement needs in the immediate vicinity of the subarea. Overlake Urban Center Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, Redmond Larry managed an analysis of the potential traffic impacts of the additional multi- family residential development within the proposed Overlake Urban Center. The analysis focused on evaluating the impacts within the Overlake Transportation Management District (TMD) and surrounding area of Bellevue. The City of Redmond's proposal to change the designation for the Overlake area from a Manufacturing/Industrial Center to an Urban Center would not affect zoning or the potential for residential growth in the area. Actual development of additional residential units in the area would, however, result in some traffic impacts. The impacts would primarily be in the immediate vicinity of the Overlake Urban Center, with impacts decreasing further from the site. Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel; King County, Washington. Larry serves on the King County Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel. The panel provides policy and technical guidance to King County staff as part of their ongoing refinement of County policies and programs related to level of service standards and concurrency. The panel has assisted in defining changes to the programs as the County focuses on rural areas as annexations and incorporations have greatly reduced the suburban areas under the jurisdiction of King County. Ferndale Main Street Master Plan and Planned Action EIS, Ferndale, WA Larry inanaged the transportation analysis for the planned action LIS for Ferndale's Main Street near the 1-5 interchange. The planned action would allow over 1 million square feet of commercial developments. The EIS evaluated the use of roundabouts vs. traffic signal improvements to address potential traffic operations and safety impacts due to the increased level of development_ The analysis included comparison of levels of service, corridor travel speeds and cost differences. The EIS also identified development mitigation strategies including potential updates to the City's transportation impact fee and concurrency programs. He also coordinated with WSDOT on improvements related to impacts on I-5 and interchanges at Main Street and Slater Road. Pacific Ridge Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS, Des Moines Larry assisted the City of Des Moines in evaluating the transportation -related impacts associated with 4,200 additional dwelling units and 6,900 additional employees located within the Pacific Ridge subarea. To mitigate impacts, a variety of strategies were identified, including a reduction in the amount of new development, creation of a transit and transportation demand management program, and/or funding and building necessary improvement projects through one or more Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) or Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). The Planned Action Ordinance took into account the City's impact fee requirements and street standard requirements. �,' transpo aROUP AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES BOB WELLS ASSOCIATE Education: Bachelor of Architecture - 1969 University of Idaho, Moscow, ID I Professional Registrations: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, USA - 1975 Experience: Bob has worked full-time in architecture since college graduation. Consequently, he has many years of varied experience in the Seattle area with project types including low and mid -rise commercial structures and industrial structures. Responsibility: Bob has been with Lance Mueller & Associates since 1973 and an associate since 1980. His responsibilities have been for the design, documentation and contract administration of numerous office, retail, flex -tech, industrial, residential, and corporate facilities. Representative Projects: ROCKWELL COLLINS, Wilsonville, OR This 221,000 sf manufacturing and office consolidated Rockwell's Portland area operations in one building in a wonderful natural setting. Our roll was shell architect and coordinating shell revisions with the TI Architect. Later we assisted Rockwell on a number of smaller tenant improvements. DWFRITZ PRECISION AUTOMATION, Wilsonville, OR From 2009 to 2017 we were the Architects on three separate projects totaling 273,000sf for this hi -tech manufacturer. The first two are new 2-story buildings and the last is a conversion of an existing industrial building into an office and manufacturing facility filled with natural light. EXHIBIT 34 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES B O B W E L L S P A G E 2 COMPACT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Redmond, WA This 50,000 sf two story for a very sophisticated mailing label business. In addition to the usual office, warehousing, and expansion requirements, the facility included a nursery for the employee's children, a very high -end lunch area, and adjacent private park. If needs change. the park can convert to parking. ONVIA BUILDING, Seattle, WA The Onvia.com Building is a full block corporate development with 95,000 sf of office plus structured parking with many employee amenities in Seattle. The four-story office ells around a large naturally landscaped plaza and integrates with a separate conference center building at the street corner. The restful plaza includes a pond and seating for relaxing or strolling opportunities. The service area and parking are underground on two levels. ZETRON BUILDING, Redmond, WA Zetron centralized their office and manufacturing headquarters into this four-story 210,000 sf facility. The facility includes basement parking and storage area and substantial areas dedicated to greenbelt and wetlands. THE GILBERT, Seattle, WA A 3-story traditional brick apartment complex on top of bustling Queen Anne hill with 54 units and 9,500 sf of street front retail with the basement parking accessed from the alley. AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES LANCE MUELLER, AIA PRESIDENT Education: University of Washington College of Architecture - 1962-1967 Professional Registration: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, 1973. Other States; California, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon. Certificate - National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1974. Professional Affiliations: Member - American Institute of Architects Lambda Alpha International Land Economics Honorary International Conference of Building Officials Experience: 1965 to 1970: Worked in three small Seattle architectural firms. 1970 to present: Joined Richard Bouillon & Assoc./Architects in 1970. Became owner of firm in 1973 upon death of R. Bouillon. Renamed firm in 1975. Experience covers a wide variety of project types including shopping centers, large retail stores, apartments, banks, business parks, distribution centers, manufacturing buildings, offices, parking garages and restaurants and planning of major office and business parks. Responsibility: Project conceptual and preliminary design and design development. Project administration; contractual agreements and general office administration. Honors: National Association of Industrial and Office Parks 2005 Hall of Fame Inductee EXHIBIT 35 n LEGEND OHwM 50' OHWM SETBACK 10O' oHwM sETBACK ® DUMPSTER; RECYCLE BIN \ EE BTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE rQ LOBBY AREA ys' AREA SUMMARY FROM COLOR LEGEND 33JAO S.F. 4RETAIL) RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS ' 9,000 S.F. ;RESTAURANTS) OPEN SPACE AREAS 21,797 S.F. (0.50 AC.) PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE 65,566 S.F. (LS AC.) ---4 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 129.122 S.F. (2.96 AC.) ) I SETE LANDSCAPE. PARK AND OPEN SPACE 148,17D S.F. (3.4 AC.) ) 1W SHORELINE SETBACK 50,725 S.F. jL2AC.I 1 C! LOT 7 (ISOLATEDI � a r41I�G site 6 III Summary: z...�s1x.e cce 0 771" ado: faade. fp, pnYsst��maruontN r 4 Sw•saC[Rs,lr#wb tfy,.pyY•vi stm6sticm ewal4�lv..s.w.w.y, lael 6unf� •�1',•i^ 4we.M 4r.0 A)w �aao sw: ao s w 14' b 1n1 R W _ A�w Maa YG n1aI V 1.5 YID M !w !Sa l u2 aff leirr.,.4 r,M•wnMti h�Y. 3 �ef+ue. ti e�.GA rup _t.�m w xf x �.NP ME..lt!E4a jfi ulN Ida Ercb_a 1•awrM .James Iw kM»M WMgIw sn. 4rr aw.nkr U 1101 ]•dl'I•A4_Vr1m MM JfaY Y,l. ✓.Yiwti ni ate. 11.IafWYaa ��15 . fYMMrq w' !cx �wrn N itW J1p•YSa 2110 FLOM 517E Uk0%*Fr (PO.0) r n� GRADE LEVEL PLAN 146.574 S.F. (9.36 AC.1 •561,953 S.F.(12.9 AC.) TOTAL QUENDALL TERMINALS — ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE RENTON, WASHINGTON CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP EXHIBIT 37 AJ i 010 yy1 1tJ �1V ��1lf1`1�I�lryrr�� AGENDA '?M/i •_ o - � •- -- I V I-i� Ji]�JYC A011y l`i.'IJ cc., c.[ r.. .[= a rw �'i-ir Es n .�wr nc. SIVNIWN1 L 71VON�M ITV a3CNVIIN7 - Nvld 3tTs y E q � c�9�890 Y S {p�E�{ase'eP. go M CL3 x X W W Z Z 0 �ZV = LL ZQQ W} 1 Zry WOH Z Z � of z_ 0. W r W LLI CV ZD a V s®11 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 AB - 1881 CITY DF Renton 0 SUBJECT/TITLE: RECOMMENDED ACTION DEPARTMENT: STAFF CONTACT: EXT.: N/A Quendall Terminals Public Hearing Council Concur Community & Economic Development Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager 7314 The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City consider a Development Agreement. The Land Use application consists of a request for Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and now a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the subject land use application on April 18, 2017. The requested Development Agreement establishes the new Enhanced Development Alternative and allows for an extended time frame for the land use entitlements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10 years, with a possible 5 year extension, for a total of 15 years. A public hearing is required to be held by City Council when considering a Development Agreement. However, there is an opportunity to consolidate the required public hearing for the Development Agreement with the public hearing for the land use entitlements with the City's Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the development agreement, the public will be able to comment on both the development project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing, Second, the Hearing Examiner would have the benefit of considering all aspects of the project and associated public comments when making a decision on the land use entitlements and a recommendation to City Council. A consolidated public hearing process would streamline and simplify the public process for the overall project. The final decision authority on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the City's Hearing Examiner. A. Draft Development Agreement The Administration recommends consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the development agreement and deferring this process to the City's Hearing Examiner. EXHIBIT 39 AGENDA ITEM #7, fj 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_ Oraft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 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 past-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 etseq. ("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project, as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended permit duration. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 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 ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS. Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date. Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as approved by the Hearing Examiner. Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting Date. Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications under LUA09-151. RMC means the Renton Municipal Code. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 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 Terminols Development Agreement Page 4 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan. 3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions, and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such unmitigated Project impacts. 3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking. 3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted. 3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 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 6 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 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 7 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.7013.190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or communication shall be given. If to the City of Renton: Renton City Hall Attn: Mayor Attn: Development Services Director 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 If to Quendall Terminals: Quendall Terminals Attn: Robert Cugini P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 and to J.H. Baxter & Co. Attn: Georgia Baxter P.O. Box 5902 San Mateo, CA 94402-0902 With a copy to: Campbell Mathewson CenturyPacific, LLLP Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Davis Wright Tremaine Attn: Lynn Manolopolous 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149 Cable Huston LLP Attn: James E. Benedict 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 T. Ryan Durkan Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98101 6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington, 6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. 6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement, the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute. 6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Partiesjointly may apply to the presiding judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that, in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action. 6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or an arbitrator equally. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Denis Law Mayor IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below. DATED this day of , 2017 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS By: Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative By: Robert Cugini Its: Vice President Date: CITY OF RENTON By: Date: ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF ) ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of , County of , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 STATE OF ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — Legal description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION '='HAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN LING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'.36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTE 29°44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRJE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56028'50" ;NEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 5902446" WEST 100.O1 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59024'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT -OF -(NAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO, 568'7408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 li/il/16 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 Page 15 300 0 150 300 ( IN FM) 1 inch = 300 it. ,� 1�11 2016 Exhibit A-1 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. TAX ACCT. NO. 292405900203 �I N66.12'12 W 107.51 / /A'-- / TRUE POINT / OF BEGINNING I �a0' i •w ' N TAX ACCT. NO. •'gyp ^ ' / 'S8 292405-9001-04V 1p1 � 60, E try g 9-Ig��, ti ,�, ry�• / �'� ,� rod / 0 f292405-9002-03 AX ACCT. NO. POINT A p� o� p& f gyp' /H,Sg ?S 101 GOV'T LQT 5 ORDINARY HIGH Oq / �o + .� <v A.'WATER MARK ��'� _ / `��( AT 18.$ - rN30'56'16"E _�� v� ELEVATION SW 1 /4 SECTION 29, T24N,45E N88'48'56"W 1016.36' TAX ACCT. NO. 292405-9012-01 Nk,-%4�) 90.80 \ � N3-56'1VE \ .�� DEEDED PER A 200806190011, A-02'11.12- R=1500.00 L=57.25 ' ' 'PLAT OF BARBEE MILL �1 A. �. L" _ � 1 IkOL. 246, PGS. 25-39, EC. NO. 20080208000182 (SE BOTH STORNER VAC N 44TH ST Of SEC. 29 REC. # 7602260427, 1,113.05' 149.74' 9 63 u'43 _� O 32 50, VAC N 44 ST 1� v- / 'N28.45'D4"E GOV'T LOT 1 2 18.10' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS 2009 MINOR AVE, EAST (206) 323-4144 BFM SEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11 /11 /16 98102-3513 JOB NO 2C09050.C3 Page 16 Z m AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON AND QUENDALL TERMINALS, A WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE. WHEREAS, Quendall Terminals, a Washington joint venture, made application to the City of Renton for a Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; and WHEREAS, SEPA Environmental Review was completed for the Quendall Terminals project, with the City issuing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on December 10, 2010, an Addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Mitigation Document on August 31, 2015, and a Consistency Analysis on February 9, 2017; and WHEREAS, development agreements are authorized under RCW 36.70B.170-210; and WHEREAS, a development agreement and associated land use applications, LUA09-151, were presented for the Quendall Terminals project at a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner held on April 18, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner heard public comment presented at the public hearing for the Quendall Terminals project and on May 9, 2017 issued a decision recommending that the City Council approve a modified development agreement and associated land use applications (LUA09-151) subject to 46 conditions of approval; and 1 AGENDA ITEM #l. 0 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at the public hearing and the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and has considered the development agreement attached hereto as Attachment A which incorporates the Hearing Examiner's recommended modification; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects, SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the development agreement between the City of Renton and Quendall Terminals, a Washington Joint Venture, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. PASSED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2017. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Approved as to form: Shane Moloney, City Attorney RES:1725:5/12/17:scr Jason A. Seth, City Clerk day of 2 Denis Law, Mayor 2017. AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A FORM OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON AND QUENDALL TERMINALS, A WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 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 36.708.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 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 Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 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). 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 12017. L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: AGREEMENTS 1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS. Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date. Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as approved by the Hearing Examiner. Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting Date. Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications under LUA09-151. RMC means the Renton Municipal Code. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete. 2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT. 2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision. 3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the Project Elements which includes the following: 3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J). 3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk; 3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet of the project site; 3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction ("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits. The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan. 3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions, and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such unmitigated Project impacts. 3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking. 3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted. 3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement page 5 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 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 8 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 Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 6 AGENDA ITEM #l. 0 5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement. Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton. 5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.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 Draft Quendoll Terminals Development Agreement Page 7 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section. 6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any Kind which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or communication shall be given. If to the City of Renton: Renton City Hall Attn: Mayor Attn: Development Services Director 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 If to Quendall Terminals: Quendall Terminals Attn: Robert Cugini P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 and to J.H. Baxter & Co. Attn: Georgia Baxter P.O. Box 5902 San Mateo, CA 94402-0902 With a copy to: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 AGENDA ITEM V. 0 Campbell Mathewson CenturyPacific, LLLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Davis Wright Tremaine Attn: Lynn Manolopolous 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149 Cable Huston LLP Attn: James E. Benedict 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 T. Ryan Durkan Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98101 6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington. 6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. 6.9.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement, the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that, in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action. 6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or an arbitrator equally. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Denis Law Mayor IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below. DATED this day of , 2017 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS By: Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative By: Robert Cugini Its. Vice President Date: CITY OF RENTON By: Date: ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft Quenda!! Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF j ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of , County of , personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 STATE OF 55: COUNTY OF j On this day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 AGENDA ITEM #7, 0 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — Legal Description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 AGENDA ITEM #7. 0 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S ME' —''ES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRT,PTTOPv THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLCWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" NEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY NINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT —OE —WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SATO RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER. REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTE 29044'54" LAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRTRFD; THENCE SOUTH 56028' SO" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT `udHICH BEARS NORTH 59624'56" WEST 100.01 FEE`i' OEOM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59024'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LF FE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY" STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT—OF—WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER I AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 200806190011?9. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BE.L, PLS NO. 31546 BRH JOB NO, 2009050.03 Z/11/1 6 BUSH, ROED & EITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MIA,OR. AVENJE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-41.44 Page 15 300 0 150 300 ( INS) 1 inch = 300 fL Exhibit A-1 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. TAX ACCT. NO. 292405-9012-01 N66'12'12W 107.51 / TAX ACCT. NO. 292405900203 TRUE POINT r / OF BEGINNING.- ,y TAX ACCT. No. `8y 292405-9001-04Vy s� , '�' oo• r; I 100.01' 700 7 , TAX ACCT. NO. POINT A 292405-9002-03 /H ? ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK I ELEVATION <' 'N30'56'16-E `� 90.80' I/N8a'4f11156*W S /4 N30'S6'16"E `164.30' ECTION 29, DEEDED PER T79 24,45E a-02'11'12- 11 11 2016R=1500.00 1016.36' L-57.25 \k . o %_o 09b h� ��F,¢i �eQ 3, 3 .4w � � GOV'T LOT 5 'PLAT OF BARBEE MILL I c 1�. . _ `, _ I 10L. 246, PGS. 25-39. LL O ( nC. NO. 20080208000182 � 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT kir CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP_ CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ti / 4V 70-,, (SE 80TH ST) } CORNER / VAC N 44TH ST OF SEC. 29 REC. f 7602260427f 1,113.05' 149.74' 963.31'- 32.50' VAC N 44T ST t18100'4 E GOV'T LOT 1 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 SEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11/11/16 98102-3513 JOB NO.:2009050.03 Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals rent6"'inh CO,-� Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by Exhibit City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 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 & EnhancedAlternative.........................................................................................................1-7 1-2 Building Height— Preferred Alternative & Enhanced Alternative.....................................1-8 Quendall Terminals i Table of Contents 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-1 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. Quendall Tenninals E-2 Environmental Consistency Analysis Chapter I COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE 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 i-i Environmental Consistency Analysis Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis Merc - 151aT1(1 i �ci�nty� .national ;.art 147y Tuitiw da St4arfire Sport: — City of Renton Boundary Village K evec a St l c co'll'le Easi I I qt I Not to Scale North Source: Google Maps, 2016 Figure 1-1 EA Engineering, Regional Map Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis i- LAKE WASHINGTON i'= - SITE 'i---' f (Isolated Property) I SITE ' I (Main Property) x 1 � r I • I s • I I , F , r , 1 , 1 , �+ 1 J_ I J I � � 1 f i r J � J I J / t 1 1 / 1 f � ♦ l ♦ 1 ♦ 1 ♦♦ ---- City of Renton City Limits Source: EA, Google Maps, 2016 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. Inc., PBC ::: CONE I Not to Scale North Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map 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 1.4 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 HIS 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 1-5 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'13% 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 1-6 Environmental Consistency Analysis Table 1-1 COMPARISON OF 2010 — 2015 SEPA REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS - 2016 Enhanced Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Alternative Commercial Uses (Office, 275,600 sq. ft. 30,600 sq, ft. 30,600 sq. ft. 42,190 sq. ft. Retail and Restaurant) (245,000 sq. ft. (21,600 sq. ft. retail (21,600 sq. ft. retail (33,190 sq, ft. retail office, 21,600 sq. and 9,000 sq. ft. and 9,000 sq, ft. and 9,000 sq. ft. ft. retail, 9,000 sq, restaurant) restaurant) restaurant) ft. restaurant) Residential Units 800 units 708 units 692 units 692 units Maximum Building 77 ft. 67 ft. 64 ft. 64 ft. Height Number of Buildinp 9 9 10 10 Residential Building Area 94,600 — 209,000 77,000—112,800 46,200 — 88,000 sq. 62,400—101,975 sq. sq. ft. sq. ft. ft. ft. Open Space & Related 11.7 acres' 11.8 acres' 10.6 acres' 12.9 acres' Areas' Parking 2,171 spaces 1,364 s aces 1,337 spaces 1,352 spaces Shoreline Setback soft. min. 50 ft. min. 100 ft. min. 100 ft. min. Building Setbacks from North: 38 ft. min.2 North: 38 ft. min.2 North: 38 ft. mina North: 42 ft.? Adjacent Property Lines' South: 37 ft. min.Z South: 42 ft. mina South: 42 ft. mina South: 47 ft. View Corridors View corridors View corridors Larger view Larger view corridors along Street W along Street'B' and corridors along along Street `B' and and along along Street'B' and along along driveways/parking driveways/parking driveways/parking driveways/parking areas at N. and S. areas at N. and S. areas at N. and S. areas at N. and S. ends of site ends of site ends of site 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 53,000-133,000 53,000—133,000 53,000 - 133,000 CY CY fill CY fill CY fill fill Utilities Sewer and water Sewer and water Sewer and water Sewer and water from City; from City; from City; from City; stormwater mgmt. stormwater mgmt. stormwater mgmt. stormwater mgmt. per applicable per applicable per applicable per applicable regulations regulations regulations regulations Fire Lane/Trail/ Shoreline trail Shoreline trail 20-ft. wide fire 20-ft. wide enhanced Pedestrian Promenade inside 50-ft. inside 50-ft. lane/trail inside fire & utility access shoreline setback shoreline setback 100-ft. shoreline lane outside 100-ft. setback shoreline setback & a shoreline trail inside the 100-ft. shoreline setback3. Source: Quendall Terminals SEPA Review, 2010 - 2015 and Lance Mueller & Associates, 2016. ' 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. 2Setbacks are measured from the property line to the nearest proposed structure. 3The shoreline trail would require approval as part of EPA's anticipated ROD forthe remediation project or any NR❑ Settlement. Quendall Terminals 1-7 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 Floors') Enhanced Alternative (Total # of Floors) SW 1 6 6 5W 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 L 5 6 NE 1 6 6 NE 2 5 6 Source. Lance Mueller & Associates, 2016. 'Includes parking level. Quendall Terminals 1-8 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 'N- 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 1-9 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 Alternative'. 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'13' 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 Analvsis. QuendaA Terminals 1-10 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. Quendal! Terminals 1-11 Environmental Consistency Analysis Chapter 2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE CHAPTER 2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES A 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 2-1 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 1-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Improvements (1-405 Improvements); and 2. Without 1-405 Improvements. 2010 DEIS The DEIS indicated that there are existing capacity and queuing issues on certain roadways in the site vicinity. For example, the 1-405 /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 1-405 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 (1-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street; • 1-405 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 1-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation; these queues would block key access intersections. Under DEIS Alternative 1 without 1-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation, the site access at Ripley Lane N would operate at LOS F. Quendall Terminals 2-2 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 1-405 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 1-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, three intersections would operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative: a Lake Washington Boulevard (1-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street; a 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street; and, a Ripley Lane/NE 441h Street An updated queuing analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum. Under the Preferred Alternative at build -out without 1-405 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 1-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation, the southbound approach to the Ripley Lane/N 441h 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 2-3 Environmental Consistency Analysis on: the Park Avenue corridor and 1-405 Exit 5 (N 301h Street) interchange, 2017 build -out year, 2014 North Renton Traffic Study and updated trip generation to the 91h edition of the ITE Manual. The EIS Addendum and FEIS concluded that with or without the 1-405 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 441h Street/1-405 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 2-4 Environmental Consistency Analysis 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44'h Street Operation The DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS identified the 1-405 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 1-405 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 1-405 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 1-405 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 1-405 improvements, the southbound queue would be reduced to approximately 200 feet. Under the Enhanced Alternative with proposed mitigation, with or with or without the 1-405 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 HIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the 1-405 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 2-5 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 Miil) 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.) 12 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 2-6 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 1-405) 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 '13% 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 2-7 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 1-405) 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. 20'10 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 2-8 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 2-9 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 V 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 2-10 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 HIS 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 2-11 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 5-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 HIS 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 HIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Quendal! Terminals 2-12 Environmental Consistency Analysis APPENDICES TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE IWTENW Transportation Engineering NorshWest MEMORANDUM DATE: February 8, 2017 TO: Gretchen Brunner, Senior Planner EA Engineering FROM: Michael I Read, PE, Principal TEN W 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, 9h Edition, 2012. • Preparation an updated parking code analysis and parking demand analysis (if warrantedl 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/1-405 to confirm the transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original DS 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, O Fdilion, 2012. As noted above, a small increase in retail (approximately 12,965 square-feetl is now proposed as part of the Enhanced Alternative which includes: ➢ 692 apartment units Ino 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 Transportation Planning I Design I traffic impact g Operations PO Box 65254, Seattle, WA 98155 1 Office (206) 361-7333 Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency lysis Consistent wifh the original Quendall Terminals DEIS, Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum, and Quendall Terminals FbS, 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 Generalion Handbook, 2nd Edition, ITE, were utilized. Average trip rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 8201, and High - Turnover IS -it -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 1107 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 I Size 2 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Doily Trip Generation Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605 i0% 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 1 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 l . Trp roles based w ITE Trp 96 Edllion, 2012. 2. QU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Areo, and GILA is Gross Leasable Area. 3. Internal and pass by determined based upon documented average rules Irom ITE Tap Genevlun Handbook, June 2004, %O T E N W page 2 February 8, 2017 Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency lysis Parking Analysis — Enhanced Alternative Table 2 summarizes minimum off-street parking requirements based on City of Renton Municipal Code for the proposed mix cf 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 Parkin Code lie uirements Land Use 777 Size Code Rate Required Off -Street Parkin stalls Enhanced Alternative Retail 30,190 sf 4.0 stal15/1,000 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 - Dwelling unit. sf - squore- 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 applicant's mitigation along Lake Washinton Boulevard and at the NE 44tt' 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 1-405 southbound ramp of NE 44th Street was evaluated for level of service operations to confirm the transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original ES for Quendall Terminals is consistent under the Enhanced Alternative. Although in aggregate there is TE N W page 3 February 8, 2017 Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency r ,lysis 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 441h Street and i-405 Interchange system, the intersection that includes the southbound on/off-romps 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 FFIS (May 2015I, updated vehicle queuing was evaluated under the Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative at buildout without 1-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive southbound queues of opproximately 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 1-405 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 1-405 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 1-405 (see vehicle queuing results in Attachment Q. 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 441h Street and Southbound 1-405 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 T E N W page 4 February 8, 2017 Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency lysis 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 HIS 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. %' T E N W page 5 February 8, 2017 ATTACHMENT A Enhanced Alternative Detailed Trip Generation Estimates T TENW Quendall- iinals EIS Trip Generation Summary Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016 Quendall Termials - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Summary Net New Trips Generated 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 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 Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative Daily Trip Generation Land Use Area Units' ITE LUC 2 Directional Split Trip Rate In Out Total In Tri s Generated 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 a 34 % -160 -161 -321 Subtotal = 312 310 622 Apartment 692 Units 220 50% 50% 7.32 2,532 2,533 5,065 Intemal Trips 3 -141 -115 -256 Subtotal = 2,391 2,418 4,809 Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 50% 50% 127.15 572 572 1,144 internal Trips 4 -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: 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. 11/2912016 Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xis Daily TGEN Quendall Terminals Trip Generation Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016 Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative AM Peak Trip Generation AM Peak Hour Trip Generation ITE Directional Split Trip Rate Trips Generated 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 -14 Subtotal = 71 303 3T4 Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 55% 45% 10.81 53 44 97 Internal Trips 3 -8 -9 -17 Pass -by' 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. 1112912016 Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.x1s AM TGEN Quendall Terminals Trip Generation Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016 Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative PM Peak Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use Area Units ITE Directional Split Trip Rate LUC 2 In Out Total In Trips Generated Out Total Proposed Uses Retail 33,190 GLA 820 48% 52% 3.71 59 64 123 Intemal 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: GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Grass 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. Average pass -by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition, 2004. 11129/2016 Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xis PM TGEN Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation - Comparison with DINS Alternative 1 Land Use ITE Land Use Code 1 Sizes A.M. Peak mmP.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 3 l90 sf GLA 20 13 33 59 63 123 1 1,417 Restaurant 932 1 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 1 328 435 1 346 199 545 1 5,829 2012 DEIS Alternative I 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 Trip rates based an ITE Trip Gene lio Manual, 9' Edilion, 2012. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Goss Floor Areo, and GLA is Gross Leasoble Area. internal and pass by determined bused upon documented average rotes from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004. QW& TENW ATTACHMENT B King County Right Size Parking Model Results T TENW Parking/Unit Ratio (Number of Stalls) tt r— 1.5 stas s Pafxrng r r!l6=n9 5 741h Tr,gr 3lu1° -Nl r,.ry lECI rS EI li 4rtl; :[!„�� e.Esd�E'i 0LU In, i.: .%.-. iI- (Or -fl 3r';.1 G3rF'll'l y; :;C«Wrr'hiin.'n; rr,-a eDr-z 9fll tG? 4=-13 up t.iI, - FPr whirr: all psi Ikm."l use rml)1 arrSPe nm1c,%Ih� r-! 1 3L+PS8-,c gri in, wi .ar; •rsl,-i :-1 ..!.,:F- .r,. °j r NUMBER AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL OF UNITS RENT ISI AREA (SO FT) �. : TUDIi75 02 S975 550 SE 761h Si SE 6 h 9c?A0OL15 31D0 S1.150 750 = a � s ssn S1.450 950 o y �• iiE�R�D115 10 S1.575 1200 � P w m 77lh ro -C-AL 692 $1,300 U7,100 3i ,a 3 a 4 � wa � ti )IUMSEROF AFF0123ARE UNITS: MONTHLY PRICE PER STALL- 15} 441hsy 20 $50 Kai NE 03rd PI SE Oth w z w � 4 How can unbundled (priced) parking inftuance parkinglunil ratios? b q L j M A N AVO. M0I0THLY S p m` SE 83rd ADJUSTED CO STTO RESUirrJUG PRICE OF PARKING PER AVERAGE RESIDENT PARKIIrG �C 4 Z TTI STALL RE111 trenL.psrymgl RATIO - y � .da i Mob d.0 l3e16 T3o-naW TKm� of Lbe � RloM s moo �r r`-,: L ATTACHMENT C LQS and Queuing Analysis with Buildout of Enhanced Alternative NE 44th Street/ Southbound 1-405 Ramps V TENW HCM Signalized Interse In Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off -ramp 2/8/2017 � �*- k_ 4\ t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r V1 t 4 r 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 Fit 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 0 _ 0 0 0 140 10 370 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 0 0 0 0 152 11 402 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1095 21 560 273 0 0 0 0 0 163 44 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 e Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals - EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RT40Mr®EffifrZe0dw1mitigation Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 Queues 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 2/8/2017 'A __41. *-- 4 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 766 293 370 5 355 13 vlc 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 ';A 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc 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. Quendall Terminals - EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTSi AMrBdhReofi mitigation Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 tral ispo MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2017 TG: 09041.01 To: Campbell Mathewson — CenturyPacific From: Kevin Jones, P.E., PTQE 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 left4um 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 1 Street E 2. Street A 1 Street B 3. Street A I N 43rd Street I Street D The Street A 1 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. 11730 118th Avenue N.E., Suite 600, Kirkland, WA 98034 1 425.821.3665 1 transpo care r _ 1 1 r E 1 'le�,a�d ``• 3 1 y � • � !J N ! i �� s• . . - - � �E�ra�°P Legend Swdy IF:EM,BCil011 Figure 9: 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 Memorandum'. Table 1 below summarizes the Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation. 1 Quendalf Terminals EIS-- Consistency Analysis, Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 12, 2017. 1 2 Table 1. Weekday Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trios Land Use' 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 Tripsz -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176 Less Pass -by Tripsz -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. 3 1. �so-eet -0 1 Street E8 0 t26j 74 = - ' Stred el A StreA 5 16;19 E r , {65}4C� �I 3' �.. street A f=, t QStreel d r$ Legend {010 0 (70)45 f . S X Weekday PM Peak +_Lr Traffic Vo umes r . { [Xi P OWeekday AM Traffic L'o'�une5 kddk HTflea u } i25} 75 Study lnlersectior '_` I,99,1Ole124 +t51 �110 a . Profect TT.p D:slrvbu6on 010 15 i Figure 2: Vehicle Trip Distribution and Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection Operations The need for a left-tum 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, 4 Table 2. Weekday Peak Hour Level of Service and Queuing Summary All -Way Stop -Controlled Side -Street Stop -Controlled Stopped Intersection LOS' Delay2 WM3 Approaches' LOS Delay WM Queues Weekday AAf Peak Hour Street A / Street E A 7.3 EB NB A 8.7 NB Street A I street B A 7.0 NB EB A 8.13 ES Street A I Street D A 8.3 EB NB I SB B 11.8 SIB Weekday PM Peak Hour Street A / Street E A 7.4 EB NB A 8.6 NB Street A i Street B A 7.3 NB EB A 8.9 EB Street A I Street D A 9.2 we NB I SB B 13A SB 1 Note: EB = Eastbound, WS = 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-parcentile 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 oDerations 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 left4um 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. fA APPENDIX B Comparison of Impacts Under the EIS Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Altemative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative EARTH Impacts • A minimal amount of clearing • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. + Same as Alternative 1. and grading (approximately 53,000 — 133,000 CY of fill), primarily in the upland portion of the Main Property would be required for redevelopment. • Grading activities could impact • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. • Site disturbance during • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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 Appendix 8 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 LEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative sedimentation control plan (TESCP) required by the City. • A deep building foundation + Same as Alternative 1. . Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. • Differential settlement could + Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. + Same as Alternative 1. 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. • With redevelopment, the + Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. amount of impervious surface Appendix B Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Altematives & Enhanced Alternative APPENDIX C GHG EMISSIONS WORKSHEET FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative Section I: Buildings Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet (MTCO2e) Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) # Units Square Feet (in thousands of square feet) Embodied Energy Transportation L.ifespan 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 ................... ........................ -.; _:..::;: _:;.k; =.b::. 0.0 39 .541 282 D Food Service ................. 9-0 39 1,994 561 23344 Health Care Inpatient .................... =r 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 .................................................... .. f' ,.,;:: 0-0 39 723 588 0 Public Assembly ................................... .... =; _; _ :..,_; 0.0 39 733 150 0 Public Order and Safe .., '`' {Y °'`: `; ' =' "; OA 39 899 374 0 Religious Worship.............................. 3�,: �� ' 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 .......................................... I.,..... ;' .. ::.. 0.0 39 162 47 0 Section ll: Pavement ........................... Pavement .......................... :OAO -:_> _t,.� �x 0 c t :; ru Total Project Emissions: Version 1.7 12/26/07 851720 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 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 • Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. • Groundwater could be Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. encountered during construction activities. Significant impacts would not be expected with dewatering and other construction techniques. Appendix B Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 4 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative • With redevelopment, • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There would be a risk of ground • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. Appendix B Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives 6 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 + Same as Alternative 1. + Similar to Alternative 1; + Same as Alternative 1; be capped with soil during site however, a 100-ft. minimum however, a 100-ft. minimum cleanup/remediation, resulting shoreline setback would be shoreline setback would be in the fill of all existing wetlands maintained. maintained. 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. • Proposed construction and • Same as Alternative 1. + Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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 Appendix B Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative stormwater control system, as required by the City. • With proposed redevelopment, • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1, • Same as Alternative 1. no direct impacts would occur to the retained/expanded wetlands on the Isolated Property or the re- established/expanded wetlands on the Main Property. • With proposed redevelopment, • Same as Alternative 1. • No reduction of the Wetland D • No reduction of the Wetland D a portion of the buffer on buffer would occur with the buffer would occur with the Wetland D would be reduced to 100-ft. minimum shoreline 100-ft. minimum shoreline 25 feet; other portions of the setback area that would be setback area that would be buffer would be expanded to maintained. maintained. provide compensatory areas, as allowed by the buffer averaging provisions of the City of Renton Municipal Code. • Proposed buildings would be Same as Alternative 1. + Proposed buildings would be Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 50 feet setback a minimum of 100 feet setback a minimum of 100 feet from the shoreline, as required from the shoreline. from the shoreline. by the 1993 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. • Three stormwater outfalls • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. would be constructed within the shoreline areas. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and would Appendix B Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 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, • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. the shoreline setback area However, the publically However, a publically would largely remain intact. A accessible pedestrian facilities accessible pedestrian facilities publically accessible trail with would be location within the would be located within the interpretive viewpoints would 100-ft. minimum shoreline 100-ft. minimum shoreline be located within the 50-ft. setback area, if approved as setback area, if approved as minimum shoreline setback, if part of EPA's anticipated ROD part of EPA's anticipated ROD approved as part of EPA's for the remediation project or for the remediation project or anticipated ROD for the any NRD settlement. any NRD settlement. 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. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. unavoidable impacts to critical areas that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures Appendix 8 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Altemative identified in the 201S FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Impacts • The entire Main Property would • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. • The installation of deep • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. • Volatile contaminants in the • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. subsurface could generate vapors that could intrude into Appendix B Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 20151=EIS 2015 Alternative 1 Altemative 2 Preferred Alternative 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 • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. r Same as Alternative 1. unavoidable impacts to environmental health that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. ENERGY —GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impacts • Proposed redevelopment would • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; result in an increase in however, GHG emissions would however, GHG emissions would however, GHG emissions Greenhouse Gas (GHG) be less due to less building be less due to less building would be less due to less emissions relative to existing density and site population. density and site population. building density and site conditions due to the increase in Development would result in an Development would result in an population. Development building density and site estimated 860,434.8 MTCO2e in estimated 841,938.8 MTCO2e in would result in an estimated population. Development lifespan GHG emissions. lifespan GHG emissions. 851,720.0 MTCO2e in lifespan Appendix 8 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative would result in an estimated GHG emissions (see Appendix 1,297,536.8 MTCO2e in lifespan C for calculations of these GHG emissions. emissions). • New development would use + Similar to Alternative 1; + Similar to Alternative 1; Similar to Alternative 1; energy in the form of electricity however, energy usage would be however, energy usage would however, energy usage would for heating, cooling, lighting and lower due to less overall be lower due to less overall be lower due to less overall other energy demands, and development on the site. development on the site. development on the site. natural gas for heating and cooking. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts + There are no significant • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. unavoidable energy or GHG emissions impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. LAND AND SHORELINE USE Impacts • Under the proposal, the site • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. would be subdivided into seven lots, four of which would contain mixed -use development, and three of which would contain the shoreline area. Appendix B 10 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative • Redevelopment would occur in • Redevelopment would occur in * Redevelopment would occur in • Redevelopment would occur nine buildings on the Main nine buildings on the Main ten buildings on the Main in ten buildings on the Main Property, and would include: Property, and would include: Property, and would include: Property, and would include: — 800 residential units — 708 residential units — 692 residential units — 692 residential units — Approx. 245,000 sq. ft. — No offices uses — No offices uses — No offices uses of offices uses — Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of — Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. — Approx. 33,190 sq. ft. — Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses of retail uses of retail uses retail uses — Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of — Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of — Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. — Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses restaurant uses of restaurant uses restaurant uses No development would occur on No development would occur No development would occur on No development would occur on the Isolated Property. on the Isolated Property. the Isolated Property. the Isolated Property. • Site preparation and • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. 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. • Redevelopment would convert • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. the site from its current vacant, partially vegetated state to a mixed -use development, and Appendix 8 11 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative would restore a Superfund site to a productive use. + Redevelopment would result in + Similar to Alternative 1; + Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; increased activity levels onsite however, activity levels onsite however, activity levels onsite however, activity levels onsite (i.e., noise, traffic, etc.). In and their associated potential to and their associated potential and their associated potential general, these activity levels impact adjacent land uses would to impact adjacent land uses to impact adjacent land uses would be greater than the be less due to less overall would be less due to less would be less due to less adjacent residential uses to the development onsite. overall development onsite. overall development onsite. 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 1-405). Activity levels would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and no significant impacts are expected. • Proposed buildings onsite would • Proposed buildings onsite would + Proposed buildings onsite • Proposed buildings onsite be up to 80 feet high and be up to 67 feet high and would be up to 64 feet high would be up to 64 feet in high residential building area from residential building area from and residential building area and from residential building approximately 94,600 to approximately 77,000 to from approximately 46,200 to area from approximately 209,000 sq. ft. in size. The 112,800 sq. ft. in size. The 88,000 sq. ft. in size. The 62,400 to 101,973 sq. ft. in proposed height and bulk would proposed height and bulk would proposed height and bulk size. The proposed height and be consistent with the type and be consistent with the type and would be consistent with the bulk would be consistent with size of development size of development type and size of development the type and size of contemplated in the COR land contemplated in the COR land contemplated in the COR land development contemplated in Appendix 8 12 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative use/zoning classification and the use/zoning classification and the use/zoning classification and the COR land use/zoning Urban shoreline environment. Urban shoreline environment. the Urban shoreline classification and the Urban environment. shoreline environment. • Proposed buildings would be • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; greater in height and bulk than however building height and however building height and however, building height and the adjacent residential bulk would be less. bulk would be less. bulk would be less. Three buildings to the south; however, buildings (buildings NW 2, SE 2 they would generally be similar and NE 2) would be one-story to the surrounding existing taller than under the commercial and planned hotel Preferred Alternative. 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. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. unavoidable adverse land use Appendix B 13 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 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 • Same as Alternative 1. . Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. The generally be consistent with City and the Applicant are in applicable plans, policies and the process of preparing a regulations. However, it is Development Agreement that unclear at this time whether would enhance the project proposed redevelopment would design by providing additional be consistent with all of the COR open space, street activation land use/zoning classification (fountains, artwork, etc.) and goals and requirements, opportunity for a possible particularly regarding the design future public dock or pier (this of the project. Possible dock is not proposed at this mitigation measures could be time and would be subject to implemented to enhance the future SEPA environmental design of the project and review and consent from EPA). achieve consistency with these goals and requirements. AESTHETICS/VIEWS Impacts + Proposed redevelopment would • Same as Alternative 1. . Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. change the aesthetic character of the site from a partially Appendix 8 14 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 ©EIS 2010 ©EIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative vegetated area to a new mixed - use development. • Proposed buildings would be • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; + Similar to Alternative 1; greater in height and bulk than however, proposed development however, proposed however, proposed the adjacent Barbee Mill height and bulk would be less. development height and bulk development height and bulk development to the south and would be less. would be less, Three buildings would be generally similar in (NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would height and bulk to the Seahawks be one-story taller than under Headquarters and Training the Preferred Alternative. Facility to the north. • Views toward the site would + Similar to Alternative 1; however • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; change substantially to reflect a proposed buildings would be a however, proposed buildings however, proposed buildings maximum seven -story mixed- maximum of six stories. would be a maximum of six would be a maximum of six use development. Architectural stories, and in the southwestern stories, and in the features and landscaping would portion of the site building SW 4 southwestern portion of the be provided to enhance the would be four -stories high. site building SW 4 would be project's visual appeal. Possible four -stories high. mitigation measure could be implemented to further enhance the aesthetic character of the development and maintain views of the lake. • View corridors are proposed • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternatives 1; • Similar to Alternatives 1; along the main east/west public however, view corridors along however, view corridors along roadway (Street'B') and along Street'B', private driveways and Street'B', private driveways the private driveways at the along the southern boundary of and along the southern north and south ends of the site the site would be widened. boundary of the site would be to provide views across the site widened. towards Lake Washington. Appendix 8 15 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Altemative 2 Preferred Altemative 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 • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except add new sources of light and that lighting and noise levels and that lighting and noise levels that lighting and noise levels glare, and would produce shadows would be lower due to and shadows would be lower and shadows would be lower shadows at the site. New light less overall development. due to less overall due to less overall sources would be similar to development. development. 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. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts * There are no significant • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. unavoidable adverse land use impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 Appendix B 16 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 1=EIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative HIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. PARKS AND RECREATION Impacts • Approximately 11.7 acres of + Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except open space and related areas that slightly more open space that slightly less open space and that more open space and would be provided onsite, and related areas would be related areas would be related areas would be including: paved plazas, natural provided onsite (11.8 acres). provided onsite (10.6 acres). provided onsite (12.9 acres) areas, landscaped areas, and would include a new 1.3- unpaved trails and sidewalks. acre park in the southwestern These areas may or may not portion of the site. 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). • Increases in the on -site Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except Similar to Alternative 1, except residential population, as well as that there would be slightly that there would be fewer that there would be fewer on -site employees would fewer residents on the site and residents on the site and fewer residents on the site and fewer increase demands on fewer employees; demands on employees; demands on employees; demands on neighborhood and regional neighborhood and regional neighborhood and regional neighborhood and regional parks, open space, trails and parks, opens space, trails and parks, opens space, trails and parks, opens space, trails and recreation facilities, including recreation facilities would be recreation facilities would be recreation facilities would be parks that are already at or reduced accordingly. reduced accordingly. reduced accordingly. exceeding capacity on warm days. The proposal would Appendix B 17 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 i=EIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative contribute to these capacity A new 1.3-acre park would be issues. Additional parks and included in the southwestern recreational facilities could be portion of the site that would needed in the City, based on the provide additional increased on -site population. parks/recreation area. Certain on -site facilities (i.e., the A publically-accessible 12-ft. shoreline trail) would provide wide enhanced fire and utility opportunities for passive access lane would be provided recreation. Areas for active outside the 100-ft. minimum recreation could be provided shoreline setback. This access onsite as well. Parks impact fees lane would connect to the would be paid to help offset the properties to the north and impacts of the project on City south of the site via 6-ft. wide parks and recreational facilities. 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 • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. unavoidable adverse parks and recreation impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. Appendix 8 18 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative TRANSPORTATION Impacts • The proposed redevelopment • Proposed redevelopment would • Proposed redevelopment would • Proposed redevelopment would generate approximately generate approximately 5,800 generate approximately 5,656 would generate approximately 9,000 daily vehicular trips at full daily vehicular trips at full daily vehicular trips at full 5,829 daily vehicular trips at buildout, including buildout, including buildout, including full buildout, including approximately 865 AM peak approximately 445 AM peak approximately 435 AM peak approximately 435 AM peak hour trips and 950 PM peak hour trips and 540 PM peak hour hour trips and 530 PM peak hour trips and 545 PM peak hour trips. trips. hour trips. hour trips. • With proposed redevelopment, • Similar to Alternative 1. • With proposed redevelopment, • Similar to the Preferred and without WSDOT 1-405 and without WSDOT 1-405 Alternative. improvements or project improvements or project mitigation, four intersections mitigation, three intersections would operate at LOS E/F: would operate at LOS E/F: - Lake Washington Blvd. (1-405 - Lake Washington Blvd. (I - NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.; 405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.; - 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.; - 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.; - Ripley Lane/Lake Washington and Blvd.; and - Ripley Lane/NE 44th St. - Lake Washington Blvd. (Garden Ave.) at Park View Ave. N. • Without 1-405 Improvements or • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to the Preferred project mitigation, excessive however, without 1-405 Alternative. southbound queues (between Improvements or project 700-800 ft.) would be mitigation southbound queues anticipated at the Lake (between 800-900 ft.) would be Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane N anticipated at the Lake intersection. Appendix B 19 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane N intersection. • Without 1-405 Improvements or • Similar to Alternative 1. . Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. project mitigation, the site access at Ripley Lane N is anticipated to operate at LOS F. • Given the site location, it is • Similar to Alternative 1 • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. 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. • Increases in population onsite • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. would result in associated However, a publically However, a publically increased need for non- accessible trail would be accessible enhanced fire and motorized facilities. Curbs, located within the 100-ft. utility access lane would be gutters and sidewalks would be minimum shoreline setback, if located outside the 100-ft. provided onsite, as well as along approved as part of EPA's minimum shoreline setback Lake Washington Boulevard and anticipated ROD for the and would connect to the Ripley Lane N. A publically remediation project or any NRD properties to the north and accessible trail is also proposed settlement. south via trails. In addition, a within the 50-ft. minimum soft surface trail would be shoreline setback, if approved as provided within the 100-ft. part of EPA's anticipated ROD minimum shoreline setback for the remediation project or area, if approved as part of any NRD settlement. EPA's anticipated ROD for the Appendix B 20 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 Alternative 1 Altemative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative remediation project or any NRD settlement. • 2,153 parking spaces would be • 1,362 parking spaces would be • 1,337 parking spaces would be + 1,352 parking spaces would be provided and would meet provided and would meet provided and would meet provided and provide applicable City of Renton applicable City of Renton applicable City of Renton adequate parking supply. parking standards. parking standards. parking standards. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • With or without the 1-405 • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. 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. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts • Cultural resource impacts were * Cultural resource impacts were • Certain construction activities • Same as the Preferred not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. onsite (i.e., clearing and grading Alternative. However, impacts are expected However, impacts are expected of the upland area, construction to be similar to under the to be similar to under the of deep building foundations, Preferred Alternative. Preferred Alternative. and excavation of utilities) could require excavation into 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 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 • Same as Alternative 1. • There are no significant • Same as the Preferred not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. unavoidable adverse cultural Alternative. However, similar to under the resource impacts that cannot be Preferred Alternative, no mitigated with the mitigation significant unavoidable adverse measures identified in the 2015 cultural resource impacts are FEIS and 2015 Mitigation expected that cannot be Document. mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. Appendix 8 22 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives 8 Enhanced Alternative When Recorded, Return to: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Abbreviated Legal Description: To BE INSERTED Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A) Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR ❑ NOT YET ASSIGNED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 r 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 past-remediation site conditions and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any subsequent land use actions. D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the "Initial Project Applications"). E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"), the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10, 2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151 and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative (the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation Document were issued on August 31, 2015. F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures. G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq. ("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project, as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended permit duration. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2 I it 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 4-8-074(1). J. The City's Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together constitute the "Project -level SEPA Review." K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on .2017. L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: AGREEMENTS 1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS. Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date. Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as approved by the Hearing Examiner. Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting Date. Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications under LUA09-151. RMC means the Renton Municipal Code. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3 The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete. 2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT. 2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision. 3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the Project Elements which includes the following: 3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-O70(J). 3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk; 3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet of the project site; 3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction ("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits. The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4 work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to take Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan. 3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions, and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such unmitigated Project impacts. 3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking. 3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted. 3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5 components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing: 3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots. Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151. 3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi -private open space. 3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to sequenced remediation. 3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any extensions under Section 4. 4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value ((excluding any City -owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA Transportation Update, upon Developer's request 30 days in advance of the sunset date, for one additional five-year period of time. S. VESTING. 5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to City of Renton ordnance number 5523. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6 5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any 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 7 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 Droft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Davis Wright Tremaine Attn: Lynn Manolopolous 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149 Cable Huston LLP Attn: James E. Benedict 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 T. Ryan Durkan Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98101 6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington. 6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. 6.9.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement, the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute. 6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that, in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action. 6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or an arbitrator equally. Draft QUendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10 Denis Law Mayor IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below. DATED this day of , 2017 Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS By: Altino Properties, Inc. Its:Authorized Representative By: Robert Cugini Its: Vice President Date: CITY OF RENTON By: Date: ATTEST: By: Jason A. Seth City Clerk Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF } ss: COUNTY OF } On this day of _ , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of , County of _ J personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development agreement Page 12 STATE OF ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — Legal Description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-CF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY L:NE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29"44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56028'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59°24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59024'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER I AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BELL, PLe NO. 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 11/11/16 BUSH, ROED S HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATT'LE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 Page 15 A N 300 0 150 800 ( IN FTE,T ) 1 inch = 300 ft _ 1-LZ 2016 Exhibit A-1 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. ! / N66'12'12"W TAX ACCT. NO. —107.51 TAX ACCT. N0. 292405-9012-01 292405900203 / s0• / 7 UE POINT BEGINN ram' BEGINNING ; OF , /• .'+� TAX ACCT. NO. SBy�'g�292405-9001-04�� ,60• 11 alp 3923. 100.01' a0• " TAX ACCT. NO. POINT 292405-9002-03 �� /�V,q _! cv 9b44V / �� 0� GOV T LOT 5 i r o�C? ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK ELEVATION < 'N30�6l16"E S 90.80 N3b•56'1 VIE W 1 4 `184.30' SECTION 29, DEEDED PER AFN T24N,45E 20080619001179 �OZ1172- N88'48'56"W 1016.36' _... R=1500.00 \ L=57.25 � 11 A. _ � _Lj_j _L L�OL.T2a46, PGS.E25M139, DF wi ( REC. NO. 20080208000182 tiha �ry� LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 10 r � 100, (SE 80TH ST S CORNER VAC IN44TH ST ' OFSEC. 29 /r609pa REC. f 7602260427, '00' 4 * 1,113.05' 149.74' — 963.3 ,.32.50 ' VAC N 44T ST 28•4GOV'T LOT 1 18.1010, BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 BFMSEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11 /11 /16 98102-3513 JOB NO.:2009050.03 Page 16 work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan. 3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions, and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such unmitigated Project impacts. 3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking. 3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted. 3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure _ Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement _ Page 5 components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing: 3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots. Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151. 3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi -private open space. 3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to sequenced remediation. 3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any extensions under Section 4. 4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value ((excluding any City -owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA Transportation Update, upon Developers 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 6 5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement. 5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.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 7 6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.7013.190, 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.D. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 and to J.H. Baxter & Co. Attn: Georgia Baxter P.O. Box 5902 San Mateo, CA 94402-0902 With a copy to: Campbell Mathewson CenturyPacific, LLLP Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Davis Wright Tremaine Attn: Lynn Manolopolous 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149 Cable Huston LLP Attn: James E. Benedict 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 T. Ryan Durkan Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98101 6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington. 6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.8 Dispute Resolution. 6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement, the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute. 6.8.2 If the Parties are notable to resolve their dispute through mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration. The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF ) ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of , County of , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12 STATE OF ss: COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Notary (print): My appointment expires: Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — Legal Description of Property Exhibit A-1-Map Draft Quendall Terminals Development agreement Page 14 Exhibit A SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89058'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 29044'54" EAST 649.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29044'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56028'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59024'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59024'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. 11/11/2016 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546 BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03 11/11/16 BUSH, ROED & HITCHING$, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4I44 Page 15 v 300 0 150 300 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 300 !L ,1�11 2016 Exhibit A-1 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. I , TAX ACCT. NO. 107.51 / 292405-9012-01 TAX ACCT. N0. 6 / 292405900203 O• TRUE POINT 1 / OF BEGINNING �Q' /• Ev / TAX ACCT. NO. ^� `s8y� 292405-9001-04/•��,,, 60, 100.01, TAX ACCT. NO. POINTI A J AD 292405-9002-03 J 0^J /HS 2 i ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARV r ELEVATION < 8 �N30'fi'1fi"E 90.0' � SW 1 4 N3�'56'i 6"E 't84.30' SECTION 29, DEEDED PER AFN 20080619001179 T24N,45E 6=021ll2— N88'48'56`W 1016.36' R-1500.00 L=57.25 . ' ' ' ' ' 'PLAT OF BARBEE MILL jN A. ► _ 1 OL. 246, PGS. 25-39, Ll p ( — EC. NO. 20080208000182 eV= LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON v o' l 4v °% �' p G0V`T LOT 5 �� ,y ? / 10 v (SE 80TH ST) ' CORNER 9 / /S9b , REC. 760 604271 00 !If_ '_ 1.113.05 149.74' 9 32.50' " VAC N 44T ST t 18 0 4 E GOV' T LOT 1 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 B SEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11/11/16 98102-3513 JOB NO.:2009050.03 Page 16 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY T citvos `yam AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APR] L 18, 2017 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL 1055 S GRADY WAY, RENTON, WA 98057 THE APPLICATION(S) LISTED ARE IN ORDER OF APPLICATION NUMBER ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WILL BE HEARD. ITEMS WILL BE CALLED FOR HEARING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed -use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements. 2/15/10 - ERC issued Determination of Significance. Comment period ends March 5, 2010. 12/10/10 - Issued Draft EIS. Comment period ends January 10, 2011. 1/5/11- Comment period extended to January 25, 2011. 1/21/11- Comment period extended to February 9, 2011 2/14/11- Scheduled for ERC DEIS comment discussion. H Ex_AGENDA_04.18.2017 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CITY °F ----,,w�Rentun0AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HEARING DATE: April 19, 2016 Project Name: Quendall Terminals Owner., Altino Properties, Inc. and J. H. Baxter & Co., 800 S. Third Street, Renton WA, 98057 Applicant/Contact: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle, WA 98101 File Number: LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM Project Manager. Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Environmental (SEPA) Review for a mixed -use development. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.24-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain multi -story mixed -use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.70 acres for public right-of-way and 0.65 acres of private streets, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 1,366 vehicles. The site contains sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements include remediation of existing contamination and associated wetland and shoreline restoration as approved by the EPA. The subject land use applications are assuming a clean site following an approved and implemented Record of Decision from the EPA. Project Location: SW % Section 29, Township 24 N, Range 5 E. Parcel 2924059002. South of the Seahawks VMAC Training Facility Site Area: 21.24 acreas (upland) Project Location Map HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 45 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Staff report to the Hearing Examiner Exhibit 2: Environmental Review Documents -- Draft EIS, Addendum to the Draft EIS, FEIS and Mitigation Document: http:/Ire ntonwa.goy/_business/default.aspx?id=3Z80fl Exhibit 3: Environmental Review Committee Signature Sheets Exhibit 4 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 5: Binding Site Plan Exhibit 6: Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal and e-mail chains following request. Exhibit 7: Site Plan (black and white and color) Exhibit 8: Parking Plan (black and white and color) Exhibit 9: Area Outline of Spaces Exhibit 10: Elevations Exhibit 11: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 12 Conceptual Storm Drainage and Grading Plan Exhibit 13 Roadway Sections Exhibit 14 Conceptual Utility Plan Exhibit 15: EA Letter addressing EPA and public involvement in the process Exhibit 16: Advisory Notes/Plan Review Comments Exhibit 17. Concurrence Memo Exhibit 18: Additional Lanes Required HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commu & Economic Development ,wring Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 3 of 45 C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Classification: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: S. Critical Areas: Altino Properties, Inc. and J. H. Baxter & Co. 800 S. Third Street Renton WA, 98057 Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Vacant - 5uperfund Site Sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, wetlands, and Lake Washington 6. Neighborhood Characteristics (2016): a. North: Seahawks Training Facility, COR b. East: King County Fast Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) ROW, 1-405, undeveloped COR zoned property c. South: Barbee Mill Development, R-10 zone (in 2009 zoned COR) d. West: Lake Washington 6. Site Area: 21.24 acreas (upland) i D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: I Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan (vested) N/A 5099 11/01/2004 Zoning (vested) N/A 5099 11/01/2004 Annexation N/A 1791 09/09/1995 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities a. Water: Water service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12 inch diameter water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and an 10 inch water main extending into the Quendall Terminals site. b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is a 12 inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel. The Baxter Lift Station is also located in the north east corner of the site, within an existing Sanitary Sewer Easement, Rec. No. 2008090200178. c. Surface/Storm Water: There is an existing 12 inch diameter stormwater line on N 42"d Place that ends near the west property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel. 2. Streets: New streets would be required to be developed to serve the proposed development. Access to these roads would be from N 42"d Place and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of c iunity & Economic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 4 of 45 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (VESTED FEB. 5, 2010}: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations b. Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-230: Binding Site Plans 6. Chapter 9 Permits- Specific a. Section 4-9-190: Shoreline Permits b. Section 4-9-200: Site Development Plan Review 7. Chapter 11 Definitions S. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (VESTED): 1. Community Design Element 2. Economic Development Element 3. Housing Element 4. Land Use Element 5. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space and Trails Element H. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): 1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on November 18, 2009 and determined the application complete on February 10, 2010. The project was subject to an Envirmental Impact Statement (EIS) therefore, per RMC 4-8-050B.6., the project is exempt from the 120 day review process. 2. The November 2009 application did not include a request for a Binding Site Plan. The Binding Site Plan request was included in the February 2010 resubmitali. Binding Site Plan applications allow for vesting persutant to the Washington State Vested Rights Doctrine. Therefore the subject project vested to the regulations in place in 2010 when the Binding Site Plan application was submitted and the project was determined complete. The project has vested up to ORD 5520. All code sections referenced in this staff report are reflective of the vesting date, February 10, 2010. HEX REPORT 09-151. d ocx City of Renton Department of Commu , & Economic Development nearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing pate April 19, 201E Page 5 of 45 3. The project site is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington, north of the Barbee Mill Development and south of the Seahawks (VMAC) Training Facility, parcel number 2924059002. Access is from 1-405 Exit 7. 4. The site includes 20.04 acres on the Main Property, which fronts along Lake Washington, and approximately 1.20 acres on the Isolated Property located across Seahawk's Way to the northeast. 5. The Preferred Alternative re -submitted to the City on January 13, 2016 consists of 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant spread across four Lots (2 — 5). All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The table below provides a breakdown of what is proposed on each lot (see site plan, Exhibit 7, for more details): ot P - Lot 1 100 foot shoreline buffer area abutting Lot 2. First Floor: 5,425 SF Retail, 4,500 SF Restaurant, 95 car parking garage, and 38 stall surface parking lot. Lot 2 (NW) On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (NW 1 and NW 2). NW 1 is 5 floors with 71 units. NW 2 is 4 floors with 56 units. First Floor: 4,700 SF Retail and 206 car parking garage. Lot 3 (NE) On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (NE 1 and NE 2). NE 1 is 5 floors with 82 units. NE 2 is 4 floors with 72 units. First Floor: 4,700 SF Retail, 318 car parking garage, and 42 stall surface parking lot. Lot 4 (SE) On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (SE 1 and SE 2) and a 130 car parking deck. SE 1 is 5 floors with 82 units. SE 2 is 4 floors with 72 units. First Floor: 5,400 SF of Retail, 4,500 SF Restaurant, 347 car parking garage, and 151 stall surface parking lot. Lot 5 (SW) On top of the first floor platform four residential towers are proposed (SW 1, SW 2, SW 3, and SW 4). SW 1 is 5 floors with 71 units. SW 2 is 5 floors with 80 units. SW 3 is 4 floors with 64 units. SW 4 is 3 floors with 42 units. Lot 6 100 foot shoreline buffer area abutting Lot 5. Lot 7 Isolated Parcel. Identified as the Middle Parcel on the binding site plan. 6. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 7. The site received a SuperFund designation from the EPA. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e. Superfund). 8. The EPA's CERCLA process is a separate process then the City's land use review. The project manager at the EPA for the site is Clair Hong, hong.clair@epa.goy. HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of ?unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 6 of 45 9. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15) to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2, for more details on the baseline assumptions). 10. In short the CERCLA remedy is assumed to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site (Main Property), including placement of a soil cap across the entire Main Property and shoreline restoration in a 100 foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished. 11. Access to the site would be provided via to primary access points. The first would be an extension of N 42"d Place to Street A. The second would be a new crossing over the existing rail bed from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to Street E. The overall development would gain access by the construction of three new east west roadways and two new north south road ways, identified as Road A — E. The applicant has proposed to dedicate Road A, B, and C and Roads D and E would be private driveways. 12. The property is located within the Commercial Office Residential (COR) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning classification. 13. The site is located within Design District C. 14. The site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical Areas Map. Due to the baseline assumptions described above under FOF 6-10 it is assumed the only remaining critical area would be seismic hazards following cleanup and wetland and shoreline restoration would be located in the 100 foot shoreline setback. 15. The site is located within Shoreline Jurisdiction, Urban Shoreline designation. 16. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000—133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. 17. The applicant is proposing to begin construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifing a remedy for cleanup. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time. 18. A total of 75 comment leters from both the public and agenecies were received during the comment period on the DEIS, and 8 people commented at the DEIS public hearing held on January 4, 2011. A total of 12 letters were received during the comment period on the EIS Addendum. Please see Exhibit 2, FEIS, Chapter 3 for comment letters and responses. 19. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on February 19, 2010 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance (DS) for the Quendall Terminals Project, which initiated the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process. The following table provides a time line related to the EIS process for the project: date EIS Action, see Exhibits, Zr 3r and 15. 2/19/10 4/30/10 EIS Public Scoping Period, 70 days (extended) 4/27/10 Public Scoping Meeting 12/10/2010 DEIS Issuance 12/10/10 2/09/11 DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended) 1/04/11 DEIS Public Hearing HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commu, . ',Economic Development ITtaring Examiner Recommendation gUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 7 of 45 10/19/12 EIS Addendum Issuance 1/19/12 — 11/19/12 EIS Addendum Public Comment Period 8/31/15 FEIS Issuance 8/31/15 9/24/15 EIS Public Appeal Period 9/24/15 Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back 2/18/16 Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Appellant and Applicant 2/22/16 Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner. Appeal Dismissed. 20. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Mitigation Document on August 31, 2016 which includes 91 mitigation measures for the project, Exhibit 2, Mitigation Document. The mitigation measures address impacts to Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, Energy — Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Cultural Resources, and Construction Impacts. 21. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report, also see Exhibit 16. 22. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of the COR designation is to provide opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multifamily projects developed through a master plan and site plan process incorporating significant site amenities and/or gateway features. COR sites are typically transitions from an industrial use to a more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River. The proposal is compliant with the COR land use designation and the Community Design Element, Economic Development Element, Environmental Element, Housing Element, Land Use Element, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space and Trails Element if all conditions of approval are met. See analysis, Exhibit 2, DEIS Page 3.6-1— 3.6-13. 23. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The site is classified Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the City's Zoning Map. Development in the COR Zone intended to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high -quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: I.Coinpl!4nc6.i��,�l�':"CbRZon Develop Standards and Analysis compliant if Density: The allowed density range in the COR zone is a minimum of 30 to a maximum condition of of 50 dwelling units per net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of approval are sensitive areas, areas intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements. met In the COR zone, the same area used for commercial and office development can also HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of i ?unity & Economic Development QUENUALL TERMINALS Hearing Examiner Recommendation L UA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 8 of 45 be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Staff Comment: Based on the provided site plan 4.35 acres would be located in rights - of -way or private access easements. At this time, the EPA has not issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the remediation project or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement. As such the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or 1 expanded wetlands has not been determined. Once the EPA has issued a ROD and the extent of the wetland has been determined, the area included in sensitive areas could be calculated. Until which time this number is identified the City is unable to determine compliance with density for the project site. However, based on gross land area and 4.35 acres in rights -of -way or access easements the current density would be calculated at 40.95 du/ac which is below the maximum of 50 du/ac. To ensure that the overall site is compliant with the maximum density, staff recommends as a condition of approval that upon the EPA ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire property. ✓ Lot Dimensions: There is no minimum lots size, width or depth in the COR zone. Setbacks: Setback are determined through site plan review in the COR zone. Staff Comment: See the Mitigation Document for setbacks established as mitigation for the subject project. The setbacks identified in the EIS Addendum and Mitigation Document shall be the minimum setback applied to the project, which are as follows: 100 foot setback from the OHWM of Lake Washington - Mitigation Measure 86 40 feet from the site's south boundary (adjacent to Barbee Mill) - Mitigation Measure El 38 feet from the site's north boundary (adjacent to the Seahowk's Training Facility) - Mitigation Measure E1 70 feet from the east boundary as shown on the Preferred Alternative, Site Plan, Exhibit 7. All setbacks should be measured from the underlying parcel boundaries and the OHWM and not from the edge of the proposed lots in the binding site plan. There are no setbacks required from the edges of the individual lots created as a part of the binding site plan except as noted above. Building Standards: The COR zone has a maximum building coverage of 65% of total lot area or 75% if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. compliance The maximum building height is 10 stories and/or 125 ft., unless when a building is to be abutting a lot designated as residential. determined at Site Plan Staff Comment: Lots 2, 4, and 5 are proposed to contain some surface parking stalls Review therefore the building coverage maximum for these lots would be 65%. Specific calculations per lot would be identified at Site Specific Site Plan Review. Based on the calculations provided on the site plan, Exhibit 7, the total impervious area would be HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commu & Economic Development nearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 9 of 45 665,548 SF (15.27 acres) which equates to approximately 72% of the site and the total overall building coverage would be 392,976 SF (9.02 acres) or 42.47% building coverage for the overall project, which would be compliant with building coverage maximums. Based on the proposed Preferred Alternative, it appears Lot 3 may exceed the maximum building coverage per code, as currently designed. However, based on the overall building coverage standards above, if Lot 3 is developed in combination with another lot the two lot coverages could be combined to identify compliance with the overall site coverage. To ensure compliance with building coverage standards staff recommends as a condition of approval that all lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined through site plan review. Building Height was reviewed through the EIS process and the building height shall comply with Mitigation Measure E4, F9, and F11 also as shown on Exhibit 7. Upper Story Setbacks: Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50') in height shall include upper story setbacks as follows: The minimum setback for a Compliance fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (10') minimum from the preceding to be story, applicable to each story. determined Staff Comment: A number of proposed residential towers would exceed 50 feet in at Site Plan height and would be required to comply with the upper story setback standards. Review Based on the conceptual elevations, Exhibit 10, it appears the upper stories may not comply with the minimum setback standard. Each individual building would be reviewed for compliance upon lot specific site plan review. Roofline and Fagade Modulation: Buildings shall provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds Compliance interest and quality to the project. to be determined Staff Comment: Based on the conceptual elevations, Exhibit 10, it appears the building at site Plan designs begin provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades Review however compliance with the minimum standards cannot be determined at master site plan review. Each individual building would be reviewed for compliance with the above standards and Mitigation Measures E3, F1, and F15 upon lot specific site plan review. Landscaping: Onsite landscaping required along street frontages is determined through site plan review. Staff Comment: As discussed in the mitigation document, Mitigation Measure E1, E2 and F5. The project shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re -submittal dated 12-16-2015, Exhibit Compliant if 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan a 20 foot wide landscape buffer condition of is proposed west of Road C and a 10 foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of approval is road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10 foot wide met landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5 foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative would be compliant with Mitigation Measures F1, E2, and F5. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11. Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, HEX REPORT09-151.docx City of Renton Department of 7unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing pate April 19, 2016 Page 10 of 45 B, and C. All street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper inches and/or tree grates sizes as such staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan. Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted in Mitigation Measures F4, G12 and G13. Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations require the retention of 5 percent of trees in a commercial zone. Staff Comment: As explained above in FOF 9 and 10, the site conditions are assumed 011 post site remediation. As such, it is assumed that no trees would remain on the site following remedlation, therefore zero trees are located on the project site. The provided landscape plan identifies new trees would be planted throughout the site, therefore the project is compliant with the minimum tree retention standards. Parking: The following parking ratios apply to the proposed development: Attached dwellings: A minimum of 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger unit, 1.6 per 2 bedroom unit, and 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio unit. Eating and Drinking Establishments: A minimum of 1 per 100 SF of net floor area Retail Sales: A maximum of 0.4 per 100 SF of net floor area Staff Comment: The overall project includes 692 residential units, however the application did not identify if these units were studio, 1, 2, or 3 bedroom units. As such the minimum parking standard could not specifically be calculated. However, assuming a minimum requirement of 1.8 per unit a total of 1,246 stalls may be required for the proposed residential. Compliance For both the restaurant and retail areas net square footage was not provided to be therefore specific minimum and maximum parking standards could not be calculated. determined However, based on gross SF a minimum of 90 stalls would be required for the 9,000 SF at Site Plan 1of restaurant and a maximum of 80 stalls would be required for the 20,025 SF of retail Review or as conditioned component. Together all three uses could require up to 1,416 parking stalls. Based on the provided parking plan, Exhibit 8, a total of 1,356 parking stalls are proposed across the site, in both structured parking garages and surface parking lots. Overall, the site appears to have capacity to meet minimum and/or maximum parking standards per code. Mitigation Measure H6, requires compliance with minimum off street parking standards of the RMC. Compliance with the minimum standards, Mitigation Measure H6, minimum stall and aisle dimensions, ADA standards, and parking lot landscaping standards would be reviewed in detail at site plan review. As noted in Mitigation Measure F12, the required amount of parking may be reduced, relocated and/or redesigned through transportation demand management (TDM) or other means to allow far an enhanced aesthetic character at the ground level and pedestrian experience. in addition Mitigation Measure H7 requires the implementation of TDM and shared parking agreements between uses to reduce parking demand HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commu , & Economic Development QUENDALL TERMINALS Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Rearing Examiner Recommendation LUA09-151 Page 11 of 45 during peak period. A TDM program and/or a shared parking agreement was not included with the master site plan application materials. As such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that a TDM program and draft shared parking agreement become a submittal requirement of site specific site plan review, identifying compliance with Mitigation Measures H7 and F12. On street parking is included in the proposed overall project design on Streets A, B and C. The on street parking shall be maintained as public parking and not allocated to a specific use within the proposed development. In addition, Mitigation Measure G4, requires public parking be provided for the public trail to be located along the shoreline. This parking shall be located in the same general area as the retail/restaurant parking and the applicant is required to specifically identify the parking prior to site plan approval. The provided parking plan does not specifically identify the public parking therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval that a parking plan be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources Director. Compliance Screening: Surface Mounted Equipment, Roof -top Equipment, and outdoor storage, to be loading, repair, maintenance and work areas shall be screened pursuant to RMC 4-4- determined 095. at Site Plan Staff Comment: Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot Review specific site plan review. Refuse and Recycling: Multi -family developments require a minimum of 1.5 SF per dwelling unit in multi -family residences shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of 3 SF per dwelling unit shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of SO SF shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas. Retail development require a minimum of 5 SF per every 1,000 SF of building gross Compliance floor area for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of 10 SF per 1,000 SF of to be building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum determined area of one hundred square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit at Site Plan areas. Review Staff Comment: Based on 692 residential units 1,036 SF of recyclables deposit areas and Z075 SF of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project: Based on a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 20,025 SF of retail a combined total of 145.13 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 290.25 Sf of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project. The application materials did not identify an area for refuses and recycling on the project site. Detailed compliance with these standards would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review. 24. Design District Review: The project site is located within Design District 'C'. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District 'C' Standards and Guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100,E. It should be noted that a large number of the design standards will be deferred to lot specific site plan review as they do not apply at the Master Site Plan stage. Those standards that apply have been incorporated below, otherwise a note is provided indicated the standards of a particular subsection will be deferred to site plan review. However, even if a specific design standard in reviewed at Master Site Plan review stage the same standard shall be reviewed again for compliance with the Master Site Plan at lot specific site plan review. HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of L unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 12 of 45 Compliance Design District Guideline and Standard Analysis 1. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high -density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights -of -way; and to encourage pedestrian activity. a. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation and provide service to businesses. Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local street in addition to public arterials. V" Staff Comment: The proposed master site plan identifies Roads A — E in a gridded network. Road A connects to N 42°d Place that connects with Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to connect to the overall City street grid. Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a 'r concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local road (public or private) Staff Comment: The provided master site plan has three "pedestrian oriented streets" Streets A, B, and C. Roads D and E would be classified as internal or local roads, private. Based on the proposed hierarchy of streets that provide organized circulation the project is compliant with the standards. However, to ensure that at individual site plan review each building is designed in accordance with the standards applied to each street, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the street classification is noted on the binding site plan. b. Building Location and Orientation: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses; and increase privacy for residential uses. compliance Standard: Buildings shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses, feature "pedestrian - to 6e determined oriented facades," and have clear connections to the sidewalk, if located on pedestrian HEX REPORT 09-151. d ocx City of Renton Department of Commu _ & Economic Development ... aring Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-251 Report of Nearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 13 of 45 at Site Plan oriented streets. Review Staff Comment, A building facades proposed along Streets A, B, and C shall have pedestrian -oriented facades. Based on the conceptual elevations provided some buildings would begin to comply with the above standard. However, it should be noted that a significant length of Road A and C features parking structures and do not feature pedestrian oriented uses such as retail. Staff encourages the addition of pedestrian oriented uses at the ground level to be added at site plan review to increase compliance with the above intent, guideline and standards, it should also be noted that the analysis completed in the EIS would allow for the addition of commercial uses at the ground floor. Standard: Buildings that do not have a pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have compliance landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten to be feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk. determined Staff Comment: As noted above a significant portion of the ground floor of all the at Site Plan proposed buildings would be structure parking garages and would not feature Review pedestrian -oriented uses. As such, these portions shall be screened with a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping measured from the back of the sidewalk to the building facade. c. Building Entries: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. d. Service Element Location and Design: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high -volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. e. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, special design features and architectural elements at gateways should be provided. While gateways should be distinctive within the context of the district, they should also be compatible with the district in form and scale. Standard: developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features. Staff Comment: The Quendall Terminals site is located at the Gateway to not only the Kennydale Neighborhood from 1-405 but is also is Gateway to the entire City of Renton Compliant from the north. Mitigation measure F14 requires that design features such as public if condition art, special landscape treatment, additional open space/plaza, landmark building form, Of etc. be provided to further enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site. There - approval is submitted Preferred Alternative did not provide any additional gateway feature as met required in mitigation measure F14 nor does the resubmittal comply with the subject design standards. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a "gateway feature" package be prepared for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to condition of approval 3. Compliant if condition Standard Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of nunity & Economic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation gUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 14 of 45 Of and vehicles. approval is met Staff Comment: See comments above. Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following: 1) Public art 2) Monuments; compliant 3) Special landscape treatment; !f condition 4) Open space/plaza; Of approval is 5) Identifying building form; met 6) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; 7) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); 8) Neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs do not qualify). Staff Comment: See comments above. 2. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. a. Surface Parking: - - Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Standard: Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building and may not occur between the building and the street. However, if due to the constraints of the site, parking cannot be provided at the side or rear of the building, the Administrator may allow parking to occur between the building and the street. If parking is allowed to occur between the building and the street, no more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and Vol vehicular access. Staff Comment: Parking is not provided between the buildings and the designated Pedestrian Oriented Streets, A, 8, and C Parking is provided between the buildings and private street D and E. The design of individual surface parking lots would be reviewed at the time of each lot specific site plan review and landscaping and screening will be required to be incorporated into the site specific design review. The location of the surface parking lots meets the intent of the standards. Standard: On Designated Pedestrian Oriented Streets on -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. Staff Comment: Parallel parking is provided on Roads A, 8, and C. See further discussion below under FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, Meets Standard: Surface parking lots shall be designed to facilitate future structured parking HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development QUENDALL TERMINALS Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 „.aring Examiner Recommendation LUA09-151 Page 15 of 45 exception and/or other infill development. For example, provision of a parking lot with a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200') and one thousand five hundred feet (1,500') maximum perimeter area. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel. Staff Comment: The master site plan identifies surface parking lots that do not meet the standard dimension above to demonstrate future structured parking. However, the subject parcel is constrained by both Lake Washington shoreline setback of 100 feet and an odd shape along the south property line. Furthermore, the surface parking lots are located along the north and south property lines to address public comment and concern related to bulk and scale, access to views, and access to light and air as evaluated in the EIS, Exhibit 2. As such, the proposed surface parking meets the exception standards for inherent constraints of the site. b. Structured Parking Garages: With the exception of the standard noted below, compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages. Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building frontage width. (b) The entire fagade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Intent of Staff Comment: Streets A, B, and C should be considered pedestrian oriented streets as the noted above. However, special circumstance apply to the subject site that limit the standard is developments ability to provide below grade parking, particularly environmental heath met with concerns related to the sites sail contamination (more information can be found in conditions Exhibit 2, DEIS). Due to these special circumstances the proposed master site plan with Of commercial uses located primarily along Road B would be compliant with the intent of approval the design standard if sufficient landscape screening is provided between the structured parking and the pedestrian oriented street. Ten feet of screening landscaping is required along high visibility streets, using a similar standard 10 feet should be provided to screen the above ground parking garages. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking garage. c. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets. intent of Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings. the Staff Comment: The site plan is designed to provide access to the parking garages from standard is Road C at six locations, access to the two parking decks are proposed from Road A at met with conditions two locations and access to the surface parking lots can be gained from both the private Of streets D and E or Road C. Each additional curb cut interrupts the sidewalk minimizing approval consolidated safe pedestrian walkways. Based on the site constraints, i.e. bordered on one side by Lake Washington and the other by an old rail corridor some curb cuts can be HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of C )unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-I51 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 16 of 45 expected along Roads A and C, no curb cuts should be permitted along Road B. Furthermore, the parking decks are accessed separately then the ground level parking garages, the parking decks could be accessed internally from the ground level parking garages to consolidate access points. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that curb cuts be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. If the project complies with the condition of approval the intent of the guideline has been met. Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points shall be Compliant restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured if condition horizontally along the street. Of Staff Comment: Based on the provided site plan, parking lot entrances are closer than approval is 500 linear feet. As such, these entrances spaces shall be reduced to meet the standard. met Staff recommends as a condition of approval that vehicular access paints be restricted to one entrance and exit per 500 linearfeet as measured horizontally along the street. 3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. a. Pedestrian Circulation and pathways to parking lots: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment and provide safe pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Standard: A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties shall be provided. (a) Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety. (b) Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Compliant if Staff Comment: The provided site plan includes a number of pedestrian connection via condition of sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline. However, approval is based on the provided site plan some key connections are missing. For example the met sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private street E either north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Again you see the same missing connection along the south edge along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential court yards show stairways along the Lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space, parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety staff recommends as a condition of approval that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system for HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development (rearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of bearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 17 of 45 review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by Compliance material or texture (i.e., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting to be paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be determined perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty at site Flan feet (150') apart. Review Staff Comment: To be reviewed for compliance at lot specific site plan review. Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface. Compliant if condition of (b) Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a approval is hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no met smaller than five feet (5') and no greater than twelve feet (12'). (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. Staff Comment: Pursuant to mitigation measure G6, 15 foot wide sidewalks shall be provided along Street B. All other sidewalks shall meet the minimum standards as identified in the Transportation Section, FOF 26 and Exhibit 16. Standard: Mid -block connections between buildings shall be provided. compliant if Staff Comment: The provided site plan identifies 11 crossings along Road C, 3 along condition of Road B, and 4 to the center of each roundabout. However, no crosswalks are provided approval is across Road A to access Lake Washington Blvd. or Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). met Crosswalks shall be included in the pedestrian circulation plan as conditioned above to evaluate pedestrian safety and vehicular mobility. b. Pedestrian Amenities: Compliance to be reviewed at lot specific site plan review. Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. 4. LANDSCAPING, RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area b the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. a. Landscaping: With the exception of the standard noted below, compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture of concept of an area; provide visual HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of iunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 18 of 45 and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. Standard: On Pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. Standard: Underground, automatic irritation systems are required in all landscape areas. Compliant if condition of Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted with the conceptual landscape approval is plan. An irrigation plan shall be provided for all common landscaping along with the met detailed landscape plan for common landscaping, as detailed above in FOF 23, Landscaping. All individual lot landscape plans and associated irrigation plans will be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. b. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to promote pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners. Standard: All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide common opens space and/or recreation areas equal to fifty (50) SF per unit. The area shall be aggregated and usable for residents, subject to the approval of the Director. One or more of the following shall be include when a part of a development of more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi -purpose open spaces (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development. (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; {d) Recreation facilities including but not limited to tennis/sports courts, swimming Compliant if pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or condition of approval is (e) Children's play areas. met The following shall not be considered common open space: (a) Required landscaping, driveways, parking or vehicular use areas; (b) Yard setback areas (c) Private decks, balconies, and ground floor open space/recreation area requirements (d) Landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails. Staff Comment: Based on the completed mitigation document, mitigation measure G12 requires landscaped plaza areas on top of the parking garages. The provided landscape plan, identifies compliance with mitigation measure G12, and provides 2.7 acres of plaza space. Based on the provided the site plan and landscape plan (Exhibit 7 and 11) the plaza spaces provide a generic passive recreation plaza space which only HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commui i Economic Development QUENDALL TERMINALS Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2015 aring Examiner Recommendation LUA09-151 Page 19 of 45 contains landscaping. These plaza areas could provide other amenities to the residences such as children's play areas, swimming pools, bocce ball courts, eating areas, water features, or other amenities. To ensure these spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed design of these areas shall be submitted with lot specific site plan review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and amenities as approved by the Director. Mitigation Measure G8 requires 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor areas for active recreating, such as Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, exercise rooms, or active recreation areas in the courtyards. Active recreation areas were not identified in the re -submitted application materials to identify compliance with mitigation measure G8. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that either the site plan is updated to identify 1.8 acres of active recreation area or a plan is provided to identify which portion of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which tat prior to lot specific site plan review. S. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. a. Building Character and Massing: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. b. Ground -Level Details: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment, and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. c. Building Roof Lines: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. d. Building Materials: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review. Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. S. SIG NAG E: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Staff Comment: A signage package was not included with the application materials. The signage of the overall development should be coordinated with the building design and should consider both the residential development and the retail and restaurant business that are proposed to be located throughout the site. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities staff recommends as a condition of approval that an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and HEX REPORT 09-I51.docx City of Renton Department of L_ qunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 20 of 45 approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the site. Compliant if condition Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. Of approval is Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage. met Compliant if condition Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. Of approval is Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage. met Compliant if condition Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, Signage shall be coordinated with the Of overall building design. approval is Staff Comment. See comments above under 5. Signage. met Compliant Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary if condition entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (Y) above finished grade, including support Of structure. approval is met Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage. Compliant Standard: Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or if condition shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, Of Signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the approval is Director. met Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage. Standard: All of the following are prohibited: a. Pole signs; Compliant b. Roof signs; and if condition Of c. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated approval is cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are met permitted as area signs with only the individual letters back -lit (see illustration, subsection G8 of this Section). Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage. 6. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Staff Comment: Lighting proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and mitigation measure F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures 811 and F7 to ensure adverse lighting effect on wetland, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of downlighting and shielding among other techniques. However, common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commun , i Economic Development rrearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 21 of 45 ays, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other n areas, as required by mitigation measures F13 and H9 and the design standards. A common hting plan was not included in the re-submittai of the Preferred Alternative therefore staff ot verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or compliance with the design rds. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a site lighting plan be provided ying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the R n areas for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, the Public Works ment, and Community Services. ant Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building tion entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting and decorative street lighting. approval is met Staff Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting. compliant Standard: Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces) if condition and/or to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees, Of other significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork. approval is met Staff Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting. Standard: Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and Compliant vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved if condition administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4=4- Of 075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or approval is decorative lighting, right -of -way -lighting, etc.). met Staff Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting. 25. Critical Areas: a. Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). As noted above in FOF 9 and 10 an assumed baseline condition has been established for the Quendall Terminals development, see DEIS pages 3.2-2 for details on wetland baseline conditions. The outcome of the EPA's ROD and NRD Settlement would specifically identify the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the project site. It is assumed at this phase of the development that the proposed project would not result in impacts to the recreated wetlands and/or their buffers, see Mitigation Measure B4. Once the ROD and NRD Settlement has been established and recreated wetlands and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas should be specifically reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site specific site plan review should include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6), Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required. HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of i iunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 22 of 45 b. As noted in Mitigation Measure CIO, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, the City reviewing officials shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording of the binding site plan, staff recommends a condition of approval that a site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a ROD and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA. c. The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions of approval are complied with. 26. Master Site Plan Review: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.B, Master Site Plan Review is required for development in the COR zoning classification when a project is not exempt from Environmental (SEPA) Review. For Master Plan applications compliance with the review criteria for Master Site Plans are analyzed at a general level of detail to ensure nothing would preclude the development of the Site Plan. Given Site Plan applications are evaluated for compliance with the specific requirements of the RMC 4- 9-200.E.3 the following table contains project elements intended to comply with level of detail needed for a Master Site Plan request: .Compliance.,: Site, P an, er a.an Analysis Compliant if a. Comprehensive Plan Compliance and consistency. Conditions of Approval Staff Comment: See previous discussion under FOF 22, Comprehensive Plan Analysis. are Met Compliant if b. Zoning Compliance and Consistency. Conditions of Approval Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard are Met Compliance. Compliant if c. Design Regulation Compliance and Consistency. Conditions of Approval Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 24, Design District Review. are Met N/A d. Planned action ordinance and Development agreement Compliance and Consistency. e. Off Site Impacts. Staff Comment: Off -site impacts were extensively evaluated through the DEIS and EIS Addendum process. The Preferred Alternative proposal was formulated by the applicants based on information provided in the DEIS, comments from agencies and the public, input and continued coordination between the applicant and the City, and compliant if additional analysis. Under the preferred alternative redevelopment assumptions were Conditions amended in the following areas: of Approval . Shoreline Setback —increased to 100 feet. are Met . Setbacks from Adjacent Properties • View Corridors • Building Height Modulations • Open Space and Related Areas * Building Design • Emergency Access HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commu & Economic Development nearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing date April 19, 2016 Page 23 of 45 For a detailed analysis of the changes see Exhibit 2, EiS Addendum pages 2-12 — 2-14 and Figures 2-5 — 2-9. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site. Staff Comment: As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on adjacent properties. As a result mitigation measures E3, E4, F1, F8, F9, F11, and F15 were established. Provided the project complies with these mitigation measures which address setbacks from adjacent properties and Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation, the Preferred Alternative proposed would not result in an overconcentration of development on any particular potion of the site. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review. 2. Parking and Vehicular Access, subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian Environment. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties. Staff Comment: Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of deliveryfar the retail and restaurant uses, that could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at off peak hours. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features. Staff Comment. The subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows for expansive views to the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44`h St. The addition of multi -story structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of the DEiS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center of the site. in addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on tap of the parking garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights -of -way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures F1 — F15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west view corridor are maintained staff recommends as a condition of approval that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 8C feet. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project. Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard: HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of nunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendotion QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 201G Page 24 of 45 Landscaping. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. Staff Comment. See Lighting discussion under FOF 24, Design Review: Lighting. f. On Site Impacts. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation. Staff Comment: The proposed building layout provides semi -private court yards between each residential tower which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy. The 80 foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the retail/restaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs. Staff Comment: The proposed building design includes parking structures on the ground floor. It is assumed that the EPA ROD would not permit sub -grade parking as such above grade parking would be required. The proposed parking structures have been conditioned to be screened with a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping where they front a road. However, the parking garages will also be visible from Lake Washington Compliant if if you are walking on the proposed trail, a public promenade, boating, or live across the Conditions Lake on Mercer island. These parking garages are not designed to have a relation to Of Approval the natural characteristics of the shoreline and appear to wall off the lake from the are Met development. Conceptual elevations were provided depicting the building elevation as seen from Lake Washington, Exhibit 10. Based on the conceptual elevations it is clear that the parking garage becomes the dominate structure and aesthetic seen from the Lake Washington. In order to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relationship to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc. ) staff recommends a condition of approval that the east elevations shall be re -designed to reduce the parking garage walls from the view along the lake. An artistic rendering was provided in the EIS Addendum, Figure 2-8 that depicts a view of the development from Lake Washington. In this rendering walls are minimized by landscape screening and berming along the shoreline, in addition to architectural treatments landscape treatments could be employed to reduce the parking garage walls along the Lake side of the development. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces. Staff Comment. See FOF 9 and 10, which provides an explanation of the baseline conditions on the site. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the HEX REPORT 09-151,docx City of Renton Department of Commun ; Economic Development , ,..aring Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 25 of 45 design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. Staff Comment: See FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard: Landscaping. g. Access Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties. Staff Comment: The overall development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road right of way at N 42"d Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be requred to receive approval from King Coundy to construct a second crossing across the rail -road right-of-way. This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. Staff recomends as a condition of approval that documentation be provided to the City identifieg rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review application and construction permit application submittal. Also See FOF 24, Design Review. 2. Parking and Vehicular Access, subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian Environment. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian Compliant if Conditions access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways. of Approval Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review: 2. Parking and Vehicular Access, are Met subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian Environment. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access. Staff Comment: Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEiS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is provided via a dial -a -ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30`h St interchange and 1-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44`h Street interchange. Mitigation measure H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public right of way, Lake Washington Blvd and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this mitigation measure. Currently there are no non -motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site, however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition, the existing roil road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails" planned multi -purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEiS was issued evaluating alternatives for the Fast Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi -purpose trail at this location. Considering, the site HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of L unity & Economic Development QUENDALL TERMINALS Hearing Examiner Recommendation L UA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 26 of 45 does not currently have public transit options the primary form and most readily available form of alternative non -motorized transportation is bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation Document (page 26) to mitigate system -wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the applicant shall prepare a TOM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include on -site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends a condition of approval that bicycle parking be provided in the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure weather -protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation would not use the multi -purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval that a bicycle lane shall be constructed an both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi -purpose trail. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review: 3. Pedestrian Environment. h. Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. Staff Comment: See FOF X, Design District Compliance: Recreation Areas and Common Open Space. i. Design: The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development. Staff Comment: The proposed overall urban design concept is internally consistent Compliant if based on the conceptual elevations (Exhibit 10). However, each site specific building is conditions required to undergo site plan review including detailed design review. Additional of Approval architectural details and facade treatments will be reviewed and evaluated at that are Met time. To ensure that each building developed on each lot maintains a consistent design concept, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the site and that consistency shall be evaluated at site plan review for each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 with each other. j. Distinctive Focal Points: The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas prominent architectural features, or other items. compliant if Staff Comment: The proposed plan contains limited distinctive focal points, no Conditions prominent plazas are proposed and architectural features are unknown at this time. of Approval The two round about features located in Road B provide limited public focal points on are Met site. These roundabouts could be designed with additional amenities such as art work and/or fountain features to add interest and provide a gateway feature. Based on the provided utility plan, the roundabout located at the intersection of Road B and C has a sewer man hole located in the center. The location of this man hole limits the HEX REPORT 09-151.dorx City of Renton Department of Commu & Economic Development QUENOALL TERMINALS Report of Hearing Date April 15, 2016 Rearing Examiner Recommendation L UA09-151 Page 27 of 45 opportunities for this roundabout to feature a point of visual interest or focal point. However, based on the artistic renderings provided in the EIS Addendum, Figure 2-8 and 2-9 both of these roundabouts would feature a center water fountain. There are a number of inconsistencies in the provided plans and it is difficult to determine if these roundabouts would meet the intent demonstrated in the artistic renderings. The gateway features that could be added to the roundabout however would not provide a plaza space or prominent architectural features, but would provide a gateway feature. To ensure the distinct focal points are provided, staff recommends as a condition of approval that usable public plaza space is provided along Lake Washington and the NW corner of the building on Lot 5 and the 5W corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review for lots 5 and 2. k. Conservation of Area Wide Property Values Staff Comment: The proposed development would add amenities to the area which could add value to area wide properties. View impacts and traffic impacts are also anticipated, which could reduce more localized property values. Overall, the development would facilitate the remediation of a contaminated Superfund site. The improvement to Environmental Heath as a result of cleaning up a 5uperfund site with the oversite of the EPA is anticipated to add value to area wide property values. Compliant if I. Provision of Adequate Light and Air Conditions Of Approval Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review. f On site Impacts, Structure are Met Placement. Compliant if M. Mitigation of Noise, Odors and Other Harmful or Unhealthy Conditions Conditions Staff Comment: _Due to the sites superfund designation the DEIS evaluated of Approval Environmental Heath, section 3.3. As a result of this analysis mitigation measures Cl— are Met C10 were established. The project shall comply with these mitigation measures. n. Prevention of Neighborhood Deterioration and Blight Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: k. Conservation of Area Wide Property Values. o. Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: e. Off Site impacts, Views. The proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public access to the shoreline. This trail could double as afire lane lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in Compliant if width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA, ROD and NRD Settlement, it is Conditions anticipated that access to the lake shore would not be permitted. However, mitigation of Approval measure B10 requires that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive are Met viewpoints. Based on the provided drawings details of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures identified in the mitigation document. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site plan review and construction permit application. Compliant if Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities d Conditions accommodate the proposed use: HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of iunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 28 of 45 of Approval Stott Comment: See FOF 26 Availability and Impact on Public Services. are Met Phasing: The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200L. Expiration and Extensions of Site Plan Review, for non - phased Master Plans the Hearing Examiner shall determine the expiration date for the Master Plan which may exceed two years but shall not exceed five years. Staff recommends 5 years from the date of the decision for the period of validity of the subject master plan. However, it should be noted that all lot specific site plan review applications shall be submitted and approved as well as a building permit for each of the subsequent buildings within the 5 year time frame for the project to remain valid. 27. Binding Site Plan: An optional process for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or mixed use zones CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, COR, UC, IL, IM, and IH through a binding site plan as authorized in chapters 58.17 and 64.34 RCW. This method may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and short subdivision procedures. The applicant has applied for a Standard Binding Site Plan per RMC 4-7- 230B.1.a. and is located in the COR zone a mixed use zone. The proposal is compliant with the binding site plan standards if all conditions of approval are met Cr lince Subdi vision. dlvFslah-Regulations an :Aria. s% '` . Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district. New nonconforming lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process. Staff -Comment: The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in FOF 23 above. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots 1, 6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers, shoreline buffer, or NRD Settlement mitigation as identified through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, lots 1, 6, and 7 should become open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be buildable if created. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or tract on the binding site plan. This area remains a part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as on undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or mixed -use zone. Staff Comment: The site is located in the COR zone. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning district. HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Comm i Economic Development , «aring Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 29 of 45 Staff Comment: See comments above, Legal tots, FOF 27. Shared Components: Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site plan may proposed shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically authorized per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5, and other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's development standards. Staff Comment: The applicant has not requested shared signage or parking, however shared access has been proposed. Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Measure HZ A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. if shared parking is Compliant if proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be Conditions noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. of Approval Shared access has been proposed through an internal street system, identified as Roads are Met A — E. The applicant has indicated that Roads A — C would be dedicated public right-of- way and Roads D and E would be private streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City is not willing to accept the proposed public rights -of -way dedications and Roads A — C shall become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A — C will be private streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. A shared signage package was not submitted with the application. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC Not yet 4-5-010. determined Staff Comment: Building code compliance will be reviewed at the time of building permit submittal. Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, Compliant if other public ways, water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the conditions entire property covered by the binding site plan. of Approval Staff Comment: Upon Binding Site Plan recording details shall be included identifying are Met compliance with the infrastructure provisions. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval prior to recording. Access to Public Rights -of -Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct access or access easement approved by the City Compliant if Staff Comment. See comments above under "Shared Components" to address lot conditions access. Each lot would be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. of Approval However, a phasing plan for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided are Met with the application, therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval that all common facilities including but not limited to roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of t- iunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 30 of 45 separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions of use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access, signage and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism. Staff Comment: See discussion above under 'Shared Components" Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. Staff Comment: The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded binding site plan. As such, staff recommends compliance with this standard as a condition of approval. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the N/A applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan Staff Comment: No dedication has been approved for the subject project. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Improvements: The following tangible improvements shall be provided for, either by actual construction or a construction schedule approved by the City and bonded by the applicant, before a binding site plan may be recorded: grading and paving of streets and alleys, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, street lights, water mains and street name signs, together with all appurtenances thereto to specifications and standards of this Code, approved by the Department and in accordance with other standards of the City. A separate construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated engineering plans prepared per the City Drafting Standards. 2. Phasing of Improvements: To satisfy these requirements, the Administrator is Compliant if authorized to impose conditions and limitations on the binding site plan. If the Conditions Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will not adversely of Approval impact the public health, safety or welfare, the Administrator may allow requirements are Met to be satisfied prior to issuing the first building permit for the site, or prior to issuing the first building permit for any phase, or prior to issuing a specific building's certificate of occupancy, or in accordance with an approved phasing plan, or in accordance with plans established by a development agreement or as otherwise permitted or required under City Code. Staff Comment: A Phasing plan was not included with the application. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that all common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strip), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping, trails, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction inspector prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review and if the Administrator HEX REPORT09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Comm i Economic Development , wring Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 31 of 45 determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. Off -site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, include but not limited to the following mitigation measures: • B10 - public trail • G2 — public trail and open space • G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N. • G7— trail signage • G9 — crosswalk • G10 —trail amenities ■ H3 —frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N • H4 — trail • H5 — traffic calming measures • H8 —fire access road • H10 — bicycle lone • H11— H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and signalization All the above mitigation measures shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. The above mitigation measures are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to mitigate the substantial impacts of the project. 28. Availability and Impact on Public Services Camollance Availability and` Impact on blic rvtces Analy Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee would be applicable to the proposal. Pursuant to mitigation measure H8 of the Mitigation Document, A fire access road shall be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail. Mitigation Measure H8, allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100 foot shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface, see comments below under Water. Considering the water service HEX REPORT09-151.docx City of Renton Department of C unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUEiVDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 32 of 45 requires paved access staff recommends that the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined, this would allow the trail which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials, see additional comments below under FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School) and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendail Terminals Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot specific site plan review. A School Impact Fee, based on new multi -family units, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Parks: A Park Impact Fee would be required for the proposed multi -family units. The fee in effect at the time of building permit application is applicable to this project and is payable at the time of building permit issuance. Staff Comment: Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, Exhibit 2. The mitigation document Identified a number of parks and recreation mitigation measures (G1 —G13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas. Specifically mitigation measure G2 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas" and "Other Related Areas" be provided on the site. The Natural Public Open Space Area shall include a 0.5 acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. The Other Related Areas on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas and Lot 7. The provided Site Plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of Natural Areas along the Shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other Related Areas". Based on the provided site plan the Preferred Alternative does not identify compliance with Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the trail to be determined by the City's N°# Community Services Administrator. Currently public trail hours are dawn to dusk, compliant signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Mitigation measure G10 requires that the trail shall be enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage etc. and approved by the Community . Services Administrator. Details of the trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials. Mitigation measure G11 requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. The provided site plan shows the j trail ending in the surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in compliance with mitigation measure G11. Based on the above analysis the provided materials were not compliant with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and j GI1. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G11 for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator prior to lot HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commun ; Economic Development nearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Rage 33 of 45 specific site plan review or binding site plan recording. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: The preferred alternative is assumed to use the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, with the City Amendments, for the proposed stormwater facilities. Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this analysis mitigation measures Al, A10, A1,1, B2, and 87 were established and will become a condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private, the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained staff recommends as a condition of approval that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/ property owners/ HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. A drainage plan and drainage report (TIR) (based on the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual) is required to be submitted with the utility construction permit. The site is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested Compliant if site conditions. The applicant is proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for Conditions of Approval the project. Water quality treatment is proposed for the project and should follow the are Met requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual. Storm water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be followed in the design and construction of the project. The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, whom has provided project specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16, the updated TiR required to be submitted with the construction permit should include, an offsite analysis report that assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project site and proposed appropriate mitigation for any of the identified off site impacts, KCRTS printout of all land use input values for pre- and post -developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology. As noted above under FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review, subsection Phasing, staff recommends an approval of the subject master site plan and associated binding site plan for 5 years. The Hearing Examiner has discretion to determine the project expiration time frame, which cannot exceed 5 years. Staff is recommending the 5 year maximum expiration date understanding the scale of the subject project and the necessary dean -up of the site under the Superfund designation. However, the City is also subject to the Western Washington Phase it Municipal Stormwater permit. Per the requirements of the Phase 11 permit; all projects that have been approved prior to January 1, 2017 and have not started construction by January 1, 2022 shall follow the new Surface Water Drainage Manual. Assuming an approval of the subject project no later than May of 2016 the recommended 5 year approval would result in an expiration date of May 2021. if the applicant requests a one-year extension or submits building HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of C unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 34 of 45 permits the expired land use permit could be extended beyond January 1, 2022 for construction. Based on the City"s obligations under Western Washington Phase 11 Municipal Stormwater permit, staff recommends as a condition of approval that any extension to the project approval beyond January 1, 2022 or building and construction permits submitted that would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022 shall be subject to the updated stormwater manual, in effect at the time of extension or All utilities: The information provided in the utility plan, Exhibit 14, is not adequate to confirm if there is compliance with the minimum utility spacing standards. The required horizontal and vertical separation as per City of Renton Standards should be provided between the utility lines. To comply with this standard additional pavement width may be required in some areas; if this is the case roads may need to be modified compliant if accordingly. Conditions The title report submitted with the application is dated 2009, which is 7 years old and of approval out-of-date. As such, staff is unaware if the easements reflected on the drawings are are Met current. Based on the information provided there are existing easements that cross the property in areas proposed for buildings. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easements shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. An updated title report will be required to be submitted prior to Binding Site Plan recording. Water: New water lines are proposed to be constructed to provide service to the new Lots and buildings. The water utility main lines for the project will be public water lines. However, these lines will primarily be located in private streets; as such a minimum 15 foot wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public water lines located on site. Based on the provided conceptual utility plan, Exhibit 14, the water line design shall be amended as follows: • Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The existing Compliant if water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location Conditions of the proposed new Road A. of Approval • Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be are Met within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100 foot buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. To comply with these conditions, the buildings will need to be moved back further to the east to allow for the construction of the water main. • Complete the water main loop within a paved surface with sufficient access for maintenance along the west side of the project from Street B to Street E. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the above water line design changes shall be provided and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to lot specific site plan application and construction permit application. Compliant if Sanitary Sewer: New sewer lines are proposed to be constructed to provide service to Conditions the new Lots and buildings. The sewer utility main lines for the project will be public HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Deportment of Commu tss Economic Development _wring Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 35 of 45 of Approval sewer lines. However, these lines will primarily be located in private streets; as such a are Met minimum 15-foot wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public sewer main located in the private streets. Each individual building is required to be served by individual side sewers. The provided sewer report states that the sewer system was designed to convey the peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location at a new manhole installed on an existing 12" diameter City of Renton sewer pipe, which would lead to the existing Baxter lift station, a City owned facility. A sewer report was submitted with the application which showed an allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day for infiltration and inflow at the existing lift station. Based on review by the City's Waste Water Department, the allowance number should be increased to 1,504 gallons/acre/day. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised sewer report be submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance. The current utility plan identifies a sewer man hole located in the center of the island on Street B. The manhole should be relocated outside of this area to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the facility. Utility casing may need to be provided on pipes constructed through the islands. Transportation: Access to the site is proposed via the development of new internal Roads A — E. The primary site access from public streets is proposed at two locations one from N 42"d Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). See additional comments related to roads and access above under FOF 24, Design Review: 2. Parking and Vehicular Access, subsection c. Vehicular Access and FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: g. Access. Transportation impacts were extensively evaluated in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and in the FEIS, Exhibit 2. As a result mitigation measures H1— H15 are a requirement of the project, and are conditions to be completed prior to temporary occupancy of any building on the site. Mitigation Measure H3 requires frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing roadways or areas to be Compliant if dedicated. Per mitigation measures G3 and H3, provisions for safe pedestrian Conditions circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site, which shall include of Approval the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along two private access are Met roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and 6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property owners as some of the required improvements will impact property outside of existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King Counyy, who owns the old rail -road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N, and WSDOT. Do to the necessary coordination with adjacent property owners and WSDOT staff recommends as a condition of approval that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the HEX REPORTD9-151.docx City of Renton Department of munity & Economic Development QUENDALL TERMINALS Hearing Examiner Recommendation L UA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 36 of 45 required off -site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application for the site. The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off -site improvements, such as southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2- 1. In addition the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some inconstancies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the inconstancies between the mitigation measures, Figure 2-1 and the traffic analysis, a new graphic has been created and is attached as Exhibit 18 which fully depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the Mitigation Document. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that all new lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed. In addition the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become private roads for the purpose of the project as such strict adherence to the City's standard street cross sections is not required, however the design of the streets shall meet minimum standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses; in addition to meet the standards of public access under the shoreline master program (see FOF 29), as such staff recommends as a condition of approval that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. As noted above under FOF 24 Design Standards, the street cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6 foot sidewalk in those areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 —15 foot sidewalk is required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6 feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to account for the curb width, and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross section amendments. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant amended the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review; in addition an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the amended cross sections. Road A is currently designed with a center turn lane; the need for this turn lane was not analyzed in the EIS documents or in a separate transportation study submitted with the HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development ng Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 37 of 45 application. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a study is completed to identify the need for a center turn lane in Road A. Depending upon the outcome of this study, Road A street designs shall be amended accordingly. The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to generate 5,656 net new average weekday daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 435 net new trips (104 inbound and 331 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 530 net new trips (340 inbound and 190 outbound). The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Cancurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as shown in Exhibit 17. See additional comments related to pedestrian connectivity and bicycle access above under, FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, subsection g. Access. 29. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: No shoreline development shall be undertaken on shoreline of the City without first obtaining a substantial development permit. No permit shall be issued unless the proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP, and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971). The site is located in the Urban Environment of the SMP and is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act as demonstrated in the table below if all conditions of approval are met. Use Regulations: a. Commercial: New commercial development on Lake Washington which are neither water -dependent, nor water related, nor water -enjoyment, nor which do not provide significant public access to and along the water's edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline. Staff Comment. The proposed commercial development is not water -dependent, nor water related, nor water enjoyment. However, a public trail is provided along the shoreline to provide public access along the water's edge, if approved by the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement. Conditions of approval have been recommend throughout this staff report for designated public parking for trail use, amenities to be incorporated into the trail including view points, large public plaza spaces along the lake side of Road B, compliant if and a public promenade along the lake side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 1 and Conditions 5. If all these conditions of approval are met significant public access along the waters of Approval edge would be provided and therefore the new commercial development would be are Met considered a permitted use. However, if the public amenities are prohibited by the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement the subject use would not be permitted, because significant public access is not provided. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that if the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline master programs requirements for significant public access. b. Parma Public parking is to be provided at frequent locations. Both public and private parking is discouraged along the water's edge. Staff Comment. Surface parking and structured parking are both proposed approximately 100 feet back form the OHWM. These parking lots are not located along the water's edge. HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of munity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 38 of 45 Incorporation of Public Recreational Opportunities: Commercial developments should incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline for the general public. Multi -family development shall provide public access along the water's edge, in the Case of Lake Washington, significance public access shall be provided. Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposed public access which includes a trail within the shoreline riparian area. The Mitigation Document requires this trail included view points and amenities. The proposed trail begins to meet the standard of significant public access. The trail is the only amenity provided in the Preferred Alternative which on its own does not pass the test of significant public access. There are a number of opportunities for additional public access to be incorporated into the project design, some of which have been identified throughout this staff report, including a public plaza at the terminus of road B. This plaza space would provide visual Compliant if access to the lake and could include amenities such as benches, terraced setting, public Conditions of Approval art, or gateway features. Furthermore, as noted above under FOF 28 Availability of are Met Public Services, the looped water main required around buildings proposed on Lot 2 and 5 is required to have an access roadway and be located out of the shoreline riparian area. The waterline requirement combined with the fire access requirements presents an opportunity to combine both the water line, fire access and design the space in a way that it could be used as public access to the shoreline. This space, if designed with amenities such as public art, seating, water features, etc. would create a public promenade with visual access to the shoreline. The addition of a public promenade along the lake side of both Lots 2 and 5 would add significant public access to the project. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a public promenade is added along the lake side of the buildings on Lot 2 and 5. This promenade should connect to the terminus of Road 8 and the surface parking lots at the north and south ends of the site. See comments above under "Use Regulation. View Impacts: The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit what steps have been take in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people the area. Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: e. Off Site Impacts, Views. Setback: A commercial building should be located no closer than 50 feet to the ordinary high water mark. Staff Comment: See FOF 24 Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Setbacks, Compliant The provided conceptual utility plan, identifies the required looped water line in the if shoreline riparian area (100 foot buffer). Pursuant to the EIS and Mitigation Document conditions a 100 foot shoreline buffer was required from the OHWM of Lake Washington. This of approval area is assumed in the baseline conditions to be utilized for habitat restoration and are met wetland mitigation and buffers. The waterline shall not be constructed within the riparian area and shall be located outside the buffers. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the waterline shall be relocated outside the 100 buffer and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided identifying compliance with this standard. HEX REPORT09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development 'ing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 39 of 45 Time Requirements for Shoreline Permits: RMC 4-9-190J permits extension of the standard SSDP time lines identified in RMC 4-9-190J.2. if consistent with RCW 90,58.143 and the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the Department of Ecology, established appropriate time limits as part of a SSDP. SSDP are valid for 2 years with the potential to authorize construction up to 5 years after the effective date of the SSDP, if construction application are submitted, permits are issued and foundation inspection are completed. Staff Comment: Given the project cannot move to construction until the EPA issues a ROD and a NRD Settlement is determined, two years may not be sufficient to complete the project and obtain all necessary permits. Therefore, staff recommends that the SSDP expiration date be consistent with the Master Plan expiration date. Staff recommends that there shall be no extensions authorized to the SSDP beyond the 5 years, unless the project complies with the updated Shoreline Master Program, adopted in 2011. I. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation provided the applicant complies with all conditions of approval, see FOF 22, 2. The subject site is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning designation and complies with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 23. 3. The proposed development complies with the Design District C Standards provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 24. 4. The proposed development complies with the Critical Areas Regulations provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 25. 5. The proposed development complies with the Master Site Plan Review Criteria provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 26. 6. The proposed Binding Site Plan complies with the subdivision regulations as established by City Code and state law provided all City Code, advisory notes and conditions are complied with, see FOF 27. 7. Safe walking routes to the school bus stop will be evaluated at lot specific site plan review. The Renton School District has indicated they can accommodate the anticipated number of students, see FOF 28. 8. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development in all City Codes and conditions of approval are complied with, see FOF 28. 9. The proposed development complies with the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act standards, see FOF 29. 10. An expiration date shall be set by the Hearing Examiner for the Master Site Plan, see FOF 26. 11. Key features, which are integral to this project include a 100 foot shoreline setback, public trail, building height modulation, setbacks from the north and south property lines, and view corridors. J. RECOMMENDATION: Master Site Plan and Binding Site Plan: HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of munity & Economic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 40 of 45 Staff recommends approval of the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative (692 Residential Units, 9,000 SF of restaurant, and 20,025 SF of retail) Master Plan and Binding Site Plan, File No. LUA09-151, with an expiration date 5 years for approval, as depicted in Exhibit 7, subject to the following conditions: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: Staff recommends approval of the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative (692 Residential Units, 9,000 SF of restaurant, and 20,025 SF of retail) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, File No. LUA09-151, with an expiration date of 5 years with no extensions authorized to the permit beyond the 5 years, unless the project complies with the updated Shoreline Master Program, adopted in 2011, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document dated, August of 2015. 2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside through the binding site plan. 3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The minimum partial sight -obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11 and shall be identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures E1, E2, and F5. 5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan. 7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 8. Roads A — C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording. 9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording. 10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development ing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 41 of 45 11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 12. Off -site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to Mitigation Measures: • B10 - public trail • G2 — public trail and open space • G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N. • G7—trail signage • G9 — crosswalk • G10—trail amenities • H3 —frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N • H4—trail • H5 —traffic calming measures • H8 — fire access road H10 — bicycle lane • H11— H15 —off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and signal ization shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads. 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review. 18. To ensure the semi -private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and amenities as approved by the Director, HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of munity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 42 of 45 19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the site. 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows: a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill) c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility) 21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and the semi -private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80 feet. 22. East elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re -designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review. 24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review f6r each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. 25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for lots 2 and 5. 26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval prior to recording. 27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required. 28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi -purpose trail. 29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review. 30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan. 31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping, open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be maintained, the applicant shall HEX REPORT 09-151.docx City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development ing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 43 of 45 provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan. 32. Any extension to the project approved beyond January 1, 2022 or building and construction permits submitted that would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022 shall be subject to the updated stormwater manual, in effect at the time. 33. A minimum 15 foot wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 34. A minimum 15 foot wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording. 35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on the subject site. 36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works Department. 37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording. 38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the facility. 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the required off -site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application for the site. 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown an Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the timing identified above per condition of approval 12. 41. A public promenade along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This promenade shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the promenades compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division. 43. An easement shall be secured from King County or other future property owners of the rail -road right- of-way to provided vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of- way. The easement shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan. HEX REPORT 09-151. docx City of Renton Department of nunity & Economic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 44 of 45 44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to induvidual site plan review application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and construction permit issuance. I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire property. II. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved, a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance with the approved phasing plan. III. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on the recording Binding Site Plan. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD and NRD Settlement issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure CIO. V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G11 for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator. VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to condition of approval 3. VEI. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway system, including an evaluation of on -site crosswalks to ensure pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording. Vlli. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot. IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community Services. HEX REPORT 09-151.docx CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND mm , ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, EXHIBITS Project Name: Quendall Terminals Project Number: LUA09-151 ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project Location April 19, 2016 Vanessa Dolbee Campbell Mathewson, SW'/o Section 29, Current Planning Manager Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Township 24 N, Range 5 Third Ave, suite 1680, E. Parcel 2924059002. Seattle, WA 98101 South of the Seahawks Training Facility The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Staff report to the Hearing Examiner, which can be found at the following link: http.1/rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800 Exhibit 2: Environmental Review Documents — Draft EIS, Addendum to the Draft EIS, FEIS and Mitigation Document, which can be found at the following link: http:/Lrentonwa.goy/business/default.aspx?id=32800 Exhibit 3: Environmental Review Committee Signature Sheets Exhibit 4: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 5: Binding Site Plan Exhibit 6 Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal and e-mail chains following request. Exhibit 7: Site Plan (black and white and color) Exhibit 8: Parking Plan (black and white and color) Exhibit 9: Area Outline of Spaces Exhibit 10: Elevations Exhibit 11: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 12 Conceptual Storm Drainage and Grading Plan Exhibit 13 Roadway Sections Exhibit 14 Conceptual Utility Plan Exhibit 15: EA Letter addressing EPA and public involvement in the process Exhibit 16: Advisory Notes/Plan Review Comments Exhibit 17: Concurrence Memo Exhibit 18: Additional Lanes Required 0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) AND MITIGATION DOCUMENT Notice is hearby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Mitigation Document for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on Monday, August 31, 2015, and is available for public review. Copies are available for review at the Renton Main Library, located at 100 Mill Avenue South, and the Renton Highlands Branch Library, located at 2902 NE 12th Street, and at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site. (www.rentonwa.gov). APPLICATION NUMBER(S): PROJECT PROPONENT: PROJECT NAME; LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L. P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The E15 evaluates potential impacts resulting from a mixed -use development project, including four Alternatives, of which considers no action. The Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of restaurant and 692 residential units. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1't Floor of Renton City Hall for $35 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus tax and postage (if mailed). PUBLIC REVIEW: The impacts described in the Quendail Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are the basis for the mitigation measures established in the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal. EXH I BIT 3 ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AN- a,.TIGAT4N DOCUMENT PAGE 2 of 2 APPEAL INFORMATION: upon issuance of the FEIS and Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E., the adequacy of the Final EIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. September 24, 2015; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $250.00. Appeals must be addressed to Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton City Hall,1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. PUBLICATION ©ATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: September 4, 2015 August 31, 2015 ww Greggi t n, Administrator Qat Mark Peterson, Administrator Date Public W 'pa" Fire & Emergency Services —Terry Higashlyama, Administrator f Community Services Department Date C.E. "Chip„ Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMM -1TY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tlx NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM (EIS ADDENDUM) Notice is hearty given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (EIS Addendum) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on Monday, October 15, 2012, and is available for public review and comment. Copies are available for review at the Renton Main Library, located at 100 Mill Avenue South, and the Renton Highlands Branch Library, located at 2902 NE 12th Street, and at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, Gth floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site. (www.rentonwa.gov). APPLICATION NUM,BER(S): PROJECT PROPONENT: PROJECT NAME: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L. P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The EIS Addendum to the Draft Enviornmental Impact Satment (©EIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Preferred Iternative. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use ,.'development. The Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of restaurant and 692 residential units. For those assumptions that have been modified under the Preferred Alternative, the updated analysis is included in the provided EIS Addendum. These elements include, Critical Areas, Aesthetics/View, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Cultural Resources and Relationship to Plans and Policies. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning division 10S5 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 15t Floor of Renton City Hall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus . 'ax and postage (if mailed). ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL 1 1PACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM PAGE 2 of 2 .,,PUBLIC REVIEW: Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a 30-day review period ending at 00 p.m. Monday, November 19, 2012. Written Comments should be addressed to: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Planning Division, 5fn floor Renton ton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION. SIGNATURES: Gregg Zi erna , A ministrator Public Works Department f� Terry Higashiyama, Administrat Community Services Departm S October 19, 2012 October 15, 2012 Date Mark Peterson, Ad inistrator DVe Eire & Emergency Services Date C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN11 ' ; ' `L AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) Notice is hearby given that the City of Renton has issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Quendall Terminals mixed use development on December 10, 2010 pursuant to WAC 197-11- 510 and RMC 4-9-070, and is available for public review. Copies are available for review at the Renton Main. Library,the Renton Highlands Branch Library, and Renton City Nall, Customer Service Counter, 6r" floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98055, and on the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov). APPLICATION NUMBER(S)- PROJECT PROPONENT: PROJECT NAME: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L. P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 Seattle, VITA 98101 Quendail Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Quendall Terminals mix use development DEIS considers potential development concepts for the redevelopment of a 21.46 acre Superfund site located along i the shoreline of Lake Washington. The DEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed o development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the DEIS: Alternative 1, which consists of 800 residential units, 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant, Alternative 2, which consist of a less dense alternative where the office component is eliminated and residential units are reduced to 708 units; and Alternative 3, a no action alternative. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 lake Washington Blvd LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, VITA 98057 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1'{ Floor of Renton City Nall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus tax and postage (if mailed). a s, ;n .. , ...r�; �s�va�� r D_E d. c F.RC iSSIJANCE RAFTS VfRC tI�vIF'Srs�L IfJ PA1 - STATEVLNT PACE Z.cfZ PUBLIC REVIEW. Written public comment on the DEI5 will be accepted for a 30-day review period ending at `V;':�10 p.rn. Monday,Janua 2011. Written Comments should be addressed to; Vanessa Dolbee, Senior µ'Planner, Planning Division, 61n floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Gravy Way, Renton, WA 98057. A public _ hearing will be held on Tuesday,ianga.ry 4 2011 at 6.00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 7'� floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: if you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: December 10, 2010 December 6, 2010 Gregg Zinm srm , Administrator Date Public Wor Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator p=_l€ ommunity Services Department Marc Peterson, Administrator Da Fire & Emergency Services I -zJ vo � 6 Date Alex Pietsch, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development E-lc S;pra?�re Sir. issuance of DES.tx LAKE WASHINGTON IBARBEE MILL ENTRANCE GRAPHIC SCALE: U. -400 ft NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP EXHIBIT 4 QUENDALL TERMINALS OESOKPTION: INAT PORnOW O GDVEIN EDT LOT 5 N SEC" 29. TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANCE S EAST, W.Y.. AND To ELAND AGIDIINC LYING WESTERLY O THE NO INEI N PACFCC RARROAD RIGHT -Or -WAY AND SDINER Y O A UK N 0240 COUNTY, WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BECINIWNG AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH 1111E OF SAID SECTION 29'. 1HEIICE NORTH 89'W30" WEST ALONG ME SOUTH LWE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,1130 1 FEET TD THE WESTERLY UK OF SAID NORTHERN PACFIC RAILROAD IWWT-O-WAY; THENCE NORTH 204II'Se EAST BW62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A. THENCE CGNTIWAHIG moRTH1 29'44'W EAST 2GM1m FEET m THE 181E POINT OF BECOMING OF MINE LWE HOEEM DES[[7!RIM THENCE SOUTH 35'2N'Sd WEST ZZL32 RENT TO A PANT WHICH SEARS. NORM 59'24'SY NEST IOOm FEET FROM SAID POINT A, TIERCE MOM NOW'24'S0' WRBTI EST TO THE INNER HACN LINE AND E ED OF MD S UNE OSMtFrr 76 AM THAT PORTION OF SAID [ONFmNETR LOT S LMG SO INEASTERLY OF LIKE WASH NGRMN BOULEVAD, WESTERLY OF BECONDMY STATE NO"AY NUMBER 2A AND WMINIESTERLY OF WE NIOC NIGHT -OF -WAY OF PUBSTATE HEGNIAY NUMBER I AS ESTAAL9EO BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY UF. 1664 UNDER REOCRONG N0. DW7401L AID EXCEPT THAT POMMON THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENICK A MUISCIPAL CO PMATIOM BY DEED RECORDED JIBE 19, 200E UNDER RECORONG NG 200506190M179. MILE REPORT REFERENOD TINS SURVEY WAS CO DUCTED ACCORDING M I E OF.SCPTUON SHIOW4 FLR N44O LFIST AIERICAN RILE INSURANCE COMPANY. OOWMrlMERT MIX NCE-36B710-WAIL 0 REPORT, DAIEO DECE1BER 14, 2009. ME EASEMENTS SHOWN OR NOTED HEREON RELATE 70 THIS COMMTNNT. NOTE' EAsapnS CREATED OR RESCINDED AFTER INS DATE ARE NOT SHOWN OR NOTED HEREON, MILE REPORT SOME B E7(C DONE: nuG CROAREIED ASHOW ON YAP. 3 RINOUR9IDIT O ALL DOSING ANO FUANE RIGHTS TO LIGHT. YEW AND A14 104111ER WIN THE RIGHTS OF ACCESS 10 AND FROM THE STATE HDHWAY CONSTRUCTED ON LAWS CONVEYED BY DOC AAEXT IN FAVOR OF ME STATE O WASHINGTON: RECORDED: CCTORR Is, 1961 TSCCROM HIM: 4178247 EASMIENT, MOILNO TERMS AND PROVISIONS OONTAYED THEREIN RECORDING INFUNATION: MARCH 2% 1083 UNDER RECORDING N0. 55628M IN FAVOR O: RO;ET SOUND POWER AND LICIT COMPANY. A COFPOiAIM, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS FOR: POWER LINE AFFECTS: 11E MORIINES13LY PORTION O THE PROPERTY HIEFEN DESURBED WICI ERLY O RAILROAD RIGHT-4]r-WAY Q EASEMENT. IMMODIN0 TAMS AD PROVIS INS CO TAIED TIEIEDE FECORONG EFDRMATmN: HDWBA" 3A 1964 HIDER TELLRDiG NO. 581432r) N FhWN OF'. SL CEO Or No A AR gATTI{ ITS VSICIMS FOR: URDTY EASEMENT AFFECR: THE NORTHEASTERLY PORI" Or THE PROPERTY HEREI DL'SOMM WESTERLY OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 7. OOY44ANTS, CONDITIONS, RMIRICMOS AD/13111 ENSE!"M RECORDED: JULY 18, 1075 RERD CORDING No-.76071605M EASEMENT. NCWOINA IBM AND PRDN9ONS CONTAINED MIEREN RECO CRIG IHEOMATIOk MY 7. $OOD UNDER REGDRONG NOJ 8007070IM N FAVOR OF: OTT OF MUM A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR: PUBIS UTILITIES OnunID WATER AID SEIWR) AFFECTSI PORTION O TIE PROPERTY HELPN DEffi8® V437MY AND ADJACENT TO RAILROAD PoGRT-OF-WAY L SUBJECT 10 THE MERMS OF 71E JOINT VOTUIE AGREDM NT BETWEEN PUMET 7M EER COMPANY AND AINO PROPERTIES INC. DATED J U E 1% 1". AMIEN01 RT THERETO BATED SEP719BEII 12, 1960. 80MH APPEAOD UNDER WINDING N"6102190571, RECODED FEBRUARY 19, 19M. ACCORDING TO RECITAL ON EASEMENT NDER RECORDING NO NOM50889. RECORDED FEBRUARY I& 199SN J.H. BAXTER A W., CAUEOIIA LI/IED PAR7HERSR APPEARS T4 HAYS SUCCEEDED PUGET MNBER CONPAHn'. A J 90 W71W TER. ALL AIIEMDIIEMTS TO SAID JOINT VERMUM AG EF]OIT MUST SE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO CLOSID TO DEIFHONE THE CUPoffM SIRNAWKS, 10 EASTMFENII INCLUDING TERMS AID PROMIGNS CONTAINED THER9ft RECORDING IIFi7MAMCK FEBRUARY t3, 12M NDDt RECOROIIO N0. MM5060 N FAVOR CR BA BEE IrL CO., TIC., A WASWIOAN OOtlPORAMO1, NO J.X. BAXTER R CC. A r + LYTE13 PARTNERSHIP FOR ROADWAY AND JRU ES AFFECT& THE EAST 50 FEET ADAVORT TO MAST MOON O- RAlA0A1 NGHT-OF-WAY It. THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS DOJFAMM N INE DOCUMENT ENTITLED 'LAND CORNER RMZ'OL' RECORDED MAY 29, 1997 AS WOtrtl11D N0. 97052MM OF OFFKU4. f4OODS tt OODDIOl4, NOTES. FJA9EMN75, PROMSIORS CCNTA1tED NOMR OEIUEAIED ON IRE FACE O TFE SR1EY REGORGED FEN ARY 0. 2000 UNDO REOORDN9 NO, 20000104110OW6J RECORDED IN VOLUME 135 O SIRUVEYS. AT PAWS) 170. N NNG COUNTY. WASINCTON. AUDITOR OR RECORDER'S CIMF7GTE Filed for retard this day of , 20 ¢l M. in Book of Surveys at page at the request of BUSH, ROFO & HITCHINGS, INC. COUNTY AUDITOR OR DIVISION OF RECORDS & ELECTIONS County Auditor or Superintendent of Records 4 EASEMENT INCLUDING TERMIS AND PROW5IOHS CONTAINED IFERERk RECORDING NFORYAPON: y4PME BETA 2. ZOOS UNDER RECORmPIu NO, 20DSD8020041711 ON FAVOR OF aTYKa RDROI, A MUNICIPAL WRPORATIaI, IRIS 911dES5UR3 AID ASSfNS FUR SANITARY SERER UMUTES AND UWlY PPEINE5 AFFECTS: AS OFJwsesn VIEREN is PRIVATE AOPFSS TO SAW PREMgS IS ACROSS A RAAROAI RBNT-OF-WAY. MANS COMPANY WIL REQUIRE THAT TEE "PRIVATE ROADWAY AIO CROSSING AC EEI ENT', AND ANY ASSIGNMIENIS OR MODIFICATIONS 71EEE13F IMICH WERE ISSUED BY THE RAIRGWO COMPANY, BE SUBMITTED FOR EXAANAIIOL THE COVERAGE MOM AFFORDED UREA ANY SET; RM.AMNE IO ACCESS TO SAID PREMISES. WILL NE UNITED BY TIRE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED 71EREN. P NO 'AO EMEWl' flRTS, TEE FORTNCOING POLICY(E5) WILL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWN' D EP7101k TEE LACK OF RK10 OF ACI TO AND FROM 111E LAND ACROSS A RAILROAD RDHT-0r-WAY. 15. ANY ON3IDN AS TO THE IR1UE LOCATION OF ME LATERAL BMINOARIES OF IHE SAD 20 CLASS SNOEiANDS 10. RIGHT OF THE STATE O WASHINGTON IN AND TO TWAT PORTION. P ANY. OF THE PROPERTY NEFSON DESCROND rECI LIM BELOW ➢E LIE OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER OF LAND WASHINGTON. 17, RIGHTS OF ME mEAAL PUNRC TO THE UNRESTRICTED 118E Or ALL THE WATERS OF A NAVIGABLE BODY O WATER NOT ONLY FOR THE PRIMARY IMMOE O MAWGAMO6 BUT ALSO FOR COROLLARY PANPO" 140 DING (OUT NOT LIMITED W} F15HNC BOAIWN>. BATHNf:, SWILNIB, WATER 90M AND DINER RELATED REC EA7IOHAL P1LtIPd5fi AS TFN16E WAlER4 YAY AFFECT THE 1WELA1D1 94OR1AWOS OR ADJUNDO UPLANDS AND WIEnER TIE LEVEL OF THE WATER HAS DOW WARRED NARNALY OR AM 10 A YANTAIED OR FIDCNATING LEVEL. ALL AS FIRMER OFFIED BY 711E DEOSR4V. LAW CF IHIS STALL (AFFECTS ALL O THE PREMISES SLOECT TO SUCH sLNERm10) 1L TECH$ ODH OITDNS. PNOWSORS All STIPULATIONS OF 1HE JOINT YENRNE AG EFRDIT OF q.E1DALL TERIMAS, A WASHINGTON JOINT 1ENTUW. A COPY OF THE CINMDNT AGEF]RR AND ANY AYEINEMON15 MUST EE SUOMI ll S j ANY ON4YA1.'E OR DIONBRAN(i OF ME JOINT VENTURE PIOPERIY DECRIED BY ALL OF THE JOINT 14EHIURR. I9. TIRE TO WEST IN AN INCOMM OWNER WHOSE NAME R NOT OBC.OSm SUCH NINE MIST BE RINSED TO TES SO THAT A NAME SEARCH MAY ME MARE 2G. IIIE TFRIS AND PRavrwS CCMTAWm N THE 500REN7 ENMTUED "ORDNANCE tN1 5483' BONDED ANX15T 10, 2OR9 AS 2000011110001984 O OFEDLAL RECORDS, 21J UNRECaNDFD m rK F ANY, RIGHTS O VEIDURs AND SECUFM ACREEN 1T IN PERSONAL PROPERTY AND FOW13 O TENANT% AND SECURED PARSES 70 FEEEOYE TRADE FO0llIE3 AT ME DIMATION OF THE TERSE AREA TABLE PARCEL AREA AREA OF TOTAL PARCEL 1.375.165 50. FT, PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR 31.5694 AC. LOT 1 50.823 SO. FT. OR 1.1667 AC. 75.548 SQ. FT. LOT 2 OR 1.7343 AC. LOT 3 83,819 SO. FT. OR 1.9242 AC. 146,774 so. FT. LOT 4 OR 3.3818 AC, 218,794 SO. FT. LOT 5 OR 5.0228 AC. LOT 6 1o9,485 SO- ET. OR 2.5134 AC. 50.725 50. FT. LOT 7 OR 1.1645 AC. PRIVATE ST. D 15.529 SO. FT. OR 0.3442 AC. PRIVATE ST. E 12.636 SO- FT. OR a.2901 AC. PUBLIC STREETS 161,243 SO, FT. A. B AND C OR 3.7016 AC. PORTION OF TOTAL 449,789 SO' FT. PARCEL LYING WYTHIN OR 10.3257 AC. LAKE WASHINGTON NOTES: -LOTS 1 AND 6 ARE BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE SHORE OF LAKE WASHINGTON, SHOWN AS THE "UHWM" (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK). -43,833 SO FT OF LOT I LIES 1WTHIN THE 100' SHORELINE SETHACK. -106,703 SO FT OF LOT 6 LIES WttRIN THE 10a' SHORELINE SETBACK. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This map correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Survey Recording Act at the request of CENTURY PACIFIC, LP. rl , 2D_ No. 3754E OWNER: ALTNL PRORFAIES. /NG AND AA BAXTER & CO ATTN: ROBW CU N 900 S. THIRD STREET RENTON, WA ON" APPLICANT• CENTURY mA[M L.P. ATTN: r P MATHEWSON 120E 3121 AWLILE, SATE 1680 WAIILE WA MCI LICENSED LAND SURWYOR; AVAIL 11" A.A. BELL ROOD NON S. NC 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST NATRE. WA 99m WIFE CONSULTING ENGINEERS ATHE TOY JOSS 160E WIN AYF]NIF, SWTE ISM S"ATRF" WA WWI nFa aaA naW� KWW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PFIES NTS THAT WE THE UMERSIGNE0 OWNERS OF INTEREST IN THE LAIR IEnE1NN DESCRIBED MANE A BNaIO SINE RAN PURSUANT TO CKAP1ER 58,17 R.4-K AND DECLARE TEE BNDNG SIX PLAN TO BE A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF WE SAE AND I F SAID SONI 911E RAN 19 MADE WITH FREE coNI AHL II ACCORDANCE 4IIII704 DESIRE OF THE OY6E1T5. IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE SET HANDS AND SEALS; CENILM PACIFIC LP. BY mix APPROVALS: CITY 43F RENTON ADMINISTRATOR OF PLANNING / BUILDING / PUBLIC WORKS IDEA IMM AM APPROVED PEA RGW 5LI7.180 (1) INS DAY OF 20- SITE MORES& 4350 LAKE � N" BOUIEVMD AGYIISMUTOR. CTIY OF RE WFON SIW TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 2112405-9002-05 KNEG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASS S5YENTS HO12(P1TAL OARAk NAD 53/91; CITY O RENTON DAIMED Aid) APPROVED MIS DAY IF 20_ Yk4R7ED N OCTOBER N999 USING A WILD TCIOOW ELECTRONIC TECOEMRA SERIAL NOD COWRY ASSESSOR MIEN 3NIOD, 0I KING COUNTY ASSESSOR DOPq AHD SETBAOM KING COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION CERTIFICATION ZONMG : CCWILIROA%OFI E/RETAL I NEARBY CERBEY THAT AL PROPIM TALES ARE PAR THAT THERE ARE NO OEXAMENT SPECIAL ASSFSSIMEHIS CIX71FIm TO TINS OFFIO FOR COLLECTION AND THAT ALL %VChL A54 SEMENTS CERTIFIED SETBACK& DEIER&IED 7HO1G1 SITE TO TIS OFFICE FOR CCUJECIDN ON ANY O THE PROPERTY HERON CNNTA ED ®CATER AS STREETS, DEVELCPMMT PLAN REMM PER OM AMEIS OR ANY DARER PUBLIC uSL ARE PAD N FTEL O RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE r2-123E INS DAY OF 2D- DYECIOC RMG COMTY OFHO OF FMHAIICE DEPUTY ONECfOR, FIFO COUNTY OFFICE MEAGER ///// SATO / -- SITE 2NAR 110TH Ax Sr LANE WASHNGTON EX LANE UGUITW WASHINGTON RLYU 49 R�N 1, RECORD t, REEC $DINGY NUMBER UIOER RECORDING HEC RD COUNTY, STATE 05. ROODS O KING COUNTY, STATE ff WASHINGTON. CONTROL DIAGRAM L 1/4 S:c 29 ED 3/8' MONZE PLUG 1 n=1 000, AHD PUNCH IN GONC. POST. OIL Off N CAS Sw I/4 SECTION 29. AT NT. OF sE 7S T2aID 4N.45E a 116M AVE SE. COYT_ LOT 5 /IBIS 199349.5E E�130S4013B67 ,tM Sr 1/4 SECTION 29. RLI h TENE OF T24HI.45r sE CfIL SEC. 29 FO 31/Y MASS On W/ PINCH ON OONC. sL III St.t AVE- SE 6677HT9M fa19tY15p.911 E-13063W.609 NW 1/4 SECMpµ 32. ED 31W BRONZE RUG AND RINCI IN CONCJ POST. OM OX IN CASE) SE DORMER GDVT. LOT 5 124N,45E OOYT, DDT 1 �9IR V116744.3230 E-1303747.9664 BINDING SITE PLAN - QUIENDALL TERMINALS CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P. own CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC, CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS PRAWN BY LARK TRs DATE: 01 11 16 JOB 2009050.04 CHECKED 9Y DAB SCALE: NA SHEET 1 OF 5 g�ATP..EMYN9ANWN� EAST t�60O-0335-4M.10 93102-M13 RAAF (20a) J73-T135 SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, RSE, W.M. — — — — — _• cOYr LOT 4 / LINE TABLE Na LI mm LEN91H Ll Ny41'04'W mw ^\ LS oms WacrW 37.77' r L3 NW4M-* 2a90' / TAX ACCTN � 50L4 Nar49'w 104,W /. / 292406901201 LS Na9'4a'Sa'w 7a.4a• La IE3m34'10E tl.sS % GOVT L07 5 L7 N59'OY44-W J1.05 al R� i La NWW'0YE 19bY r / / / q LOT 7 f� N30%'16'E Y 129.Z0• TAN ACCT. MC / �r B7 29240OWM 4 Mr00LE PARt.FI. 107 410RELINE \ + y l TAX ACCT NO 40595020. grdA[X CE J LOi 1 N{625'{4"E :J/ FA —I, S° ~ 4eo I00' v1oaLTylE 80C NW a ,rr % 4 16ACA 'y3y�'�: n"� ?v . F4 �.�,f 48_ / / ,q7 �ty4n c2 G ;aka, �c.`eo/ w°• w 497� r j/ a N3058'19'E 47 / i I ralato9'a+'w w:� ° ,� k' \.,•"�•�°"' f ]s.m' d-•P SNOREuNE N 2z29' H.OL' NMI ,4+/ �', cNMLRiFIC SETBACK RY HIGH WATER L6 `� w 50, 95' MARK MAPof (OII"A) N4547'157 AT 18 a' ELFV11M 57.06' L7 J �'r •✓, / 7yCv r �o • ,' j �4,, cam, NI 355'15.w (4D O/N PO'AERUNE EASNENT -MUM N26'3520"L 50.05' ��`.�.` QLB wE 1 �h' / / EASiTRLY U1 014 OF PROPERTY', REC. NO. 5562896 60' ROADWAY & UOLI IY EASMLN I, BEc. No. 9eo2leaae61 292403900203 rti.` f `r. ;may y� ', \`t7\ �� {•4 NOY35-56-W st>G Syz 'i• 5./ ti� e / sw1/4 secn0N 2a, 1ae'sxor�uxE w TP4N �5E SETBACK N30'19'13'E � / .' � /�. fjy4b dLb T„y Q' ,Q• q 34.4a• BLss sw 3 4 r GOYT LOT 5 N43'421" 2.50' tiQ• r, f�� RfDG 9E 2 Tlzb N26'S3'STE i 26 06' LOT 5 ;lb / LOT 6 100' SHORELWE - `er ° $ r. ? SE19Apf "£ `19 eras S7Y4 �3'p / ,M IA// i 7k5y5 /� C3 �% PAR"Mx. t� "� 04 / e/ c SURFACE9_b/ 2. X. fsov / IAIKIIII lao gIOREU E IZ-- 1.a BELow AIL WIUDINcs. C" •' �! \/r`) / K3:, [8 6 W PFRn4}�/� "£94 / '�IS l'-. % 1e4.JC \\ qp�.B�. Ca1RTYMOS 1f1O ON DECK PARKING ! C.O,R. /1843 / Illffff .._.: LSE BOTH ST 214.61' _ r- _. Loa\ q,- 7PRgYATE DRIYf D n's:c`;� T•a ]�r VAC N 44TH ST a TAX Aocr. Na a �$ pp H$9'45'S8-W 101& _- ?:. _ REC. # 760228p427 051a5002J006 13' I#$Ig li** 12 IY li Ii�IZn1Zn1= 10- G 'Nil '4 - I4 {• __--r4F tl 4 ¢ $1�31i$li�l�gla$li"Ez I: Iz$I Lrg/ 32.5O Z /U.S. COT PERMIT 963.31' TAY ACCT. NO. I I I'�I 1.=^I�ml�^I,�xl,_i lw;_�z^I # Ir j�"Iw I� I IH I� I cr 1/ N28'45'WE NUMBER 92]465A �r a51tL15o24054 I I 1 I I I� g l� l E� I I I C I I t I I t l� I$ G 18.10' U P- 6.23 1 �g TAX iCCT.Na IK I _I _ _ K ID IiRli lk % ! MOT9<oMNlx Cp I Ix I glx�lxml ml xml / WITUNT T�TlE —OSItsLXz4XN—� ��g� glr=RJrg�rsl� LPL-�L� L L I J �=R.1 ;1Y=i Jr -- '"y / NEraNI} N. 42ND PLACE Nw 1/4 SECNON 32 BOUNDARY INFORMATION T24N,45L AT �,,, LGT, PLAT aBARBE:E Wu d, µ OL BINDING SITE PLAN — QUENDALL TERMINALS 9B 2� PP Q25-39, r CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P. 2OW208000102 4 � CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON BUSH, ROED CIVIL NG3NEERSC& LANDFINGSSURVEYORSNC• BRAWN BY LMK/TRS DATE; 01 /11 /16 JOB f 2009050.04 i n LJdO ROOT rxOR AW.LiFEAST {209) 323-NM SEAT- NA$HxCTON r6N 1-500-a53-OSOB halo¢-35r3 FA><E {20E} 323-7R3 CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" = 100' SHEET 2 OF 5 CURVE TAKE Na RAM/9 CELTA LENGTH cl =w 24wmr 21.27. Ca oww w w•Ir 78.10• Ca 6OW 80173r GMI' G 601W 22Y1'26' 2141' CI5 I&V 17'17'4a' d4e CO 50.W 54Wa7' 73.3V C7 WA0' tOE'24'4E' WAI' Ca 50AC 53715r ADS Q� CATV 5p v , C �{1' OOC CCw_ ED �r SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M. Ey E rr,aru VAULT ® JL*4m ON am LEGEND ET afCDICAL TRANWONER CA E/T pvamAp Ewnw/IE10iP111 w PLAM PIPE EM ELECTRIC METER f POWER POLE $OADIT VAL4F FRG FOUND mm RCD AW CAP POWIER POLE W/ LWT CABLE W"SION FORCE NAM (P) PAINTED UTNJTY LOCARON FINE HYDRANT (R) TIECGRO UTVITY LOCAWIIN ACTT POLE VALVE SS OD SANRARY SEWER CLEANCUT CENTER OF CHANNEL SS SANITARY SEVER CAE G CM GAS LEE GAS TETER ssm ® SANITARY SERER MANHOLE DRAIN INLET ..,-j GUY ANCHOR SO STORM DRAM ELECWWAL DLLCT E AVERT ELEVATION som ® SIORY DRAM UMNMCLE 'W } E F� io'p k w(P) N a. ,r;IV 12'WR) TO TELEPHONE DUCT III TELEPHONE SENTRY BM TV TELEPHONE VAULT INN TELEPHONE W WKU TE TOP ELEVATM (� WATER METER ® WATER MAIBIOLE W WAIEA U E TM WATER VAULT WATER VALVE DATE OF TOPCWAPNIC MMPMB FUDVOM aME. TDDD 1 F7 LimI m� ITT 12' DIP W(P 4- "A I 8 � 1 � r I BFfiR RKi1T OF WAY I —Bi7ME1R-8 .WATER -- — -- — ... .. ..... ... _.._ Y qp RiR) m _ O!H LST _ ------------ — — ... — — — ..._ D/}1 FhT Q/tt FAT EXISTING UTILITIES A. BINDING SITE PLAN — QUENDALL TERMINALS f CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P. CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. PRAWN BY LIJK 5 DATE: 01 it 16 JOB 2009050.04 ( m pm ] OVAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS L moe - LWI BL L VSO zoos RwaA A -,ems EAST lzDN7 aarn.. SE -TILE. —S+ 7C I-Rpp-e35-o506 DBRQ_a 13 FAAI (m) ass -alas CHECKED BY DAB I SCALE: 1" = 20' SHEET 3 OF 5 F r 1�1 SHM LAYOUT EXISTING UTILITIES L q A q {ENMTI 1 Imh - 20 K R5E, W.M. O/H E MP MPi 52' SHEET LAYOUT �z•sscR> W EXISTING UTILITIES N� BINDING SITE PLAN - OUENDALL TERMINALS e CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P. 4 CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON BUSH, ROE❑ & HITCHINGS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS 4t LAND SURVEYORS DRAWN BY LMK/1RS DATE: 01/11/16 J09 # 2009050.04 1./�IC09 MINOR A4ElYJE FAST 1�� 935-44. ff.�OB iyI MOTS EAU (a 32]-3535 CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" = 20� SHEET 5 OF 5 H[i,i,is CLARK !*VIARTIN & PETERSON P.S. C?Ty 0Fq[FNT,,1wN 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 FEB 18 2016 Telephone: (206) 623-1745 �'109 Fax: (206) 623-7789 RECEIVED Attorneys for Applicant CiTy CLEWS OFFrCa Century Pacific, L.L.L.P. 6W 1wit1'e CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER In re: QUENDALL TERMINALS FEIS AND MITIGATION DOCUMENT, SEPA Al Project No. LUA09-151 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 1. STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto that the above - entitled cause, having been fully settled and compromised, may be dismissed with prejudice through entry of the subjoined Order of Dismissal, with each party to bear its, own costs. DATrD this 1�' 9�kA day of February, 2016. Hii.i,is C ARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. By Amit D. Ranade, WSr3A #14878 Ann M. Gygi, WSBA 419912 Attorneys for Applicant Century Pacific, .1-1-P. SOUT D GIVES BACK y is T-') r rt::s TIES MATTER came before the Renton Hearing Examiner on the foregoing Stipulation of the parties. Based on the foregoing Stipulation, the Renton I Wring Examiner JOINT STfPULA TION,4ND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSPNT! H ILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETEWSON P,S. ,IPPFAL WITH PRFJ1-,'DIET - 1 1221 Second Avenue, Susie 5W Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Telephone: (206) 623-1745 rak (206) 623-7789 EXHIBIT 6 hereby ORDERS, ADJUDOI s, and DECREES that the appeal of Quenu all Tenninals Project LUA09-151 and all claims alleged by the parties are hereby DISMISSED WITH PRERIDICE, and each party will bear its own costs. DATED this y of ��_ �.� , 2016. Presented by; HiLLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. �u'� -X - A�� Y limit D. Rance, WS A 434878 Ann M. Gygi, WSBA #€19912 Attornevs for Applicant Centl.�ry Pacific, L.L.L.P. SOUTH END GIVES BACK I3: 19959.003 4953-2560-7726v I JOINT STIPULA TIONAND PROPOSED ORDER DISM#l5 ING HILLISCLARKMARTIN & PE:T£RSON P.S. APPEAL WITH PREJUDIC F -1 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seatiie, WA 98101-2925 Telephone: (206) 623-1745 Fax: (206) 623-7789 Vanessa Dolbee From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail,com? Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9.59 PM To: brad nicholson Cc: ann.gygi@hcmp,com; cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; Jason Seth; Vanessa Dolbee; Cynthia Moya; Larry Warren Subject: Re: Renton - Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Staff, This will be the last addition to the email string regarding the FEIS appeal. As requested before, please have five copies ready for the hearing should anyone need to see these emails when I disclose these ex parse contacts with Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Nicholson, I would normally not further complicate the record of this case by further communications with you, but. it appears that there is some major misunderstanding or miscommunication going on and I avant to tt€lce one last attempt at rectifying it. I wish I could just talk to you about this. but as the decision maker my ability to communicate with you is very limited clue to the reasons identified in my first email to you, Ultimately, however, this will have to be our last communication regarding your appeal unless you plan on making solve motion that you entered into the stipulated dismissal order due to some form of fraud or misrepresentation. Any other further information you want me to consider should be scant exclusively to the planning staff as comment on the application. As I identified in my first email to you, I don't become involved in an appeal tintil it's time to consider whether a prehearing conference or email exchange is in order. This usually occurs four to six weeks prior to the scheduled appeal date. In this case you would likely have received an email from me to all appeal parties inquiring whether the parties wanted to resolve some prehearing procedural issues or otherwise desired a prehearing order outlining hearing procedures. A request for such a prehearing order is usually initiated by one of the appeal parties, but I will often initiate that inquiry on my own if no one beats nee to it. I will also address any proposed orders or prehearing motions when they come in. Beyond this, planning and city clerk staff are responsible for processing an appeal. The role of City staff and myself sloes not change because you've persuaded staff to send me your notice of appeal earlier than the completion of the staff report. I'm not sure what type of response you were looking for from your appeal statement. If you just wanted an acknowledgement that your appeal had been tiled, then staff would be responsible for that. If they don't issue some sort of acknowledgment as a € atter of course, I'm sure they would provide you with something upon request. if you had any questions about how the appeal would be processed or scheduled, all you had to do Nvas ask staff. If you disagreed with how staff was handling some prehearing procedural issue regarding your appeal, you were free to either file a motion with myself ahead of time or to raise the issue at the hearing. If you had made a legally compelling argument that consolidation should not have occured during, your appeal hearing, I would not have had any problem segregating out your appeal (although for future reference, the SEPA rules requiring consolidation are fairly clear and I've yet to come across any argument to the contrary), If you are upset because I didn't read your appeal months prier to the appeal hearing, there is no reason to be. There's nothing I could have done with any knowledge I would have wined from reading your appeal months in advance. Reading appeal statements too far in advance (especially those exceeding the more typical 10 pages and under) can be a tremendous waste of time since the appeal can easily be narrowed or even withdrawn over time and also because I will have to re -read everything once the hearing date is close. Excluding any prehearing motions or orders that may be presented to me, I only need to know about the details of your appeal in time for the bearing on your appeal. For the stipulated motion to dismiss, I just needed documentation establishing what hearing parties should be included in the order, and I got that information when you pointed out that your notice of appeal had been emalled to me months earlier. If you had not agreed to have your appeal dismissed, I would have read your entire notice of appeal prior to the hearing and I would have gone through it with a fine toothed comb after the hearing as I prepared my decision. It's entirely possible that you would not have liked the result of my decision on your appeal, but I can assure you that you would not have been able to sincerely assert that your issues had not been thoroughly reviewed and addressed. Once the hearing on Quendall is over and the appeal period has expired I will be happy to discuss this with you further (assurning the discussion doesn't relate to some other pending appeal or application). Also, if it wasn't clear to staff before, it is appropriate for staff to recommend to the parties of an appeal that they request some sort of prehearing conference or eanail exchange from me if the appeal parties have procedural questions about the conduct of a hearing. For appeal parties represented by attorneys (which has usually been the case), there isn't much confusion about how to participate. For unrepresented citizens, however, I'm sure there's roorn for improvement as to how to make hearing participants comfortable with the process. Land use appeals in Renton are rare, especially when they involve unrepresented parties. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:48 PM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmai1.com> wrote: your Honor, Well I want to apologize but well it took 5 months to get a response'? the appeal notice i.e "The facts are dispositive" while it took 24 hours to respond to the PRP's I am just wondering do you need to have the EPA sign off on the case too? It could be Cami Grandinetti. Respectfully Brad Nicholson From: L:Warren@ Rentonwagov To: olbrechtslaw@simail.com; brad827@hotrnail.corn; CMoya@Rentonwa.gov; VDolbeeCd)Rentonwa.;ov; JSeth@Rcntonwa.gov; cmathewson0acenturypacific.11).corn, nn.gygi@hcznQcom Subject: RE: Renton - Quendall Homes (.L1. A-09-151) Date: tMon, 22 Feb 2016 16.38:55 +0000 Mr. Oibrechts, the city has no objection to the stipulated order. If you have any questions, please let me know. From: Phil 01brechts [mailta:o1brechtslaw2il.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7,44 AM To: brad nichol.son; Cynthia Moya; Vanessa Dolbee, Larry Warren; Jason Seth; cmathewson[�icenturypacifidg.com, ann.ctygik'ahrcmP.com Subject, Re: Renton - Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151) All Appellants, The proposed stipulated order is missing one of the parties to the appeal. As outlined in RMC 4-8-110(E)(7), the City is a party to the appeal. I will sign the stipulated order if I get email confirmation from the City that it has no objection to the stipulated order. Please note Mr. Nicholson has sent me another email, included in this email string, that was not cc`d to the other parties to the appeal. As before, I request that staff include this updated email :string as one of their hearing exhibits. They should also have fide copies of this email string available at the hearing so that I can disclose the ex pane communications with Mr. Nicholson and give the opportunity for the public to review and respond to those communications. In response to Mr. Nicholson's second email, as noted in my last email to hire, I received a copy of his notice of appeal (all 200+ pages) as an email attachment from the City Clerk's Office last September. Other than a. response from staff as to whether they have an objection to the stipulated order, I ask that I receive no further communications from the parties can the appeal regarding the appeal. For the reasons outlined in my last email to Mr. Nichols, it is important that pre -hearing ex parte communications be limited as much as possible. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 PM, brad nicholson cbrad827@hotmai1.com> wrote: Your Honor, I can recall with crystal clarity. 5 weeps after tiling the appeal, I called the City Clerk and requested information about why I received no acknowledgement of its receipt or correspondence whatsoever. It would appear that I have been 'Involved in as many 2ppeals in Renton as you have and in [lie past. the normal process has been to give a short explanation of what is going on. At first the Clerk told me that hca e had posted it n the web and that I would need to talk to Staff about it. I had complained to hint that I had spent considerable lithe and had addressed the appeal to you and not to staff. My comment letter was addressed to staff but Easy appeal notice along with $250.00 was addressed to you according to staff instructions. The Clerk then assured race in no uncertain terms that the appeal document went directly to you and that you had a copy of it in your possession. 1 cornplained to him that I paEid the fee for the appeal to go to you and not to staff. Thus I ain surprised that you would indicate that you have no documents. I am also surprised that you did not get it and it was never in your possession. I am just saying that I had also been quite disturbed that staff had been the ones to decide on the appeal consolidation even though I think you are correct in presuming that it may have been generally known to be the case. But I had not understood that they' had jurisdiction to decide issues of Law in a pending appeal. Respectfully Brad Nicholson Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2015 06:07.51 -0800 Subject: Re: Renton - Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151) From: olbrechtstaw@gmaiI coo To: brad827@hotmail.corn; CMoya@rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@rentonwa.gov; LWarren@rentonwa.gov; JSeth@rentonwa.gov; cmathewsonC centurypacitictp,corn; ann.ayai.@hcn-.p.corn Staff, Please include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendail Homes application. Mr. Nicholson, Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I will likely send out a signed order tomorrow once I've had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal. From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of involvement in your case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to know as little about your project as possible until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions I am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff, the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your case outside the hearing process. Because of these tegat requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is strictly limited to the testimony presented during the project bearing and the exhibits admitted into evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete. Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited to knowing it's big, controversial and involves a superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if anything big is cording tip, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as opposed to applications) sometimes involve, a little mare advance information due to the necessity to sometimes hold prehearing conferences. Prehearing conferences are prchearing meetings or email exchanges with appeal gearing. participants designed ;nevi to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a snore. efficient appeal gearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for testimony, requiring, the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and scatting deadlines for prehearing motions and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehearing conference. I will typically ask for a copy of the notice of appeal four to six weeks in advance of a scheduled appeal hearing to determine whether a prehearing conference would be useful_ As best as I can recall, Renton has only had a couple land use appeal hearings in the last five years that I've worked with the city. Renton .is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staff report is complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed, However, it's not going to attract my notice until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a prehearing conference. From your email response yesterday I was able to find an email from. the City Clerk's office from last September that contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that the stipulated order includes all necessary parties. Your email also asserts that I've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law requires an appeal of FEIS adequacy to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previously discussed, the circumstances under which staff can talk to me about a case are very limited outside the hearing process. I don't recall making any comments to staff regaxding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten about it. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AIM, brad nicholson <bra,d827@hotrnail,com> wrote: Your Honor, You may be looking for "Quendall Humes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall Terminals" EIS decision which yOtr decided to consolidate with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago. Vanessa Dolbee informed Me that is was because of „State Law" You may have forgotten about it but the appeal documents were sent directly to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving. the Master flan for around 700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take Your actions? Respectfully, Brad Nicholson Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800 Subject: Re: Renton - Quendall Homes (.LUA-09-151) From: olbrcclrtsla v } �T��c il.c� rta s To: CMova@rentonwa.aov CC: VDolbee@rentonwa. ; LWarren@rentori a.gov; JSeth@rentonwa.gov; €cmathewson@c;enitirypaciftclp.cozxa; hradi 27@ hotmai1.com; crrrn. L iC?hcrnp.cc�i Please confirm that all parties to the SEPA appeal have signed the stipulated order to dismiss. I have no documentation on the appeal, so I have no knowledge of what parties are involved. On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <CMoya@rentonwa cave wrote: Mr. Olbrechts, We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Quendall Terminals FEIS & Mitigation .Document, SEPA Appeal (File: #LUA-09-151). The parties have asked that you sign the attached document as soon as passible. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at 425-430-7314. Thank you. Cindy Moya, Records %Iona etficnt Specialist Laity of Penton Administrative Services/City Clerk Division crzaCr a@rentortwa.goy 425-430-6513 NOTE: APP XPIAMV La ACHE OF INDODH AND/OR OUTDOOR WEA FOR "E REWEATION $ MLL DE DEV ELOPED DIN THE FLAW PATIO DELNS DURING FINAL D ION DEVELOPMENT r�4 9�d�G WLK wFrcx SITE & BUILDING SUMMARY \ `' 9UILDING CGDL 200916C SfIF SONdG, COIN \\ 5`'M PaNrcEn LPC OFLU PAXCY TYPE M & R-1 CONSTRVCTIOk TYPE: I&YASPRINXLERED \ MAX BANDING HDGHT, ]O STORESOR 126' TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AREA SW 1 RESIOENIII(L (5 FLOORS & 71 VNITSI - 75,106W \ SW 2RESIOENTML(5 FAOAS &S9 UNt%I-66,90W \\ SNI S RMDENTLLL (4 FLOOA$ & 94 UWMI - 7O400WE SW IRMIDENTIAL(S FLOGAS Li1UNITS) n):A,SOOL1 NW 1 RESIDENgAL{G FLOORS L ]S UNff6p- AO,20W :Ill ENRFL{+ FLOODS & EG UNITS) • B1.BOpK E 1 REMDDIRAL (6 FLOORS &62 uNITS1- Til ld SE R RESaClI1ULL (+ FLOORS k721lXITSI - T9,2000 NE I RESIDENTIAL (5 FT00R5 & 62 VNDSy- T9,IOOIH ME 2 RESIOENTVLL I4 FLa0R9 & 72 VNITS7- T9,3 I y, TOTAL BUILDING AREAS- 73TA00.1 4'T\ TOTAL RESTAURANT AREA-9,0000 T01LL RETAIL AREA - 2OLQ9w TOTAL PARKING AREA sw LDWEA PRIUxG CF eL-iaaseoLe \\ NW LOWER ARMING LEVFU - K j,800af SE LOWFII PARKING LEVEL-11A,G]OJ HE LOWER PARXING MEL - T6,490Y TOTAL LO%WR PARKING LEVEL ARE" -367.3AON TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA- 1,123,365s1 STRUMMAL RESIDENTIAL COURTYARDS - U7,10 STRUCTURAL OPEN PARKING OE[CXS- NOW TOTAL AREA - 1,324,9650 LAND AREAS 01 O ERE MEA - 925,37 W NATURAL PUBLIC OPEN EPACES: NATURAL AREAS HANG SHORELINE TRAIL - S4O33W SHORELINE FIRE WIF/PEOESMAN TRAIL 19,9TOs1 SUO TDTAI-1A0,]08tl OTHER AREAS, STREET LEVEL • 132,773 (Erry l IDES SIDEWALKSM & LAND5PE1 LANDSCAPED MURTYARDS-117.11� sla sID ewALxs In Poaue R.D.w, - se.eoNAH SIOEWA]NS NOT IN FUHJG R,O, W. - 34,000L1 PAVED PARKING RF DECIL PARKING MEA-9i,000-1(INCLUDES SIDE WALKS & LANDSCAP) SURFACE PAPoIING AREA -69.000 LEGEND COURTYARD RISC. DECKS-4,09W N �(, d< G s O d I e J `' a � �❑ � b �I`` � • 5 2' � LJ�� a � w' I ea' In _ ea' _ w W'-F• I � 44 I Gr-s- eo� ea C C7 m' v Ll Er 1 NE' I rw'-e' L o" r � u 10'I 10 L vo cAPs I "6 �, QUENDALL TERMINALS -PREFERRED ALTE RENTON, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT? CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP NEW w' Si�EWALK rn WSTq RIEVEIlAN06GUPE-15,a0wt OHWM OTHERIAFIDSCAPE AREAS-33,4961t WWFTIAND5ETR%01E IRA7 SATELLKE 40PERTY-50.72W 1 ID0'gHWN SETRACX SUB TOTAL AREA - 738,026sf � BUILDING GROUND COVER - 187.350sf WETLAND EDGE TOTAL AREA - 525,376sf T' POST DEVELOPMENT ACREAGES BUILT AREA (IMPERVIOUS AREA) BUILDING AREAS - BUILDING AREAS -197,350111 PARKING DECK AREAS - 59,DOW PARKING DECK LANDSCAPE AREAS - 25,DOOaf COURTYARD PLAZAS-11.7.900Af COURTYARD MISC. DECKS - 4,0265f TOTAL BUILDING AREAS - 392,975a1 PAYED AREAS (R.O.W.. ROADS, PEDESTRIAN/9kKE PATHS] - STREEf'A','B' m'C' AREAS - 99,2605f STREETS'D' 8,'17 AREAS - 23,5226E SIDEWALK AREA - 9O,SOOsf TOTAL PAYED AREAS-183,572sf SURFACE PARKING AREAS - 99,0001E TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS - 555,54fp6f PERVIOUS AREA DESIGNATED NATURAL/OPEN SPACE AREA-140,33W 'wWP str�xcc UNPAVED FIRE LANE/PEDESTRUW TRAIL -19,970sf STREET LEVEL LANDSCAPED AREAS-15,300st OTHER LANDSCAPED AREAS - 33,495.1 LOT 7 SATELLITE PROPERTY - 50,725s1 TOTAL PERVIOUS AREAS - 259,82ft UNIT SUMMARY 6 SW RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS - 257 g EI NW RESIOEN'TIAL TOTAL UNITS -327 _ {i1 :f SE RESIDUMAL TOTAL UNITS -154 i NE RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNRS -154 � roraL uNlrs - 992 cw I DECK PARKING: SE QUADRANT -130 DECK PARKING STALLS lip, NE U ADRART - 99 DECK PARKING STALLS TOTAL DECK PARKING - 169 STALLS FE r 4 I ------- -- - - LEGEND DUMPSTER / RECYCLE BIN ExiSTw -- LJ UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE C�l EAR STAIR wiE LOBBYAREA _7 I GAPMIG SDALE L0...' I- sp' 50.'725sf Nr, FK9P[mr ONE— RNATIVE Li .x-.1 W PQ.Q LEGEND OHWM 50' WETLAND SETBACK if)O' OHWN SETBACK - - WETLAND EDGE 4qA-tcW4Sy',VGTolv UNIT SUMMARY SW RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS-257 NW RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS - 12 7 SE. RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS - 164 NE RESHTENT IAL TOTAL UNITS a 154 TOTAL UNITS W 692 DECK PARKING: SE QUADRANT - 130 DECK PARKING STALLS NE QUADRANT-39 DECx PARKING STALLS TOTAL DECK PARKING -160 STALLS -' E � 44, LEGEND .: i. DUMPSTER / RECYCLE BIN 7� UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE ; t EXIT STAIR Ems*, LOBBYAREA ------------- _-,.. i I QUENDALL TERMINALS - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RENTON, WASHINGTON CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP L PDX It A� 0 i Air i .., �:: a it E .�:'v`z,ib } l'A�fWf_.•' ., LEGEND 50' WETLAND SLYLIACK IDIJ' OHWN SETBACK WETLAND EDGE ... :.: r LI I I. G d PARKING SUMMARY P-1 COVERED GARAGE PARKING: SW QUADRANT - 347, PARKING STALLS NW QUADRANT95 PARKING STALLS SE QUADRANT - 31A PARKING STALLS NE QUADRANT - 20B PARKING STALLS TOTAL P-1 PARKING 966 STALLS SURFACE PARKING; SW QUADRANT • 151 SURFACE PARKING STALLS SE QUADRANT - 42 SURFACE PARKING STA LL,S NW QUADRANT - 36 SURFACE PARKING 5 TALL5 TOTAL SURFACE PARKING = 231 STALLS DECK PARKING SHOWN ON SHEET P0.0: SE QUADRANT - 130 DECK PARKING STALLS NE QUADRANT - 39 DICK PARKING STALLS TOTAL DECK PARKING - 169 STALLS RESTAURANT i9.00D 4, REQUIRED PARKING = 36 RETAIL j20,2250) REQUIRED PARKING = 81 692 RESIDENTIAL UNITS REQUIRED PARKING = 1,21l TOTAL PARKING REQUIPL'❑ . 1,12L3 STALLS TOTAL PARKING SHOWN - 1.366 STALLS LEGEND DUMPSTER ;' RECYCLE FUN UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE EXIT STAIR ------ LOBBY AREA QUENDALL TERMINALS - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RENTON, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT s CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP LEGEND OHWM 60'WETLAND SETBACK 100'0HWNSETBACK —��--� WETLAND EDGE I 100' ONMM SEIE� I iiil,i II I I J� PARKING SUMMARY _ - - fESTnu,RUIT iF5oo: Ru�rP'� I " I c - R1 COVERED GARAGE PARKING: a• •• ♦•aa�•a a. as = _ o Ito i A-_ $W QUADRANT -S47 PAWING STALLS P .. _ - - ` 1 a a --a r -- a a NW QUADRANT- 96 PARKING STALLS +- c RACE RARRix SE QUADRANT - 919 PARKING STALLS NEQUADRANT - 206 PARKING STALLS _ - - - - TOTAL P-1 PARKING - 968 STALLS xi oRivE wr 95 caws SURFACE PARKING: j 3 r SW QUADRANT- 151 SURFACE PARKING STALLS _ F�..e _ 3 SE QUADRANT- 42 SURFACE PARKING STALLS `^ p NW QUADRANT- 36 SURFACE PARKING STALLS E r� TOTAL SURFACE PARKING - 291 STALLS w a�e c+Rs n' xRivE aN i i me aRs ff DECK PARKING SHOWN ON SHEET P0.6 SE QUADRANT -130 DECK PARKKNG STALLS NE QUADRANT- 39 DECK PARKING STALLS E♦ua ar-__ as xp TOTAL DECK PARKING -169 STALLS •a RESTAURANT PARKING -36oe RETAIL(22265GREQUIRED PARKING - B! 6 092 RESIDENIAL UNITS REQUIRED PARKING-1,21.1 . TOTAL PARKING REQNED -;328 STALLS I TOTAL PARKING SHONM -1,368 STALLS 5 r ' ,�, N' oR,vE - 1 1 xi owrE Rp ails P ERTY�l E AFT(;R 5.RE T. -- -- - - - — ---- ._._._.__ _ _ -_--� LEGEND b E% NG PROPERTY I E 69 DUMPSTER / RECYOLE B!N Ensr_ soew.,Ix .i. c enr,R - m UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE Pxisnxc— E' eiHE uHE ® EWTSTAIR �Aw LOBBY AREA K— — — lc y PROPERtt rvE 0,725sf 5 GRMN E sw e r 7 rV�% so• Q' w� �x]' 1\ff 0,Ix �N i 0C L 7� r QUENDALL TERMINALS - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RENTON, WASHINGTON CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP I P1.0 8GILD110 COVER TCTAL AREA — 187,3500 CUURTYARD TOTAL AREA = 117,5UUr SURFACE f KG AREA — 89,0^Osf ON DFCK PKC AREA — 59,DOCsf ON DECK LS AREA = 25,000sf STF.FFTc_ A R.A .'C AREA 19.250e' SIDEWALK TOTAL AREA = 60,8009f NATURAL LANDSCAPE ARLA = 140,339sf LOT 7 SAT`LLJE PROPERTY M.725sf UNPAVED HRE LANE & PFD. WALK ARFA = 59,9705E STRLET5 'D' & 'E' AREA = 23,522sf STREET LEVEL LANDSCAPE AREA — 15,300sf OTHER LANDSCAPF ARFA — 33,495sf TOTAL SITE AREA TO HIGH WATER LINE - 925,376ef �uwscuc Ahu�/ �' i hA1R, L4 Vll T.30M1 S7R7 TS 'R' & 'C 59, 25'sl 3 EXHIBIT 9 '31RLcT 'A' AREA = <O,OWs' /J QUENDALL TERMINALS - PREFERRED ALTERNATE RENTON, WASHINGTON CENTURY PACIFIC, LP Extwior Qosign Goal i,'m-mL t)IM3 4A, 2 6 U f L D I NG N.N' PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON r----------- ------------------------------ ------------Ell 611 I . ......... 74.';r 77 . .... .. .. .. .. -IL2c- &OLADING 1 U�I-L)EM3 Nl,'9LllL v DMG NW 1 BUILONG 'IV 2 BULDIN(3 S%,V 3 BUILDING SW .1 OVERALL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON - EXHIBIT 10 P3.0 QUENDALL TERMINALS - PREFERRED ALTERNATE RENTON, WASHINGTON CENTURY PACIFIC, LP 3-1LD:NG NW 1 PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION - , -------------------------------------------------------- mi .. .......... . . . . . ... .. .. . . a L A �ALI 7- 77 n I m 'v T I ................ - ---------------------------------- j 'N BUILDING NE 1 SOUTH ELEVATION D7 P3.1 PLANT K Y ti Su O mw CONCEPT LJ A L LANjSCAPE PLAN -21 QUENDALL TERMINALS - PREFERRED Al. RENTON, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 11 CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP RCAD'KI/L ` .- iE51fli'6f at %F-•-5. • �T% ,\n &. Est CHEIAL rrNS' j �.,isa "-. -► sib+ ` _ a _ �2` o Rb srRirrc .7RCErC; � _�-�-3---J`._,P."�-(rr—. v- z S1 ac6 w cun— rwur I IN AL LJ ss �} RCSIDENTAl + - T. f r' S •rs _ i� t:-._-. ew9R uLL mm t - .��. na, oe� �Kcr� ------- - - - - -" - - - -- - RIPLEY tAK ". 4 y � - NOTES•- auxarErru RnanAncx ua umw'ia+ar m[ rrovw7 MA _ - ' - eE cwoucxn mew �o oE,¢wm+r rf PP.CIE[HCN ARA'_V ;FP11 s nE If IR A(fN[r FDR 4l 41: AF�k?r.nw b rnsx�px 17 A *xk� uF, b 9F aERnYeN lrlE01NGMLrEeIYNNSSIIMDRAVplILIIR. EXHIBIT 12 s. .mnrxK eu�mc Roof oRwx crecYnon µo xrr u, a 3 M91E IWrt CPNEGnYrS 9l K LU RTWEa' i—TSR RDOp AEG uH51RIlMU 9 N S ID YNbiE R9 7 � MADE Ea Mxs a ID d"M k7T. NOT F 'R Er ESNL rwo wry wEamNcxvr r�xvona v s*G54GUA i 9W lcpff 4w" UVENUALL TERMINALS 43H LNX wsnM gLMW RW wAMd LAND USE, SHORELINE &µASTER PLAN PERMIT CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADfNG PLAN o,6n ,EaL A: I— NC DACE Br AHD_ APP?. 'E'S� -LAKE WASHIhmm - - - as arv�Aal .Axn +w4 ,o.xu7 r . - a VTL 1 a 2� - r I ff p11ix 4lBAG .. J '�_m � `'xvAr i. � _� � ``� - / � i l --.naw.riw nu g �•,�alruw. . - ��P dRUNI Po1EMN1— sioan 4 RESIDENTIAL . acsloa nu F ae orxruE nE Kx •u� AAF� k NOTES• �- OMo�fMIAL Arxmn[x MD wncanox ff rxE varrtxrr lu. eE Cq.9U ( AHIS W OiHLff1EYA. ilf E 9TEM10 AA6RCIMX' 61p [EPAI S of LiAO A'.�M fOR AL O AEYEpIAfibr ,Jtl W 4m ACIx115 AHXH /(S W A[ PE16AixFJ Ai 1NC OJ]IOVIL IFRxMA1S M91 Sl4'EK1H0 2 iHC PXOECI 91C'YC.#S AFMSdA'RY I,'R1 ITT ff SHCIRWE 4f}14 WZ r49xaGlpa- A'0�-001 vbM FFASIAx ffAgA(x (MEA9AR FR[N laE QNMAAY Ax,'a x4AERAa0 PARMIFLS N.PrG laE �� A 9[HrrE FFS1tlV."ia], P..w 5 AEIxC OE9CE0 up NFIl01� U[f11 EPA CtKtlipl. 1 E] m tEAJ m AK LtlNC mP IC11.V� [AG�I]F,KSf AI" A is 9 MAW WT Id mk Ew rt- AWaoYAL I .NAt� BLlONS AOff No CNKCn ""I; YAY K S f1L161F v IIi F [ffYECA SHALL BE ll5F➢ Ew& SIRI:LNT 0—A T Ax0 ueES oi. a® 9R Tk HO -aqx� laE R9( 9F paAW i0 un�rES p.� m'.JxSF;1F3YTAL smJ>ar , LEGEND: 'Am wm 3IE'lIIO CFFAnpIYAE51pU:AP MF F- ff EItiS al 11'rJ �AiE MAY I-lVWtl_ aDv ,6, 2009 rr s c—! JaE Iw.:lswaso As aaao gDENDAEL TEININALS um uE WI BINWAK Im,rai. WASM11 iax LAND USE, SHORELINE & WASTER PLAN PERMIT APPL: CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN STREET A — TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION scmL,'-< I , ROx I[ IQ' IS' SIDEwALKAANDSCAPE PMKING I . LANE PARKING DR 93EWALK 9DEWALKAANDSCAPE —A-6' LLRB (TIP) 7-3x 1�25x g - REET Y EDE MI E NO EDGE 'M7ERE HO ON -STREET STREET B — TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION ial PARKNG. SE PLAN ('w) uAV-c :' 11 9DEWPL( ✓Y 17 II' 8 III SIDEWALK 9 - -- --_----- - PARKING VJIE VNE � PAAKIHC - A - - —. _. - -- I & � A-fi OIRB `%EWkH E11105 I ROADWAY EDGE 1wkK NO IWI-Slm(l STREET C — TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION FPARKING RE PINT {I}v) 6CUL I' = i' EXHIBIT 13 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY DESIAM HY ryy� TAp }YIJ � IpV � ��A- AFC gUENDALL TERMINALS SHEET aEcxm Br ARPRDND BY Q�i$pA8A60q� 490 LW wASfiNSM MULEVAR% �+raN. WAWNGTON r f� �/ WTJ DATE NAY I-12�-J�1dJ 4„r U 4 +ov IB, soon\, LAND USE, SHORELINE & FASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION 1Y 3Q 5 REMW PER Ull:ADEN REaLRf}AEN,S 5 A E, ti>� ROADWAY SECTIONS NC- DATE [iY CID, AAPP. REVI514N Q B Ne_ :i500050 AS NOTED ID' I LANDSCAPE LmE -- --LINE SDE'WAIx LVIDSCARE I I 6' CURB (TF) .. .. � MATCH E% // STREET D — TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION SCALE: I' f vAAtaEEs aas—a.r ID' 11' 11' _ _ YFIMES 5.6'-A2' SOEWALNI LME LWE LANDSCAPE I LANDSCAPE I 6- an (TYF) STREET E — TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION E SCALE I- - I' WTJ OtEIXf➢ Br 7"PR014D BY 'I9il pG11 'A 0.1p GATE L�IIlH1'4AA7 .��yprm. 41WG ION REXIREMENtS MOV 16, r004 SCALE: REIAWN J 0 B Na �15PW5O AS NOTED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION QUENDALL TERMINALS SOLLI LAND USE, SHORELINE do MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION C303 ROADWAY SECTIONS 3A17CE [T1'P) Sao (TTP} F11C I LL I .\\ _ STREET C -31,7in - — - ❑ _ `{ S �EnSr IC J. X � MERCER IS NETRC SEWL i D �,. - RESIDENTIAL I PROPERTY LINE (TrP) 1 �- IE EA C CM unifyE sEADIT / RESDENTIAt RESDENTIAL j NNfNHIA NASCM EN 10 w (218 - --- fN (Tn:) -� I 7 SE.E.7NS'W CE nDR CENTE.P P.RE5IJRE ZONE) / `\ FEE * �\ BARBEE MFD ENTRY - �� _~ T - —0 PRO (SIEE-PAEE5tl1� -2CNE _) � _ ` A l 0 El SIS1� IELMAT EX11H TO LCASF 1' F. elm g 1F . L RELOCATE EY15Y uT14TY ,. ECGE Q� NEIY A!M jTYP1 L-EX+2= N{.TYC _ . - _ - - UNDER PEBSNED OWE OF PROP LFE STAION --.:DUr.OF..STREEr NOAEgP11Y CR SNAk1"'DE Lam' $jAn 5011eEs u1 - " i0 PROYDf 4'.CE R01IIf - TO 84 _ METRO SEWER..._ . . WATER NOTES: LEGEND. I. BE NEW CUR lHE "DAR1En FIRE. IIRPNAHIs SNAtI. DE PER CD! S7ANDAIW PUN 8102 YELIWYCAI SFIMCE ROOY: 2. ALL PROPOSE) *AU MAWS ARE LXAlED WTNIN ® � � DO N[1FR AND RPBA 711E 32D PNESSIIIE 7r" : ACCPRE ES DO ACCESS DOOR FROM Oi179DE .IX DC fN DUELLING P/AE T. iIEkBLE V7ILITY CCNHECTI6N5 SHALL PC USED BETWEEN STRUCTURED BUILDINGS ANC !A FlRE HORANT OF OADRTDRr0 UTE AES D r0 DIUZEFHER 1}iC Rlq( - OF DAYA(F to ununEs DUE To uFFERENnu N vAFwt " SETTLEMENT. �saa rF=a1.5 FRmNISE IjTurr DUCT BAw (LDIM, FlniSh7FLOOR ELERIDN EXHIBIT 14 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN Br DE9QII BY iJ1ECxED UY AFPBON'FP Dr WTJ MAV �hYS TOU + _ � A- a a`;*' ' �f f �. OUEN�ALL TERMINALS 43% LAIC WASNKMN BOULEVARD. NDNTDN, WASNI WDN SHEET C400 LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN DATE Nov IG. 20DD 12 Y7 IS RMED PER MITIGATION REO111REMENTS JOB w 15OWSO 5 C A L E: AS NOTED NO- DATE FiY CI ID. APPR, REVISJON E.1 gTEAMD "NARY / M WRIER YAW( (OHMM)- E<Ev,Iesz _ LAKE WASHINGTON SO" ORMEI 3MAaf Sm SWU am MACHM WATER NOTES: LEGEND: I. N1 NEw ANO RN DcAi FJ1 FiQ. MIUAAMES 41ALL MECKA CAL SOMU ROOM' BE PERCOR STAMARD PLAN B10P • nW PRi, MC1ER ANO RIBA ® • FIE mCYA %r 2. ALL pROpM wATER MAPis AAE LocATED NImN • A= OOOR FRW WISOE THE 320 PIESSURE Zcw . RK CH RAMNO FACE I FIEYIBLE UTEITY CONNECIICNS SHALL BE USER � RRE WffimT BUKEN SIRUCIURED 9M-fM0 ANM UNSTRUCREED SK AREAS TO ]WWQE MEVSN R VUYE T a K OF DAMAGE TO UTOIBES DUE TO GIF4ERETIRAI a.�a FRIxauSE UTufY DUCT BANK SEFRFIIFNT' (CWM. W Pay") TF-325 FIMMM R➢OR EIEVAEOH NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAYN BY fL51Glm BY roo wry Qq=acED sY Oka w Dn wFAv Nov se. 2oR9 �^i ual xnu,�:w.sw. QUEN[IALL TERMINALS 4W un WASN BBII naA RINK Wk%WiGT9M sMEEr C401 LAND USE, SHORELINE $ MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN 1DA.TES REMO PM WiTCATONOVpAMENR JOB Na. 5500050 5 c A L E: AS NOlEO N0. 6!' CnO. APPft. EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC January 12, 2016 Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 5 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Quendall Terminal EIS Appeal Dear Vanessa: 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seatte, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 452-5350 Fax: (206) 443-7646 www.eaest.com Per your request, EA has prepared the following summary of the opportunities that the City of Renton provided for involvement by the general public and U.S. EPA in the SEPA process for the Quendall Terminals project. The attached table summarizes the public's and EPA's involvement in the SEPA process, including the following information: • Step in SEPA Process: e.g., DEIS, EIS Addendum, FEIS and EIS Appeal; • Required: whether or not the step is required by SEPA; • Provided: whether or not the step was provided for the Quendall Terminals EIS; • Dates : the dates on which the step was accomplished for the Quendall Terminals EIS; • Duration: the duration of the step for the Quendall Terminals EIS, including whether it was extended beyond the duration required by SEPA; and • Comments: comments on public/EPA involvement (e.g., the number of comment letters and emails received on the Quendall Terminals EIS Scoping, DEIS and EIS Addendum, and the way in which EPA's comments were incorporated into the EIS). As shown by the attached table, the City went above and beyond the SEPA requirements to involve the public in the Quendall Terminals EIS process, including: extending the EIS Public Scoping period (from the required 21 days to 70 days); holding a Public Scoping meeting to provide additional opportunity for public comment (which is not required); extending the DEIS public Scoping period (from the required 30 days to 60 days); holding a DEIS public hearing to provide additional opportunity for public comment (which is not required); and taking and responding to public comments on the EIS Addendum (which is not required). The attached table also demonstrates that the City provided expanded opportunities for participation by EPA in the Quendall Terminals SEPA process and incorporated their input into the EIS, including: attending three meetings with EPA and the applicant to define the baseline assumptions for site cleanup/remediation that were used in the Draft EIS; and responding to EXHIBIT 15 comments in two letters from EPA on the DEIS that ultimately resulted in new baseline cleanup/remediation assumptions that were used in the EIS Addendum (e.g., a new Preferred Alternative with an expanded setback from the Lake Washington shoreline was developed and analyzed in the Addendum). Please let me know if you have any questions on this summary. Sincerely, Gretchen Brunner, Senior Planner EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. PBC 2 QUENDALL TERMINALS EIS PUBLIC & U.S. EPA INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Step in SEPA Process Required Provided Dates) Duration Comments DEIS • EIS Public Scoping Period Yes (21 days) Yes 2/19110 — 4/30110 70 days (extended) 5 letters/emails Public Scoping Meeting No Yes 4/27/10 1 day 4 commentators + DEIS Public Comment Period Yes (30 days) Yes 12/10/10 — 2/09/11 60 days (extended) 75 letterslemails • DEIS Public Hearing No Yes 1104/11 1 day 8 commentators EIS Addendum + EIS Addendum Public Comment Period No Yes 10/19112—11/19/12 30 days 12 letters FEIS • FEIS Yes Yes 8/31/15 NIA - Responded to comments on DEIS and on EIS Addendum EIS Appeal + EIS Public Appeal Period Yes (20 days) Yes 8/31115 — 9/24/15 20 days 1 appellant U.S. EPA INVOLVEMENT Step in SEPA Process Required Provided Date(s) Duration Comments DEIS ■ Pre -EIS Mtgs. Re Baseline Assumptions No Yes 311/10, 4122110, 5/12/10 1 day each - Baseline assumptions used in DEIS were based on input from EPA at Pre - EIS meetings + Comment Letters on DEIS No Yes 1/13111, 3/12/12 NIA - Baseline assumptions used in EIS Addendum were modified based on comments on DEIS in EPA's 3/12/12 ietter5 1 Per WAG 197-11-408(2)(i) 2 Per WAC 197-11-455(6) 3 Taking and responding to comments on an EIS Addendum is not required by SEPA. 4 Per RMC 4-8-110E.1.b 5In their 3112/12 letter, U.S. EPA indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), with an increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake (Lake Washington) edge. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum incorporated EPXs recommended shoreline setback. ADVISORY NOTES TO APP LUA09-151 Application Date: November 18, 2009 Name: Quendall Terminals ANT 6"n" a,;a. -------,�Ren'L r'l1CorF1IIII 11L�■J~Z� Site Address: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1426 430-7298 (: rnair@rentonwa.gov;: Recommendations: I have completed a preliminary review for the above referenced master site plan for the mixed use development which includes 692 residential units, 20,025 square feet of retail, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The following comments are based on the application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. General utility comments 1. All buried utilities, public roads, and infrastructure serving the site development shall be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert and adjacent to the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the road or utility lines. (Mitigation Measure C29). This mitigation measure is applicable for both public and private utility lines. 2. The required horizontal and vertical separations as per City of Renton standards should be provided between the utility lines. 3. If the required minimum separation between utility lines need wider pavement width, then the street width should be changed accordingly. 4. Any existing utilities under the proposed buildings will be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easements will be required to be relinquished or amended. 5. All mitigation measures of the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document shall be applicable on the project and should be provided by the project. 6_ An agreement with King county for access and frontage improvements over King County owned railroad right of way should be provided to the City prior to site plan review application and construction permit application. Water The water utility main lines for this project will be public water lines. Minimum 15 feet wide easement should be provide to the City of Renton for the public water main located in private streets. There is an existing 10 inch diameter water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and an B inch water main extending into the Quendall Terminals site. 1. The conceptual utility civil plans submitted should be revised to include the following: ❑ Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12 inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Street A. The existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the new road. Please see the attached water sketch. ❑ Relocate the new 12 inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20 foot fire access road. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. To comply with these conditions, the buildings will need to be moved back further to the east to allow for the construction of the water main with the paved fire acoess road. 7 Complete the water main loop within the fire access road along the west side of the project from Street B to Street E. ❑ Minimum 15 feet wide easement is required for water main. 2. All water mains and related appurtenances installed within the site shall be in accordance with the requirements of the EPA's approved plan for installation, operations, maintenance and monitoring plan of utilities. 3. Water mains shall be placed in clean fill materials, in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert of the water line, along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the water mains from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the water mains by the City. 4. A utility easement and maintenance agreement with the city of Renton will be required for the maintenance and future repair of the water lines within the site. The property owners will be responsible for all costs related to the excavation, removal, and disposal of EXHIBIT 16 Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 1 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICAN LUA09-151 • � 4 PLAN - Planning Review - Land Use Version 1 Eh In g earin .Rewey►r Comrt>ei to > ContatC thin��Ialr [425 43 7 �8 ' aic�ientarfwa.: oi�: materials and for final restoration associated with the City's operation, maintenance and repair of the water lines within the site. i 5. Civil plans for the water main improvements that are submitted with the utility construction permit should be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Washington. Please refer to City of Renton General Design and Construction Standards for Water Main Extensions as shown in Appendix J of the City's 2012 Water System Plan. 6. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. Sanitary Sewer The sewer utility main lines for this project will be public sewer lines. Minimum 15 feet wide easement should be provide to the City of Renton for the public sewer main located in private streets. There is a 12 inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel. 1_ The sewer report mentions that the sewer system was designed to convey the peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location at a new manhole installed on an existing 12" diameter City of Renton sewer pipe. 2. Along with the utility construction permit plans, the developer is required to submit a revised sewer report that will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station. The lift station capacity will need to be increased to serve the needs of the Quendall Terminals project. The sewer report submitted with the land use application showed an allowance of 1,100 gallons /acre/day for infiltration and Inflow. The allowance number should be increased to 1,500 gallons/ acrelday. 3. Sewer manhole should be located outside of the landscaped center island on Street B_ 4. Any use in the buildings (kitchen, restaurant, etc. ) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a property sized grease interceptor. 5. If the project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 6. Storm drainage system within the indoor parking area shall be connected to an oil water separator and directed to the sewer system. 7_ All buildings should be served by individual side sewers at a minimum. 8. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. 9. The Baxter lift station sewer Special Assessment District (SAD) fee will be applicable on the project. The base rate of this SAD fee is $166,421 with an interest of 5.3%. The rate as March 22, 2016 is $225,408.35 and will increase daily. This SDA fee rate will max out in July 2019. The rate that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. The payment will be due at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit_ Storm water There is an existing 12 inch diameter stormwater line on North 42nd Place that ends near the west property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel. Since the internal streets of the development are private, the storm water system for the development will be private. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will need to be recorded. The developer! property owners/ HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of all stormwater systems constructed by the project. 1. A drainage plan and drainage report (TIR) based on the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual should be submitted with the utility construction permit. The site is located in the Flow control Duration standard forested site conditions. The applicant is proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project_ Water quality treatment is proposed for the project and should follow the requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual. Storm water flow control BMPs are to be provided_ All recommendations of the geotechnical report and the mitigation measures included in the final mitigation document should be followed in the design and construction of the project. 2_ City of Renton has the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit. Per the requirements of the Phase I I permit, all projects that have been approved prior to January 1 2017 and have not started construction by January 1, 2022 shall follow the new Surface Water Drainage Manual. Therefore, if the project has not started construction by January 1, 2022, the requirements of the Stormwater Manual that is current at that time will be applicable on the project. 3. The stormwater requirements (1 to10) included in the memorandum dated September 14. 2009 from Ronald Straka, Surface Water utility Supervisor, included below along with the additional information (a) and (b) are applicable on this project. The memorandum is Ran: April 12. 2016 Page 2 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APP ANT LUA09-151 % I -- -- . , r-L-JAr'M - rrra1tt1rrty r%t;vit;w - L4211U use vorarwrr r Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1 425=430-7298 1 mair@rentonwa.gov also included as an attachment. a. Projects approved prior to January 1, 2017 and have not started construction by January 1 2022, shall be subject to the requirements of the new 5tormwater Manual that will be current at that time. b. Projects that comply with the exceptions included in Section 1.2.8 of the 2009 Surface Water Manual may provide basic water quality treatment instead of enhanced basic water quality treatment. 4. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. Transportation 1. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, shall be provided along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N (Seahawks Way) along the site_ These sidewalks shall connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities in the area. (Mitigation Measure G3.) 2. A crosswalk including pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the crosswalk shall be provided across Lake Washington Boulevard in order to connect the proposed development to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. The crosswalk shall be controlled by Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, if the City determines that such lighting is warranted. (Mitigation Measure G9.) 3. A traffic mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways, (Mitigation Measure H1.) 4. TDM measures shall be implemented to reduce the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing impacts at study intersections. (Mitigation Measure H2.) 5. Infrastructure improvements within the site shall include full curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscape strips (where applicable) as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape strips, bike lanes, pavement width, and utilities) along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. (Mitigation Measure H3.) 6. If approved by EPA and any NRD settlement, a pedestrian trail shall be provided onsite through the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback area that shall be accessible to the public and shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk system. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; this trail shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk system. (Mitigation Measure H4.) 7_ To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant shall install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the 1 405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and/or speed humps. Final design of traffic calming elements shall be approved by the City_ (Mitigation Measure H5.) 8_ The parking supply under the Preferred Alternative shall meet the minimum off street parking requirements of the City of Renton. (Mitigation Measure H6.) 9. Shared parking agreements between on site uses and implementation of TDM measures for proposed residential uses shall be implemented to reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply. (Mitigation Measure H7.) 10. Afire access road shall be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass Crete to support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail. (Mitigation Measure H8.) 11. In order to promote a multimodal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site shall include site amenities (Le., planting strips, street lighting, etc_) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1405/NE» 44th Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on 1 405 planned by Sound Transit and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) with a flyer stop at the 14051NE 44th Street interchange). (Mitigation Measure H9.) 12. Staff recommends that a paved bicycle lane shall be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way)/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley lane (Seahawks Way)/Lake Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 3 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICAN LUA09-151 PLAN - Planning Review - Land Use Version 1 Enaineeririg RbvieW Cotninents Carrtact:,Rohlnl, lNair,1425-43t-7298 rriair@renianwa gov: Washington Boulevard (Mitigation Measure H10.) 13, The developer should coordinate with WSDOT, King County, and the City of Renton to finalize the required lane, signal, and frontage improvements on Lake Washington Blvd, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and Barbee MITI access. This coordination and finalization of the street improvements and ROW requirements should take place before the site plan and the building/utility permit application is submitted to the City of Renton. All the street improvements included in the EIS, EIS Addendum, FEIS, and the mitigation document, to address the impacts of the project should be provided. Please see the figure titled 'Additional lanes required to be provided to mitigate project Impacts' for information regarding the additional turn lanes and additional through motor vehicular traffic lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. Street improvements should be constructed by the developer. The required ROW dedications should be provided and or obtained by the developer. 14. Private access at the Barbee Mill Access Frontage improvements including landscaped planter and sidewalk matching the existing improvements an the west side of the access is required to be provided on the east side of the access. 15. Private access at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) 8 feet wide landscaped planter and 5 feet wide sidewalk is required to be provided on either side of the access. 16. For the scenario with 1 405 Improvements: a. Lake Washington Blvd bin Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and Ripley Lane N (Seahawks Way). The eastbound and westbound thru lanes planned by WSDOT shall be extended beyond and thru the Barbee Mill access intersection. This shall result in 2 thru lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Blvd from the 1405 interchange past the Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street). b. Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street}/ Lake Washington Blvd. Traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) /Lake Washington Blvd intersection, the EB approach shall be widened to include a separate LEFT TURN only lane. 17. For the scenario without 1405 Improvements: a. Traffic Signals_ Traffic signals shall be installed at the intersections of the 1 405 northbound and southbound ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd StreatyLake Washington Boulevard. The City will consider moving the location of this signal to the intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard as part of a future WSDOT improvement project to the NE 44th Street interchange. Relocating the traffic signal to Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard could reduceteliminate potential longer range impacts of traffic queues on N 43rd Street between Lake Washington Boulevard and Road A, and with the existing rail crossing (should it be re activated for rail service or converted to a trail corridor). An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either N 43rd Street or Ripley Lane. (Mitigation Measure H 13.) b. Intersection #1 1 405 Northbound Ramps1NE 44th Street. The southbound and northbound approaches shall be widened so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of.the Intersection with the additional widening improvements shall be coordinated with WSDOT. (Mitigation Measure H14.) c. Mitigation measure H15 should be corrected to mention the widening on the eastbound approach on the Barbee Mill access instead of the previous typo that mentioned the westbound approach. [H15. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and 1 405 Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill access and the 1 405 southbound ramps shall be constructed_ Additional eastbound and westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the southbound ramp and Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd StreetjlLake Washington Boulevard intersection the eastbound approach on the Barbee Mill Access shall be widened to include a separate left turn only lane and the northbound approach on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include a separate left turn only lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right of way), and adjacent private development] d. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and 1405 Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill access and the 1 405 southbound ramps shall be constructed. Additional eastbound and westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the southbound ramp and Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd StreetyLake Washington Boulevard intersection the westbound approach on the Barbee Mill Access shall be widened to include a separate left turn only lane and the northbound approach on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include a separate left turn only Lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right of way), and adjacent private development (Mitigation Measure H15.) 18. All the mitigation measures of the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document shall be applicable on the project and should be provided by the developer prior to temporary occupancy certificate is given for the first building in the site. 19. All the internal streets of Quendall Terminals site shall be private streets. 20. The proposed cross section of the internal streets should be revised as per the attached drawings and as per the description Ran: Aoril 12.2016 Page 4 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APP ANT LUA09-151 PLAN - Planning Review - Land Use CITY OF n �II��^; ._., ------,��-Kento Version 11 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-7298 1 mair@rentonwa.gov included below. If the street pavement width is not sufficient to accommodate the utility lines with the required separation as per the City of Renton standards, then the street widths will have to be increased accordingly. a. Street A can have two cross sections depending on the use of the building on the side of the street. The cross section elements include i. Parking garage (residential use) near the street C 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building G 12 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate ( 4'x8') ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 6 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street ❑ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes) ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 10 feet wide landscaping ii. No parking garage (retail use) near the street ❑ 6 feet wide landscaping near the retail building ❑ 12 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'xB') ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 6 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street ❑ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes) ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 10 feet wide landscaping An on site circulation study is required to be provided with the site plan to determine if the proposed 12 feet wide center turn lane is required. If the center turn lane is required, then the street width will have to changed accordingly. The width of landscaping near the property line is also subject to change based on the site circulation study and/or the proposed use of the building adjacent to Street A_ b. Street B can have three cross sections depending on the use of the building on the side of the street. include i. No parking garage on either side of street B (retail use on both sides) ❑ 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8') ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street ❑ 24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes) ❑ 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street C 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8') ii. Parking garage (residential use) on one side of Street B C 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building F 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'xB') ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street ❑ 24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feel wide lanes) ❑ 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'xB') iii. Parking garage (residential use) an both sides of Street B LJ 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building ❑ 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8') ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street ❑ 24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes) ❑ 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street The cross section elements Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 5 of a ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8') ❑ 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building c. Street C can have three cross sections depending on the use of the building on either sides of the street. The cross section elements include: i Parking garage (residential use) on bath sides of Street C ❑ 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage ❑ 6 feet wide sidewalk ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side ❑ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes) ❑ 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side 0.5 feet wide curb 6 feet wide sidewalk ❑ 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage ii Parking garage (residential use) on one side of Street C ❑ 10 feet wide landscaping near the garage ❑ 6 feet wide sidewalk on the side near the garage ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side C 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes) C 6 feel wide on street parking lane on one side Q 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 12 feet wide sidewalk on the side away from garage ❑ 4 feet wide landscaping back of sidewalk on the side away from garage iii No parking garage on any side of the street (retail use on both sides) 4 feet wide landscaping near the building ❑ 12 feet wide sidewalk ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side ❑ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes) ❑ 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 12 feet wide sidewalk ❑ 4 feet wide landscaping back of sidewalk d. Sheet D cross section elements include: ❑ 10 feet wide landscape setback ❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes) f1 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 6 feet wide sidewalk ❑ 5 feet wide landscaping between back of sidewalk and parking lot e. Street E cross section elements include: 10 feet wide landscaping on the side near the parking garage 6 feet wide sidewalk .❑ 0.5 feet wide curb ❑ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes) LI 0.5 feet wide curb on the side near the property line Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 6 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APP' ' 7ANT LUA09-151 cI .y 0F -- -�.. rL.1AF1 - rtan11111M r%rwiGw - L-arru Uac v ol12w" Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-72981 mair@rentonwa.gov- ❑ 5 feet landscape setback from property line If portions of Street E will have parking on both sides, then alternate street cross sections will be required for those portions of Street E. 21. If the required minimum separation between utility lines need wider pavement width, then the street width should be changed accordingly. 22. Street lighting is required to be provided on all streets_ The street lighting can follow the City of Renton's residential street lighting requirements. Since the streets are private, the street lighting shall be privately owned and maintained by the developerf property owner/ HOA. 23. Parking garage entrances should be designed with consideration of sight distance. 24. The proposed project has passed the City of Renton's traffic concurrency test. A traffic concurrency report has been provided for the project. 25. An easement with King county for access, and an agreement with King County for construction of frontage improvements over King County owned railroad right of way should be provided to the City prior to site plan review application and construction permit application. General Comments 1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When utility plans are complete, please submit four (4) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. 3. All electrical, phone, and cable services and lines serving the proposed development must be underground. The construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton inspector prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. Community Services Review Comments'.ContactF Leslie 8etlachl425-430-66191L tlach@'rentohwa.gov Recommendations: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMENTS (from Community Services) 1. As per the Final EIS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect the crosswalk across Lake Washington Blvd. as per Mitigation G 9 Condition_ 2. As per the final EIS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation Document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect the Trail connection within the 100' shoreline setback south to the Barbe Mill Development as per G 11 Mitigation Condition. Planning Review Comments Contact: Vanessa Dolbee 1425430-7314.1 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (&00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. This permit is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 2007 and /or your U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service permit. Building Review - Planning Comments Contact: Craig Burnell 1 425-43€3-72901 cbumeil@rentonw8.gov Recommendations: follow recommendations of the soils report Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 7 of 9 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICAN LUA09-151 CETY CaF Ili �- '. ton \J___:__ A r-L-MIM - rIQ11111111J, rtCY1VVW ' Lallu U.-ma YGIr71V11 Technical Seividest Comments .. Contact- i�iM Mknbn; l 425-43aaslven[ rentonw i goo Recommendations_ For the preliminary binding site plan review: Updated title report not provided. Submitted title report for May 2409. The dedication of land for street purposes on binding site plans requires approval by the City Council. Said dedication is achieved via a recorded City of Renton Dedication Deed document (form is provided by the city). If the dedication is to be recorded with the binding site plan, the dedication process needs to be timed in such a way that Council approval and all other matters pertaining to the dedication have been addressed and resolved, and said document is ready to record. The Deed of Dedication document includes both a legal description exhibit and a map exhibit. The legal description exhibit should be prepared, stamped, dated and signed by the applicant's surveyor. The surveyor should also prepare the map exhibit. The dedication process requires an updated title report, to be dated within the 45 days prior to Council action on said dedication. Talk to the Project Manager if there are questions or further information is needed. Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 8 of 8 r ,1 + PROPERTY LINE (I)P) r) .y BARBEE MILL ENTRY - 4z� WATER NOTES: ILA TC MRiN_ ANDMLATE ELPP Yn@WHNCL N, AILEE AIT>u6aIL7GzTE IA I LBEiI, EnoANcyrTE=+=A�ae LEGEND. A'f'VorLJPLAN FORRa f_LAT{N 'EHA*IONS WNN$LNANLL ANO1M5Na LUN' II UR-TIES 4Ah I. ALL NEW AND RELDCATE37 FIRE HYARANTS SHAIi WTYE,};MA ': B I IACO:C W L -RN F:U LEAF RIA1 : , TNT fIHKOH WI htiLIV'C:'N7 N'S 11 NO fli ] I'DA F F : };'+_ OVJl f IN Ef I �,E= 'SAE hRI } LINE, .'�O- W3:A A.IJA V- AbLF BAYS ELT1I f.ES°\N3 77EGGNFRAIiLi TIONJ THE GLEANH L EA€E3 3AL 3N ffl EL-f i0 1 OF C- -FfE BE PER Cm STANAARA PLAk BID2. MECHANICAL SERVICE ROAN: WAY HI IS FTSLM LON. M1IAI!:AJ{'N Ail IDd L6b; IJITJHE VIIN ENANC� F_YJ".YEH tAMI SUV IT+ �/� . DOM PRY, MEIER ANU RPBA AM[IDLCj I A'3EART'41 AM,7 MAIN IIxLAx1L4A,R wrmrw fl: AL I-Y fA-RIHJ70:4 F..€F:F PEGLI"EC ECIR THE MAIN'fEMRJ ANC: FVTJA ' ✓AIR L'!- r 2. ALL PROPM WATER MAINS ARE LOCATED WIARN �j//� •FEE DI lHF NAT A LINES WTF.INTHE SITE T'.L PEOP_RT1 LAY NLHE VIE _515E°CNUBI FJR ALL GO S iELA-E0 TU!F11L EkC 3JI4N HEmLVhL a4& THE JIM PRESSURE ZONE �!!fG • ACCESS ODOR FROM OUTSIDE DISPOSAL OF MRTERIALo AAC FOP.F3dhL REST&Rf.T10N AS.5L�..IA'E♦)1VIF'?THE CITY50F'ERtT.N,M0.1h'TENANCE �^IC AEInR_„iia[bt4fk3 _It!'.-.'� • FDC ON SuL01NC FACE 'Ni 7-JN'N.4 "I r 7- FLNBLE uTuTY CCNFJFCACNS SHALL BE USED BEIRII SIRHCIURED UVRD►1US AND A IIRL HYDRANT w UNSTRUCTURED SIEE AREAS 10 MINIMIZE It RISK-- hd w OF DAMAGE TO UAU11E5 DUE TO DIFFFJtEN71AL BETSIFMENT. N VALVE naix x cw.>Ta xzs c-'Fx Io rzv xL>, NwA..see FRANCHISE U11uT7 DVCT BANK (CCMM, cAS POWER) ...... _ .. FF=32.5 FINISHED FLOOR ELEVARON NOT FOR Cl DRAWN eur DESIGNED By cxEam ar AreRovEo Br[hr, WTJ MAV �#GIREGS i� (TUG r L smA. «,sue.Gcao r l��l, pUENDALL TERMINALS 45m LAME WASMttM BMUVAM NENTON• WASHINGTGN pry q r[[C I'800-,�I'S5 IL I AL111 IICr CIJACf! I\Ir ti FJArrro OI A\I D1-6111T 1001 IPATIJI LI Q / 2E �y y =�j[Y K4Ut ,1 �� O� •uTK 1 s � ; i a�7LaF'52 1 1 p 1 P—LL �y Zm, r u M� ■ I� bw'N-mtaloy;4wlYrnol(w�w•i em�vl a'awsr4wtois<-iwwsiy2 mmw ewer -; PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT � ��r�t�� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 14, 2009 � � 2009 TO: Arneta Henninger, Plan Reviewer FROM: Ronald J. Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor SUBJECT: QUENDALL TERMINALS STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS Please see my comments below regarding the drainage report and plans, dated August 27, 2009, for Quendall Terminals. 1. The project shall be required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) standards as a condition of SEPA. 2. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2009 KCSWDM. 3. The proposed projects must submit an offsite analysis report that assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project site and proposes appropriate mitigation of those impacts. 4. The report must include a KCRTS printout of all land use input values for pre- and post -developed impervious and pervious areas. The report should also include a basin summary table for the existing condition and developed condition land use. The basin summary table should identify the wetlands. 5. The wetland area needs to be included in the pre- and post -developed time series analysis. 6. Since the project will result in more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, the project must comply with section 1.2.3 of the 2009 KCSWDM Flow Control. The direct discharge exemption may apply to the project if it meets all of the following criteria: a. The flowpath from the project site discharge point to the edge of the 100-year floodplain of the major receiving water will be no longer than a quarter mile. b. The conveyance system between the project site and the major receiving water will extend to the ordinary high water mark, and will be comprised Henninger/Quendall Terminal Stormwater Requirements Page z of 2 September 14, 2009 of manmade conveyance elements (pipes, ditches, etc.) and will be within public right-of-way or a public or private drainage easement c. The conveyance system will have adequate capacity per Core Requirement #4, Conveyance System, for the entire contributing drainage area, assuming build -out conditions to current zoning for the equivalent area portion and existing conditions for the remaining area d. The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion, assuming the same basin conditions as assumed in Criteria (c) above. NOTE: The major receiving waters do not include wetlands. 7. The engineer proposes to discharge runoff from the north and west portions of the site into the wetlands located at the north and west corners of the site. The engineer needs to conduct an analysis of the wetland to determine the existing hydrology, including the hydroperiod, and base the recharge on that analysis. Typically, the wetland report would include a recommendation from the biologist as to the proper recharge rate. 8. The proposed roadway improvements shall be taken into consideration when calculating the post development site condition and sizing the water quality and flow control facilities, if required. 9. The project will be required to provide enhanced water quality treatment per section 1.2.8.1. Application of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu may be waived for treatment of any runoff that is discharged entirely by pipe all the way to the ordinary high water mark to the major receiving waters, listed on pages 1- 37 of the 2009 KCSWDM. Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment is required for any discharges to the existing wetlands on site. 10. Does the project have an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area, per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM? If yes, the project must provide oil control in addition to any other water quality facility required. If you have any questions contact Hebe Bernardo, Surface Water Utility Engineer (0264). cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Chip Vincent, Planning Director Nell Watts, Development Services Director h:\file sys\swp -surface water projects\swp 27- surface water projects (plan review)\quendali terminals\first review.doc\HBaw E 1. Introduction Quendall Terminals is a proposed mixed -use development in Renton, Washington. The development includes five stories of residential or office space above two levels of above -grade parking or retail and restaurant space. The development project anticipates entitlement of the following: Table 1-L• Proposed Development Use Residential Quantity/Area 800 Units Office 245,000 Square Feet Retail 21,600 Square Feet Restaurant 9,000 Square Feet Parking 2,215 Spaces Note: All areas shown are gross building areas (GBA). The project site is located west of Interstate 405 near the northern city limits of Renton. The site is bounded by the Seahawks Training Facility to the north, BNSF railroad tracks to the east, and the Barbee Mill residential community to the south. Ripley Lane is located east of the BNSF railroad tracks and Lake Washington Boulevard is located southeast of the project site. See F€gure 1 in the Appendix for the site location. This report is intended to support City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan Approval. The scope of this report is to address the sanitary sewer system for the proposed development. Design criteria will be outlined and a sewerage approach will be evaluated. Z, Predeveloped Site Conditions The existing site is vacant and is the former location of a log sorting and storage yard. The main site is approximately 20.30 acres in size, and the parcel east of the main project site across Ripley Lane North is approximately 1.15 acres in size. An existing 12-inch sanitarysewer main runs from south to north alongthe east side of the site within a 60-foot roadway and utility easement. The invert elevation of the existing sewer pipe is generally 10 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface, The existing Baxter Lift Station serves Quendall Terminals as well as the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and Barbee Mill to the South. There are no other sewers located on the project site. An 84-inch Metro sewer main is located approximately 100 feet east of the site's east property line. See Figure 2 in the Appendix for existing site conditions. CenturyPaaiflc,LP Quendall ierminafs ��f/✓ (� Y�-c�ff# 7T *�YF S. Developed Site Conditions The proposed site improvements include a mixed -use development consisting of residential, office, retail, and restaurant uses, as well as new public and private streets and parking. Sewer mains will be constructed within thenrapr d[ pub r, streets. Sewage from the buildings will discharge to the new sewer mains via side sewers. The new sewer mains will discharge to the existing 12-inch sewer main at the east side of the project site at a new manhole constructed over the ex€sting main. No improvements are planned for the 1.15-acre parcel east of Rlpley Lane. See figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for proposed site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively. asis of Design 4. B An on -site sanitary sewer system will collect and convey flows from Quendall Terminals. Adjacent sites are already developed and served by separate sanitary sewer systems, This report has utilized programmed project areas and Department of Ecology (DOE) criteria to establish projected sewer flows without provisions for future growth or connections. See Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for proposed site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively. Gross building areas have been used for this report. An allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day (gpad) has been made for infiltration and inflow since the proposed sanitary sewer system is expected to be below seasonal high groundwater elevations. The L15-acre parcel east of Ripley Lane has not been Included in the Infiltration calculation. A peaking factor of 4.0 was included in the design flows. This factor should account for the dally and seasonal fluctuations in waste generation. This factor should also mitigate the Impact of the varying flow generations for the different uses proposed with this project The sanitary sewer system was designed to convey the estimated peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location at a new manhole installed on an existing City of Renton sanitarysewer pipe. The sewer capacities were established using Manning's Equation, with an "n" factor of 0.013. Sewer lines have been designed usingthe minimum slope requirements of the Washington State DOE. The pipe slopes used in the final design and future construction documents may be greater than the minimum slope to accommodate potential settlement, depending on the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer. CenturyPaciflc, LP Quendall Terminals EXISTING BAXTER LIFT STATION The Baxter Lift Station is an existing sewer lift station located at the northeast corner of the project site within a sanitary sewer easement. The lift station was designed in 2006 and was constructed in 2009. The iift station was designed for an overall peak flow of 594 gpm for the Seahawks Training Facility, Barbee Mill community, and the Quendall Terminals site. The lift station was designed and constructed with the following assumptions for future development of the Quendall Terminals site: Table 5,3: Lift Station Design Assumntioes for Ouenda(l Terminals (Der Figure 61 Developable Acres 5 Tributary Area 5,0 Acres Flaw Rate 2,800 gpad Number of Units .75 Tributary Area 3.0 Acres Persons/unit 2.4 Flow Rate . 100 gpad Average Sewerage Flow 22.2 gpm Design 1/1 Rate 1,500 gpad Peaking Factor 4 Design Sewage Flow 88.9 gpm Design VI Flow 8.3 gpm Total Design How 97.2 gpm Total Design Flaw Q peak hourly The sewer lift station was designed for a flow of 97.2 gpm from the Quendaq project size. The anticipated flow From the Quendall project site is 614 gpm. The sewer lift station capacity will need to be increased by approximately 517 gpm to 1,111 gpm to accommodate development of the Quendall Terminals site. Per discussion with the City of Renton Public Works, the existing Lift station has the ability to be modified to increase capacity bychanging pump impellers and increasing the wet well capacity. See Figure 6 in the Appendix for Baxter Lift Station design details and Figure 7 for a record of discus ion with the City. f, CenturyPaclfic, LA Quendall terminals j��R• 4 • Other available options are installing larger pumps but Dave did not believe that would be necessary as the existing pumps were specifically chosen to allow impeller modifications as they anticipated the need for additional capacity in the future. Fees; Quendall has recently been assessed a capacity charge of $166k for their "fair share" of the Baxter Pump Station. This assessment was based on 111gpm of capacity. I asked Dave if future assessments would be required If the flows exceeded the 111gpm. Dave indicated there would be NO additional capacity charge assessments for the Quendall site only mechanical pump station upgrades to increase the pump station parity to meet oqr proposed site demand. %04" �At-� l�ryf C KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 2 Telephone Record November 17, 2009 . Figure 7 KPFF Consulting Engineers November, 2009 BUILDAVG IISEAND DISCHARGE POINT PER TRIBUTARYARE4 Trib. Area 10 Resid. Office Retail Rest. Discharge To (UNITS] [SF] [SF] [SF] NE Trib. Ares SE Trib. Area 0 117500 4800 D Reach 3 175 I D7500 4500 0 Reach 2 $W Trib. Area 1 360 0 0 0 Reach 2 SW Trib, Area 2 90 loom 6300 4500 Reach 4 NW Trib. Area 1 100 0 100 Iowa 0 BOW 0 45W Reach 3 Trib. Area 2 75 Reach 4 Total 800 245000 216W 9000 Reach I BUILDING USE PER REACH Reach 10 Resid. Office Retail7Rest Rest [UNITS] [SF] [SF][SEATS,) Reach 1 800 245000 21BW 396 Reach 2 535 107500 4500Reach 3 f00 117500 4800 0 Reach 4 165 20000 12300 9000 396 INFILTRATION/1NFL0W -� M 45 Zfr�` Site Size [AC] now [GP Flow ]GPM] 20.3 11001 16 PIPE CALCULATIONS UNIT FLOW AND PEAK FACTOR PER BUILDING USE Use Unft [GPD] I Peak Factor Residenfial 175 [per urfiW 4 Uftico 0,2 [per sq ft] 4 Retail 0.3 [per sgft] 4 Restaurant, 50 [per seat] 4 IA, 1 DD [ r acre] 1 NOTES Unit flows include normal infitrawn Assumes 1.75 residents per unit Restaurant conversion: 1 seat = 22.7 square feet of restaurant l itration due to high groundwater FLOW PAR REACH Reach ID Resid. Office Retail Rest. Ili Total [GPM3 [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] Reach 1 389 136 18 55 16 W 4 Beach 2 260 60 4 0 4 328 Reach 3 49 65 4 0 4 122 Reach 4 ' 80 11 10 55 4 161 Reach iD Upstrm. MH Dovmstmn. MW UNtrm.IE Downstrm. IE Slope n a',,r Qr at]d , % Cap_ VU Origin of Flow IN] [FT] [FT] [FTIFT] [CFS] [GPM] [GPM] [FPS] REACH 1 qLangthinnerDia REACH 2, REACH 3, REACH 4 SSMH #2 55MH #1 12 19.23 18.49 0.0022 0.013 1.68 754 614 81% 2,14 REACH 2 SE Trib. Area, SW Trlb. Area 1 SSMH #3S-2 SSMH #3S-1 278 8 21-88 20.77 0.0040 01013 0.77 344 328 95% 2.19 kFZACH 3 SSMHII3S-1 SSMH*2 278 S 20,57 19.56 0.0040 0.013 0.77 344 328 95% 2.19 8 20.92 NE Trib. Area, NW Tnb. Area 1 SSMH #3N SSMH #2 34U 19.56 0.0040 0.013 0.77 _ 344 122 55% 2.20 REACH 4 SW Trib. Area 2, NW Trib. Area 2 SSMH #3W SSMH fit 271 B 20.64 i9.56 0.0040 0,013 0.78 343 167 47% 2.19 Figure 5: Calculations i HATCHME SEE SHEET IM RESEDENT€AL 75s,'...j �,.T: RESIDENTIAL :T'.Iss L---� .7 RCSiDEHTVAL ET��S: � �511 G > r'EF.EE -� I .` .. .. .. .. .. .. .. f F.................. p STRLL7 L .... la Ro - >z7' Ll ---------------- 1 K a Y� r i FgOT'kTIA RETA,%N H A,,.,.' .. � -�y ..._ PL/2A DR r;N ti.E _, - - :Fr, T-St,= - I "1 5LL NOTE. 2 a ;. .- ._. LYX1F a.EO ;IA A - \ '".,RAN W vreCs - C3Eu" MiA� ICI \\ , i j-� _... R;1�` . FAN 7 I ..kE: W4C= � i 2 J� AETA WNG ULL j ` 1 W STAR gar CVTLLi. � AND Pih2� idr -=-RDTEi1T : AM aJl'cT. .�i ` s�` _ ...... _." ..-. ._ 2a�1- oc SEE NCl. RESIDENTLAL ESIDENRt \ R AL ITT- �N, 'Ti.4S.5 RESIDENTIAL .'Y SV✓►, \ ... .i+ AtiIA Y f!i:us] ADI R f ly."r _� z g R1V%,kT T twne[Yx,,. in'xr { I PUTST'S'. 4ELIVXi r - PRIVATS ---------- .. i aNaw PRIVAT f N� ACCESS �n __ Arl,Erx?aElrsErrv} - - .. .. PRE3l�TE -------_— — — — — — — — �- -- __-----"- — — — ^ ^ -T — — — — -- -- -- — RIPLEY'LANE _ �Sk1 NOTES: � N�TON dLV I. M.RN'HE:NTAL 00 �.i IIN SHC k, IWUN If W Pe,x+[u-Y Wd - ° — . OE rA "CTLO PRP.R F GLi'E'.UWENT_ Ill EN 'dJ'::t1YENlli - y PKRUVON AOENCY fEPA) IS --E LEAC A'»FNCY fOR ALL 511E - ... HEYEWAACx " Y'.AGATAH 9-M5 %OH ARE TC BE PElA'Y YEC J AT THE OiNH6 LL TERNIIYS 77L ..NPER Su."Uff We. � 2 u%k.EO A4 mf.' a WOF DRNH CCNN:LTHAS .ND F.HNC YA, E6: PFLORM ' a REMD 1170? Q,'mFMflS MAL, BE Y,LED sET+SN S1 Rw TaREL ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED AS MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE QUENDALL TERMINALS 0 v 4 N MNIPNOs FND UNSTUIm'm 51'i AREAS TO 1PNWE 4F.' RISN OF 4.....--.-�, au Aa To uXTFS Vu" TD DIR'JILNNA: VT WNT MITIGATION DOCUMENT ARE APPLICABLE AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER- m' . A NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OHAMN N1 IN.SNr,FI>8, QuEMiIALL TERMINALS Si1E£: .__.._. . _�. .. .... ............... .-- _ -- kpff CN :7KED In N7 M tD Rr Qd1� + +ti`4.350 LAIC THASIIHIC'i9N NDULEY RC%TDN, WA91@IGlDN kvT.. 9tr40 t f J I'NT`A4 l 84�2+ =_=^ wY r� " LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION30 Nov ,D, 2009 CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN RENSED PER 19,'IC IrCh KXRENENS ��. 5 C ALE: N r]. ➢A7E Bx C:in. >:PP. REYESIGN �'::D No. :IticOCSil AS N�TLll `. LAKE WASHINGTON CBOWMY HVQI WATER DARN (plWl)� - SEE NOTL 1 a 2-7 wo, Cf'wY SETLACX .{IYP VNTW <3tORF1n'E} r- % _ - - •, _ OUrFALL WITH E4ERGY DiSSPA110N i `\WITq}� _ r f 9GA`p54PAPON _ _ •S,. - �I, ^ ! STORINFM MR-]{. MING i-ORIM1ElER VAULT 'WIFALL WIH /�'ST. S \,.'�DICR:.Y DI�F0.TON / / PRES:TNDG vAU T TFUML - _ , _ '. ` �- vwC W _ , y STORMFXTER VAULT - 1! FIOMiI M`U ` - - - - - - n II:LH FLOW�/ o +- fl B Irr/rr BYPASS' wG B1'Ass PRESEfFUNC 5AUL7 _ I . • I. _ HESGIIRAEI; RESTAURANT -- - Lsw aAD RooF Nw ouAO Rose. l Nx aAn oPE NW WAD RoaF—_ ^ ^}` __- ..... _ ' . - .. HOIES 1 &skt.NUltS a '.'.\ NMD PLAZA DRAM (7 BRAN bJT11T DIMW IX11lET. I'I DRIJN WREi \ WHET 5[L � L.... , I gC xo?6 1 $ 5 ' I qF 7Iu,L_ .\\ NOTES E t ✓r 5 P - RESIDENTIAL ` :. I - - NC ALL ? PETAINNO IN d - I� RESIDEHTIAL - - RESIDENTX. RESIDENTIAL �1gi' RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL /SS FF-15 5 FF�15 B .5 �DIENIIAL .AIMING WALL � PEA Cw d BYPASS D If LEGEND: NOTES_ EASONG WRAM] S, LNARcmwLNIII IEMENIAUON AND MIIIOADOII OF THE PROPERTY WLL BE ---! (SEE NOTE 3) CONW.TED PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT. THE ENIARONMEHTAL PROTECTION I OONOEPIVA. wERAHu CIEAicm/RESTOeATiON MZNCY (EPA) IS RIE LLAD ""CY FOR ALL SITE NFAMATIFH ANI MIl]UIN ACUGHS YHIa ARE ]u BE PERFORMED AT THE OIIENI }31 NOTE S) TERMIHIIS STE UNDER SUPERFUND. 2 IN E PNPECI SIR HRUDE5 MIROMIMAII.IY %-ai fEFT OF SH RELNC ALONG ImE wwSHHGTCN. A 1004007 WDTH RIPARIAN SETBACK (MEASURED FROM THE ORDINARY 115-1 WATER LARD) AND PARAU.ELS G C� W AL 7Tf SHCftE1J1E A 94DRELiNE NESIDRADpI MAN [5 fE1NG -y fESICNEO AND APMvEO LI EPA DIRECTDN. 5. EMISIING *LILA"" ANO W-R CONCEPTUAL ANu G CNIII111/Ht YIDRAIIUH AREAS SHOWI HAVE NOT fECOYED FHAL EPA DESIGN APPRDvu /. AODIIw1NAL BWLDPTG ROCF DRAIN CCIINECTDNS AHD PIPING MAY BE RLMIWREO. 5. FLEOBLE UDUTY CONNECTIONS MALL RE USED BETWEEN STRUCIUREO BUILDINGS AND UNSTRUCIIMED SITE AREAS 10 MINIIQE THE RISK DF DAMAGE TO UTIL IIES DUE 10 aFFERUI IIAL SE I ILLMENI. TAD wTJ [I ._ .._— CHECKED-j BY APPROVED BY 611YS �T{RqEt Y[O(U� �aG aa�a.m�' lew wrJ MAY I�L1-JJ.V wlm .ATE ♦ JJ.FI nrw,w,,I,yM,w, TENSED PER w%AiIDN REEu,REwE.NTS NOV IR, 20.9 SCALE', REOSION O B No .1500050 AS NOTED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4UENBALL TERMIINALS I SHeFT UW WEE WAS INM BDIgEYARD, REMON, WASHNDTON LAND USE, SHORELINE & FASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN C301 L ON `i! fL IJON Si UO — 0 061, 1F fHF 1; i"FINT-P.2'e"AY I.E.F: '0' AN LANE ti,5COII COr.CM' N Aer lS iifG AFIF APPTA,;AUILi%. Af IlklF 5F SIE, K.A'j C Fi: V;2."'.;' V416 ',A Fr' IS PE 0:.!;-;I.Al' I IF t IF -,,,v r L t A '4 L P, FXTAI: ;51,,- 'A I t M -- ----- - -- - -------------63 -------- .................... L.. .... Im L"SCAK I RA E 4 r "m (f m -77-77 STREET A TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION ON --F. SA It- C;r TH "F" '3 H� F. ,F I HE TUHN At�E �S RIU"uffl" Va r — ------- wero r,� r F;F"" ANCI ON 'T ',,;' "NEi i VAW, !,I, F I M" ON I I i�— - �.' : LF:, . VV�!-, 1 14,,, i "IS6 S'.C� 11; 1 1. ; 1. AM _; .4 G Ve0r, I HE. ,:z'F OF ., 4iAl .)L 0� -t,E ;; I R � --: L 1. LL!2 P REmsson 13, SFa"A/LANI)SCAK 4-6' Qig :nvt Suva r.qk's Tc Ro*w EDGE V�YEaE "a of-s-KET STREET 8 - TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION 'ARKNG, qi. PLkl X.kf7 I' . 4' ADD] -.0NAL 'G '�L - LANUSLAPIW. PF(,IjIRFI) BF HvIFFN lf�" K ,NU UQILL-I1X' , IfT1 117 Pijjl Dl' G NAB, % PA.-,K;%'; STZ. c r. 0.5FEFT",V.:Ml-C47RF5,6 VVIM: AND F EETAil Dr. I ANM CAP ING Nl--Ai� 7r4h p -.dL j q GROUNU 1.1 0,,',,H Hk 9 5; : � !l '� �:� . . ............. . F L f %!M: CORB, 12 �IITT ANI, i i.:�: Wilt ` fi mmm. Lk NFAR I h . i;Ull FIN" 'W THE'P- IS FA I F`A;iKjlNG G -RAGE IN IHE GROUNI) 00 W. Ii I f-EL%'.L POFMC"N OF ll'iE CULDINO'i 2% I-sxwk-k LITmJ I, RcAmy fW vKPI NO D%-57Rff7 STREET C - TYPICAL ROADWAY pmm" SII m-m ilw" SCKL' I' , 4' W— WTJ (ql. I NJ M�� IM 11 AFPNM BY AV [)A IT mav le'�029 SC A L C' j 1 0 Ni. : t5o00w Al r OIED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I MMAkil TrOUlkiLIC I ILAIEE I I 4W TAKE WASINUM MUIXYMI). RDM. W&SAWON LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION ROADWAY SECTIONS C302 I �E �Afl z�� eVJ Lf K -ME L-7 STREET D - TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION(B 'CALE. I' = 4 F A r 1-14 H, 5t'-b ...... ............ ......... L40,CAPE LMGSC+F STREET E - TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION(D 4.41- ;' - C S ALTERNATE SECTION SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PORTION OF STREET E WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION — - ----- -------- Tj Di No ou QUENDALL TERMNALS �W.aM EY AFPRD%TD 9z wTj MAY K 19OR YOU DE Irir =,n.�� 4= Un INA9090N 110ROAM. MUN. WA9090H IE 20"" KJJI L LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION C303 wl� "4�& R :x;S' NOV C A L Ei ROADWAY SECTIONS DAIF E CHt, ArPR, REO&Cv .1, D I k., )g=51) 0 �� L� %,., NOTED �i,�-� � � AESIOEHIIAL �E_-A55 I C-�—. /�� AES€REFITIAL� PfJ'.411U1 kFTAYPI Wat -�� .. . SEE FpIES 2 6 3 s NATCHU E SEE SfEEE CM RESIDENTLLL Es=�b.:' '} [FF-n, N SE ji W 0.FHRAN N; wfi Er. E NorE; a o II ] �• � � .. ... :.. -', � 7i {ram) m � � � ,41 1 L _ []� L o �&._ ` p - RESDENrfA.L RESI6EHTUlI - - .. LFra55] I I iV -- --A_. I - g sn , »b BARIEL NIL.. EHl7.. ..:: t 74 i,3I �: e. 12R fA ti �a ��x 5� tAu a5x I f L .. c�C.Sam z s�o..c a ,p e.a zz ♦ „r. PRIVATE r.-RU--cuRS WSJ ACCm55 n r Ar rm ----------——._.-.---- -- ---- -- .—� � Y . _ - - — — RIPLEY LANE WASH! •� NOTES YOroN ,. ExYH(wulxiu WRf "I.1 €ION .N6 u'.,€ lA If 'If P517PfYtr; AxE . IN ,'onuYk n wa.R P,l EIENE:OPNENI. 'R3k FN'N+iA+NkNIAi PA IM*N 4E CY (EPA) 6 : { IIAO AGENCY Fw All 95t REkGh7IW AN M€IGAYDN Ai DUNS WEN ARE 7C BE A ff"EID Al llt GOCI TWAS DT JNOER SunkFiM. t. 411A"IKAAL EUJLTNG K* DRAIN CAN;C l,'NS MO FJ!NG MAT RE RF6iYn - 7. FLE7CM aiplr: CcANECTW MALL b-lr;rN NL,A',.iN ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED AS MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE OUENDALL TERMINALS 0M.IIP:OS Mb UNi INJI'IUFJD !) i OAS TO anuv¢E inF fbv a � eAUAa Tn UluliS➢ui rc C*T'PENTIA-iM.fAEEI:r MITIGATION DOCUMENT ARE APPLICABLE AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. �� o, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CP,A TA-. €w €, r Gil Iwo �i$� QUC rt YCG iNALS TA' kiJ Y"• QVI.%IY IGRI�4N1i..i SI. k.Cl' ...,_. ........- _ -- _ -.-.,_ --..__.._. ... .......... UlrrkED BY APPRG:Ep DI �1i5 i i w,v s..-lam a '�... • / 1350 LAKE M'ASNNiCf9N BWEFYIJIO. itENTON. WA9WIGTfIN wry "` AIA.V-}P+ lcpff�� i!/�'r� LAND USE, SHORELINE of MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION ,J0U — Nov le, zaae.,� CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN CE RCN:iED RR W:NiA`RN REUU":flCN[NiS S C A L F: t`IR! No. 'na,r EY`.' CHEf- A�PP.. pFb1:i[kJ J 7 8 Nu :I tiC�'E15G AS NOTE e RESIDE3ETIAL .FF_a55 _ 1 {� Y fg ' .MiET C Rrff 114O ;LAZA IORAN VN 6•Y AS,S RESIDENTIAL [FF_Tfl IMIAC' pOF ANU a PLAZA MAN OU.FT. SEE NOTES 2k7. —` LAKE WASHINGTON i ORDINARY HIa+ AAIER 4ARK IDH'AM) - N. E1Y=1B.6T rr" CHYM SEEM .. SEE NOTE I $ 2 IW' OHM SI.TOA[x - .. . (� EHTIRE SHON.HEl ,`,` I -- .... N - ` ` — W TEWTH OUTFALL VI7H . 1 Y I ` Ff-' ENER9 p5WA ALL R011 ~• 27-� `` PREErrjm5 YkVIT STORI VAIW1?Al W1H ENERGY DISS PATONPRESETNIC vW T . , 11 l FK will, VSTGROFUTEF WAAT-IR9KIw'O .+ ! .. HICJ+FLOW /J�� - ! OwA 5 .- 1 WO BYPASS R=2d.7 A F�Q7dT PRM.TTUN[,�AULT- \ _ RESTAURANT R[STALIFOSTII�-� 1 . -- LSW WAD RDDF NW WYj RGS 50l .� Nw WIll ROOF kW �}A➢ RCCF 6 I\ ... AXO RAIA pkAw .✓ (/��,I lII GRAIN NS 4 o ppp� pOA,{T. Ix7RIlI T70iTL f - _ OURS Yi : LJ - 1L NDJGS 1 $ 4 a 5 NOTES 4 A S. SEE ROTES 4 k 5. gE NOT(S k ` O iR �I PO AT RESIDENTIAL G D RETAARNG WAiL ? - RESIDEN1T11 RESIDENTIAL ^� - >�I{ x RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL rt'=4.55 rvl ER-4S5 RESIDENTIAL >x r FFf45.' uj fl00F AID $ 1 ET=45.5 PDIENRII RETAINING WALLJ .. f -- �- PLAZA t302 ul ORIJk w0 lv'_ II�L�j` n RmA`s I 6 NOTES: 1. ENVRONNENTAL R5AECIATON AND MITI000N DE THE PRDPERTY WILL. BE GOI INKTED PRIOR TO XWIOPMENT. THE ENVROMNIAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR AET SEE R£EIEDIATTCTN AND WTIGADON ACTIONS NAROI ARE TO SE PERFORMED Al THE OJENCALL TERMINALS 91E UNDER 5UROUND. 2. THE PROJECT STE NIUDES APPRAMATELY ,D63 FEET OF SHORELINE ALONG LAKE WASHINGTON. A IOD-FDOT WIDTH RIPARIAN ETUACX INEA911lED FROM THE alb NARY 4m WATER NARK) AND PAAPAU ALC,G THE SHORELTHE. A SHORELINE RESTORATIOH PLAN IS BEING 7CSVIEO AND AP"ROVED LHDER EPA ONIEGRON. 1. EpSTIXG %E7LM05 MD CONCEPTUALWE7LME CITEAl10N,rRESigtA710y AREAS SHOWN HARE NOT RECEIVED RNAL EPA DESFJT APPROYAL 4. ADDIROHAL BUILDING ROOF ORIUN COHVECfWHS AND PHRINC NAY E ;ECIHRED. 5, lEXIELE URIITY CONNECROYS SHALT HE USED BETWEEN STEMMED SUILDIACS MD UNSTRUCTURED SITE AREAS ED WNw12E SHE RISK OF 2AMAff TO UTILEDES CUE TO OIFMENTIAT SETHEIIENT. ENSTING NETLAND (SE NOTE 3) CONCEPTUAL TETL MD 7EA710NYRESTORAgaN [SEE NOTE 3) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION oNANN NY DMIG BY WEN�AIi TER141NALS TAP WTJ �I(� p([�[ wy� Yy� A VE SFEET CNEIXm Br APPRONEL Br gFVAi IW (dG �so�s�naK„��. I ,w4%T < 4W LAU WAStMON ROIHEYAAD, REMEgN, WASHNGTON WTJ MAV Amk, W 9E1R1 1 1pOU III 4i ==- « LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION C301 12 JD 15 REAEO PCR MI11GAlIjN AF W:NETTEN fS NOV C6. 2009 etn p SCALE: kpff CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN NO- ❑ATE I BY OHO. AT'f'R-I RENSION J 0 9 Xa.:l 500050 AS NOTED C; L L -ml"l LPE IN "W)r" OF L! iCA.l EC WiMW ON L: SL UI 7 C7N Yhr— S`l C, E OF F "T IF-III— CEWL -W12 JIN LAHL b" APPI ICAPLE Al NW-. ;1- LAN. UF N- fN ONE �Ov' 12A LME LAND;C.9f UAID.t Ex Cm (T,.Pl Lx =777 EASEMEN - "vN ' OTI i ................ STREET A — TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION V A4jLjj-, '.3 T f, -8-E (-i, ELM UN6 IF TIME IJUil Dl4(j I 1-%S , At." C, L-'.N.DsF,AP It h I. i0,;j;: %,:0 ET-�,,,rE N -IDEWAI I, AM! T! .............. ....... Aol -'146 t h.. IV C LK PAINING OR l§aWAk EL GM -LE 4-6, aj% (ryp) 10 pohnay T I F C R0 C, S t-, i I E fol, L N-1 S - Ni.) VS 3 N STREET B TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION EDCE MtW NU N-SREET PRftlflK w Pi m 01(pi q El: I 'h'i; L VA C)N -L 1.'SL Or HIHE—.. Sft.)F. OF TH— 4' D,', FEE] 0DE CURB. 6 FEET V41PF S.U'WAI K AND BULDIN-3 ' FEET WH TH.— IDI LANDSCAPING NEA GROUND FLOOR AAS PARKING GARAGE HES D NTIA�- BUILDING), FI' gawks -15 FEET WOE CUR8, 12 F-Er- SIDEWALK A.7%'O :1 F'- LW LANE lkll INI )jIl-DE I-ANDSel:APING NEAR THE MAI, DING 07 Afj 7:..1,- R,,?kRKI-NG GARAGE IN THE GROUND FL0011 NE 4 6- (TYP) ETAU. OF THF 51-1 IL P ING�. 1-2% ...... ............... . �':IL;fq -� ......... 1,111N '--Efd.N FIS 01, EM VKRE ND N STREET li PAWMI, Ut RM 0 w1l C vV0. k VAR Y, DZ; I iN-- ' 0 �j 7 �-,E uS E .)F — STREET C TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION c 0i:.l'II I"ER SIDE C,: THE sckl I- , 4: 7-7 0<1) BY A � By RYS EN YW X AV M A L WD wIlm 11 pys fm YW I WVIM PER 9.;GA90H RMWEWEN--,�-. ho'l IN, 21C9 S C A L E: klyff J C 0 N�. u�cmno DTEA; NOT FOR CONSTRUCT]ON I QUENDALL TERMINALS iltli I 4= UU WXV"M 0111VAM WM WAWW-70141 — LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION ROADWAY SECTIONS C302 I S RAC� K UJh5 7 j STREET Q TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTfON(Z F,-VVA'i K PWIPE fX LINE A LA Lom ai I 2 t LLWFS C;j L4 STREET E TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION(B ALTERNATE SECT110N SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PORTION OF STREET E WITHPARKING ON BOTH SIDES. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION QIJENDALL TERMINALS "TJ Rm �h� Ajm YOU N 4sm LUE WNWON NOLDARD, WM. WASHIMMN wr lAAV Kpl L LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION C303 ........ . . ...... .............. . n W-111 S C A L E: ROADWAY SECTIONS DATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY �'.>'°r AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �y-Q M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 28, 2016 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager FROM: Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test — Quenciall Terminals; File No. LUA09-151 The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (CDR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed -use buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The proposed development would generate approximately 5,656 net new average weekday daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 435 net new trips (104 inbound and 331 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 530 net new trips (340 inbound and 190 outbound). The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows: EXHIBIT 17 Transportation Concurrency ,est— Quendall Terminals Page 2 of 3 March 30, 2016 Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes Within allowed growth levels Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2016. Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 85,884 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 5,656 additional trips from this project. A resulting 80,228 trips are remaining. Project subiect to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit for each new building. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the building prior to occupancy. Any additional off -site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to final occupancy. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. Transportation Concurrency Test —Quendall Terminals Page 3 of 3 March 30, 2016 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test. If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurr'ency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. NEW ni ipmnm E a r t E e M i I I AC"ersv NEW ., i , ., a"J. 3 ,f ., NEW Lake Washington Blvd NEW —=+ Rip[Ey Ln ska NEW j r NEVV ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICULAR LANES REQUIRED TO MITIGATE PROJECT IMPACTS (Included in DEIS, EIS Addendum, FEIS, or Mitigation Document) EXHIBIT 18 City of Renton Department of Communi , Economic Development ing Examiner Recommendation QUENDALL TERMINALS LUA09-151 Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 45 of 45 X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-of-way. XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design. XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B10, G3, G2, G10, G11 and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department. X111. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16. XIV. A transportation study shall be completed to analyze the need for a center turn lane in Road A. Depending upon the outcome of this study, Road A street designs shall be amended accordingly and reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under XIII. XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer: a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the proposed new Road A. b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100 foot buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main. d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100 shoreline buffer. e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton regulations. XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A public promenade along the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. XVIL A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division. HEX REPORT 09-151.docx REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER APRIL 11, 2017 WITH EXHIBITS 19-23 CI V M, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY'�ft AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 11, 2017 TO: Phil Olbrechts, Nearing Examiner FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager SUBJECT: quendall Terminal, LUA09-151 Following the canceled public hearing from April of 2016, the Applicants have requested the City consider a Development Agreement. As such, this memorandum addresses the Development Agreement and changes to the project which result from the proposed Development Agreement. This memo is intended to supplement the staff report to the Hearing Examiner which was issued in April of 2016, for the original scheduled hearing date of April 19, 2016. Only those items identified below have been changed and/or are proposed to be changed from the original staff report. Updated Project Description: The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed - use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed -use buildings. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: 1..3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building 5W3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 2of7 April 11, 2017 The following Exhibits should be added to the Recorded: Exhibit 19 — Memorandum to Hearing Examiner, April 11, 2017 Exhibit 20— Draft Development Agreement Exhibit 21— Consistency Analysis Exhibit 22 — Notice of Issuance of Consistency Analysis Exhibit 23 — Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing Findings of Fact (FOF): (the following FOF's are identified with letters to eliminate and confusion with the original staff report) a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement (Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. • A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner should be completed. c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. Phil Olbrechts, Hearin_ _..aminer Page 3of7 April 11, 2017 No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. d. A detailed master site plan has not been provided incorporating the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final details master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. e. Staff does not expect that the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative would impact the analysis and associated recommended conditions of the April 2016 staff report for all Findings of Fact except as follows: L FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Parking: The total parking stalls proposed in the Enhanced Alternative is 1,352 stalls an increase from the 1,337 stalls proposed in the Preferred Alternative, a 15 stall increases. There is no change in the residential and restaurant space; however there is an increase in retail space from 20,025 SF to 33,190SFwhich would result in a maximum of.133 stalls required for the retail space, up from 80 stalls. Together all three uses could require up to 1,469 parking stalls. ii. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Refuse and Recycling: Based on a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 33,190 SF of retail a combined total of 210.95 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 421.90 Sf of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project. iii. FOF25, Critical Areas, 6.: The reference to "NRD settlements" should be eliminated because the EPA does not approve and is not party to an NRD settlement. Therefore, Condition 44. IV, should be amended to remove the reference to "NRD settlements". iv. FOF26, Master Site Plan Review, f. On Site Impacts, Structure and Scale: With the addition of retail/commercial space along the Lake Washington side of the development it is anticipated that the parking garage would no longer be the dominate structure viewed from the Lake or shoreline trail. V. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review,!. Distinctive Focal Points: The "street activation" identified in the development agreement are anticipated to provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. Phil albrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 7 April 11, 2017 vi. FOF26, Master Site Plan Review, Phasing: Staff recommends that the project duration be consistent with the time frames established in the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20. vii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Storm water: The Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction. vii i. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, the center left -turn lane that was included as a part of Street 'A' is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the Enhanced Alternative because single -lane approaches at each of the Street 'A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly. Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and HIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the I-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not anticipated ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the site. Phil OIbrechts, Hearin,, _aminer Page 5of7 April 11, 2017 X. FQF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Time Requirements for Shoreline Permits: The Draft Development Agreement extends the time for all land use permit applications including the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Time frames identified in the Development Agreement should be applied accordingly. Condition of Approval 14 should remove the word "east" as this has been included in error. g. Condition of Approval 22 contains a minor error, the word "East" should be "West". Condition of Approval 22 should be amended accordingly. h. Condition 43 requires an easement be recorded to all for public access for vehicles and pedestrians to cross the King County rail -road right-of-way. This requirement for an easement limits the type of legal documents that could be drafted to accomplish the intended purpose of the condition. As such, this condition should be amended as shown below. i. The word "Public Promenade" should be removed throughout the staff report and replaced with "fire lane and utility maintenance access road" to be consistent with the Consistency Analysis and Development Agreement. Therefore Condition of approval 41. and 44. XVI should be amended accordingly. Conclusions: All conclusions in .the April 2016 staff report are to remain except as identified below: 10. The project Are expiration date shall be as identified in the ❑evelopment Agreement, Exhibit 20set by the HeaFiRg r..ami-Rear. fe. the Master. Site PI@R a cne �c 12. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-70B- 170. - New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified conditions below. Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report to the Hearing Examiner. Amended Conditions of Approval: ' 14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side. The new private Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Page 6 of 7 April 11, 2017 access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off -site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site 22. €ate West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re- designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review. 32. Any extensieR to theIaFejeetappoved-beyend Jl@RUaFY 1, 2022 9F 1-91-111diRgand Genstructinn pe FFn itc citted- that .ye --- I.1 extend the nrniart beye Rd aFiw@Fy 1, 2922 shall be wbjeet to the updated etOFFnwateF FR -.Iregee4 at the r. e. 41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This PFGFnesade fire lane and utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review. 43. AR easement shall be SeEiiTed- frr'Tvm"''�KiFig 8URtfer^vtcrhP_F- -AWFe aFGlaeFty a rRe S the fina I Winding site pla i; and shall he rer-nrdPd GGAGUFFently with the binding site pan-- Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with t_he_binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of Renton shall have final aeproval of acceptable legal access documentation. 44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) and NRI) Settlement completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD and NRD_ 9Pttl^MPRt issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C10. Phil Olbrechts, Hearin. __.aminer Page 7 of 7 April 11, 2017 44. XIV. A tranrnertatien study shall he czempleted teanalyze the nears far a renter turn lane Q in ,,Tn ad A. Depending Rthe aautEsmeeaf tWirs't Road A street designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane ,rr941;gly and the design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under XIII. 44. XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the project, which includes, 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A PUblir nrew.nAAG19 fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager New Conditions of Approval: (The following numbering picks up at the end of the April 2016 staff report.) 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording. 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site. 44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. 44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction. 44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan. When Recorded, Return to: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ----�'"` enton -- Entire Document Available Upo Request i 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) Assessors 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 36.7013.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1(the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 EXHIBIT 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 717 i Entire 1 Quendall Terminals ...-..-wwwo�RentonO Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development EXHIBIT 21 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Cirvof r� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - - �-■�"�""'"� � 't \'Y (Din NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with 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. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov). APPLICATION NUMBER(5): PROJECT PROPONENT: 0-iSeattle, WA 98101 PROJECT NAME: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L. P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 Quendall 'Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development, The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 5 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT 22 ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSIST41NCY ANAYSIS PAGE 2 of 2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the V Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant Unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 2017 DATE OF }DECISION: March 20, 2017 SIGNATURES: /-,, V1 ... ... ... ... ... alzj 17 Gregg ZimrnbrSn,#lministrifbr Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works Dep rtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Kelly 13eymer, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental impact Statement (D£IS) issued December 10, 2010, evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available For public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with 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. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site). DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the Zit Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUEST€ONS, PLEASE CONTACT VANESSA DOLBEE AT (425) 430-7314; OR VIA EMAIL AT VDOLBEF@ RENTONWA.GOV. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER, VANESSA DOLSEE AT (425) 430-7314, DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. APR 3, 2017 - CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - MOTION SHEET Agenda Agenda Section Title/Item Motion Staff Contact Interested Parties Placement 5.a) PUBLIC MEETING Bradley Annexation, A-16-001 COUNCIL CONCUR Angie Mathias Chip Vincent TO AUTHORIZE THE Judith Subia CIRCULATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE PETITION TO ANNEX AND REQUIRE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY'S ZONING AND ASSUMPTION OF PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS 8.a) CONSENT Approval of Council Meeting minutes of March 27, 2017. COUNCIL CONCUR Jason Seth Megan Gregor AGENDA Sandi Weir 8.b) CONSENT AB -1880 Administrative Services Department REFER TO FINANCE Jan Hawn Jamie Thomas AGENDA recommends adopting the 2017 Carry -Forward Budget COMMITTEE Hai Nguyen ordinance amending appropriations in the amount of $67,570,325, the total amended budget to be $543,278,619 for the 2017/2018 Biennium; and approve the resolution amending the 2017-2018 Fee Schedule. 8.c) CONSENT AB -1881 Community & Economic Development COUNCIL CONCUR Vanessa Dolbee Chip Vincent AGENDA Department recommends consolidating the public hearing Judith Subia process, for the Quendall Terminals proponents, for both the land use entitlements and the development agreement and deferring this process to the City's Hearing Examiner. 8.d) CONSENT AB -1879 Community Services Department requests COUNCIL CONCUR Carrie Nass Roberta Graver AGENDA approval to waive $26,640 in fees for park & shelter rentals, TO APPROVE THE parking garage passes, and permit fees for community CONSENT AGENDA events happening in 2017. Council Concur. AS PRESENTED EXHIBIT 23 CITY . OF Ltd Y O enl�bnw blood � OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA LOCATION: 43SO Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010, evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with 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. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site). DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 11' Floor of Renton City Halt for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT VANESSA DOLBEE AT (42S) 430-7314; OR VIA EMAIL AT VDOLBEE@RENTONWA.GOV. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER, VANESSA DOLBEE AT (425) 430-7314. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. Department of Coma ty and Economic Development NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A public hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in Council Chambers located on the Seventh Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am to consider the following petitions: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151 An application for Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed -use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd, The site is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed -use buildings. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. Detailed information can be found on the City of Renton web site, Rentonwa.gov. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the City Clerk's Office, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: April 07, 2016 Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY— EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 15t Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, ---ra�w�-Doi Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals I Applicant - *Notice of Issuance and Availability EIS Consistency AnalSsii 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law CIT 1F Mayor enton Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SERA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. F ! / of , rtur t eportment of Communit 'onomic Development En nento! Review Committee Memo Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABIUTY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CCINSI--NCY ANAYSIS PAGE 2 of 2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 111 Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: if you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: March 24, 2017 March 20, 2017 Gregg Zimm r tministrator Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works ment Date Fire &Emergency Services Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department � t C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development 3/2-0/1� Date ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Entire OocEsnien€ availabl€ forpurchaK at Remer, Ciro Hall, France Gepar€rnent 1 Floor for 510 per hard copy or can be downloaded for free on City of Renton websin, Ren€onwa.gov Quendall Terminals 0000�� CITY OF ren�1 Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development �niouo When Recorded, Return to: %e xr _ir�-a.' Fir:rtie fk ��srtr zr:-": rr 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) Assessors Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR ❑ NOT YET ASSIGNED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the -Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 Community & Economic Development DepartmentMMO CITY OF Renton 1055 South Grady Way Re WA 98057-3232 -jenny ManninR 1205 N 10th PI Renton, WA 98057 CITY t7F Renton 0 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, ESP, SA-M, SM, DA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (CORI zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010, evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Balk and Scale. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with the impacts analysed 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. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site)" DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if ma'sled) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. if you have any questions, please contact vanessa dolbee at (425) 430-7314; OR via email at vdolbee@re ntonwa.Rov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACTTHE PROJECT MANAGER, VANESSA DOLSEE AT (425) 430-7314, PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUM=IDENTIFICATION. PROP AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, 41 p x IT 6 hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted in3_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: ' �I�� Signed: STATE OF WASHING/TON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ /l 1 e-x 1�t� " a � rc�+' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 3711 QpYVES Ilhfif hr0 .� f 1 0' 'Jktt U' Notary Pu6tk in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) =0 My appointment expires Pub , W84 U .17•h �� `k+Q yam= T BILE COR Denis Law Mayor11;R April 11, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Parties of Record Various SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner Quendall Terminals, LUAO9-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Parties of Record: A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report toAthe Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available: M 9 Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7tn Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151 + Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Please contact meat (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.Rov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov \Ln c \®Ol CD :-< /\4 ®�\ \-4/ a Denis Law Mayor April 11, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Parties of Record Various SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Parties of Record: A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report tQ the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is mailable: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@ren_t_onwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, . • i Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov City ofRenton Community & Economic Development l055South Grady Way Renton VVA9805732az John & Diane Haines 10I4N27thP| Renton, VY498OSG �s ceycAm*�e, I Denis Law Mayor11;R 40) April 11, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Parties of Record Various SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Parties of Record: A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report t4 the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available: y • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7tn Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov C;ty of Re;Itori �' � Com�77�nity & E-onoi) is Devclopmer.t 1055 SOL&t Gradyhday Rerto�� v'Jn 98057-0z32 Kelly Smith 6811 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 ' Denis Law MayorI[;R April 11, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Parties of Record Various SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Parties of Record: A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Doibee Current Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 - rentonwa.gov ` City of Renton Community & Lconomic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 Rorer Pearce Foster Pepper LLC 1111 3rd Ave, #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 404 Denis Law Mayor April 11, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Parties of Record Various SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Parties of Record: A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available: + Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) + To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbeel2rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor11;R March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C_ E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, E.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -- EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Nall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, -raxa�-D*lhu-, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Qwndall Terminals ' Applicant - Noti:e of iseuauce and Akailabilm EIS Conssicu� Anal -,is 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law ( OF r - Mayor %R' enton .. Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPAto allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. !rid! of,, .,,cur' Deportment of Comm & Economic Development ronmental Review Committee Memo Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 HIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ERC ISSUANCE & AVAILABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COivSISTANCY ANAYSIS PAGE2of2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 15Y Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Denton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: March 24, 2017 March 20, 2017 31:4-da Gregg Zimm r an, ministrator ick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works Do rtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Kelly 8eymer, Administrator Community Services Department 07 P � C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development Date ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS — --- erg v Entire Dot,„`'iert 9'r'allible for purl}id5-s at P�ntor. City Hall. Fin ar[_ D= r;,_nt 1, Floor fCsE SIL) p,c' idrd cr,,,p ' Cyr Ciri be do, wnt oa&-d for fE'cE Cyr Cty t3E Penton. wcv±•ICc, .cn.u, 4h'd._f1v Exhibit Quendall Terminals CITY dF -----a�RentonoW Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development When Recorded, Return to: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Denton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Grantees; The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A) Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR ❑ NOT YET ASSIGNED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 a 0II R- a I 14) Lk; 5 LLI Z, u . I LLA �: cl 0 —P LL. ri Itj U —F Cc =1 A - CITY OFRENTQNT . DEPARTMENfbF.00MMUNIT,&ECONOMICIDEVELOPME. T" PLANNING, DIVISION AFFIDAVITD17 SERVICE B,Y MA{LING ; On the 11th day of April 2017, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing HEX Letter documents. This information was sent to: ......... .:....;'ii'r�li�nb-w-'^as Contacts, Applicants, Parties of Record Please see attached copies of recipients (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrument a� it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instr Dated: p - N a Public in and for the State of Ills Notary (Print): My appointment expires: ' ' "c1 %k aqr p � Quendall Terminals �c M-0— � LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA—M, SM, DA � t�,nfffi i�0 44 i ing n' ` 0ac;° s - n ,Ronald & %,anessa BrazR Ronald Corbell Ross & Ava Ohashi 1019 N 42nd PI 4113 Williams Ave 1018 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Roy & Joann Francis 1000 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Sally Scott Bad Bad Address See Notes Renton, WA 98056 Sherry and Robert Cline 4267 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Sue & Mac lahnke 1717 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Suzanne & Donald Orehek 4103 Wells Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Tom Baker 1202 N 35th St Renton, WA 98056 Victor Chiu 1128 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Yvonne & Gary C. Pivkin 1120 N 38th St Renton, WA 98056 Ryan Durkin 1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building Seattle, WA 98 101 .. ... ... .. ... .. Scott Greenberg Development Services Director, City of Mercer Island 9611 SE 36th St Mercer Island, WA 98040 . . . . . . . . . . . . SUSAN MILLER 806 N 30th St Renton, WA 98056 THEO & KIM BROWNE 1409 N 37th St Renton, WA 98056 TONY BOYDSTON 3920 NE 11th PI Renton, WA 98056-3537 William Skilling 3814 E Lee St Seattle, WA 98112 SALLY ROCHELLE 3626 Lk Wa Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-1508 Sheng Wu 1222 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Steve Van Ti I Vulcan 505 5th Ave S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 99104 Susan Stow 1309 N 36th St Renton, WA 98056 Tim Riley 3607 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 . . . . . . . ... . . . Trudy Neumann 922 N 28th PI Renton, WA 98056 Winnie & Yuri Sihon 1211 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. William Popp Associates AARON BELENKY 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 14400 Bel Red Rd, #206 1800 NE 40th St, H4 Seattle, WA 98101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Renton, WA 98056 Allison Hanson WSDOT 600 108th Ave NE, 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 AMY LIETZ ROBERTS ALR DESIGN INC 1006 NE 34th Renton, WA 98056-1938 Anne Woodlev 7920 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Amit Ranade Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Ann Gvgi Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 Seattle, WA 98101 €E € t Bob & Mary Becker 1007 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Amv & Kevin Dedrickson 1012 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 ANNE SIMPSON 3001 Mountain View Ave N Renton, WA 98056-2516 Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back 2302 NE 28th St Renton, WA 98056 Brad Nicholson Bruce MacCaul Bruce MacCaul South End Gives Back 2302 NE 28th St Renton, WA 98056 Bud Worlev 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N, #13-205 Carol O'Connell 1241N42ndPI Renton, WA 98056 Christine Bre en 1021 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Clair Hong Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200, ECL-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600 Seattle. WA 98101 r� Charles & Rebecca Taylor 1252 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 Christine Chen 1128 N 41st Pl Renton, WA 98056 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Charlie Conner CHG SF LLC dba Conner Homes at Piper' s Bluff LLC 12600 SE 38th St, Suite 250 Bellevue, WA 98006 Connie Taylor Cvrus McNeely 3810 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 131d d1d iY N i � 33ii § 4 '; f ' DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS 3605 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-1509 Diane Espev Jackson 2419 Talbot Crest Dr S Renton, WA 98055 ,Ed Goines Elisabeth Durr Farrel & Jonell Wilson Seattle'Seahawks 1206 N 27th PI 4063 Williams Ave N 12 Seahawks Way Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 FAYE JANDERS Fred Warnock Glen St. Amant 2717 Aberdeen Ave NE 1246 N 42nd PI Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA Gretchen Kaehler Gwendolyn High Inez Petersen Department of Archaeology & Historic 155 Yakima Ave NE 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, #1 Prevention Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 PO Box 48343 Olvmoia, WA 98504 ,. .. Inez Petersen, J.D. Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford Jeffrey Coats Starfish Law PLLC 1102 N 42nd PI Hollenbeck, Lancaster, Miller & 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 1 Renton, WA 98056 Andrews, A.A.L. Renton, WA 98056-1909 15500 SE 30th PI, Ste 201 -. Bellevue, WA 98007 Jessica Winter JH Baxter & Co. Jim Hanken 7600 Samd Point Way Altino Properties, Inc. & 15543 62nd Ave Seattle, WA 98115 800 S Third St Kenmore, WA 98028 Renton, WA 98057 Jim Hanken Jim Ray John & Diane Haines Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc. 1111 N 41st PI 1014 N 27th PI 1111 Third Ave, Sutie 1800 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 John Hansen John Murphy Jon & Marilyn Danielson 4005 Park Ave N New Home Trends, Inc. 1308 34th St Renton, WA 98056 4314 148th St SE Renton, WA 98056 Mill Creek, WA 98012 KATHLEEN DOW Keith Preszler Kelly Smith 1210 N 42ND PL 3818 Lake Washington Blvd 6811 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 99056 Renton, WA 98056 .... ..: i Kevin n n Ide :P .... KEVIN ., OOLE Kim Douthitt 5121 Ripley Ln 627 High Ave S 5901 143 PI SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98057-3918 Bellevue, WA 98006 F Larry & Linda Boreason Larry Reymann -.,- E Laura & James Counsell 1013 N 42nd PI 1313 N 38th St 1122 N 41st PI Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Laurie Baker LAWRENCE DIXON Lawrence Hard 3107`Mountaiis View Ave N DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC 4316 NE 33rd St Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98105 Len & Pat Reid Leslve Bergan Linda Baker 1217 N 42nd PI 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2 1202 N 35th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 LOUIS TIBBS Marcos Santos Mark Hancock 807 N 33rd St 1209 N 31st St PO Box 88811 Renton, WA 98056-1901 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98138 Michael Christ Michael Mullinaux Mike & Sharon Glenn Immersion Services LLC 1415 N 24th St 8925 114th Ave SE 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50 Renton, WA 98056 Newcastle, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mike Batin Mike Cero Mimi MacCaul 3410 Park Ave N 8300 Avalon Dr Renton, WA 98056 Mercer Island, WA 98056 Misty Blair Nancy Denney Patty Witt Department of Ecology 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N 1204 N 42nd PI 3190160th Ave, SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98008 Paul & Susan Siegmund Paw Thao Ralendra Agrawaal 1006 N 42nd PI 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N 1113 N 29th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ramin Pazooki Ricardo & Maria Antezana Rich Wagner WSDOT 1025 N 42nd PI 2411 Garden Ct PO Box 330310 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98133 Richard & Kathleen Bergouist Richard Ferry Robert & Sonva Tobeck 7244 E Mercer Way 7414 E Mercer Way 1003 N 41st PI Mercer Island, WA 98040 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98056 Robert Wilson Roger Pearce Ronald & Sachi Nicol Foster Pepper LLC 1030 N 42nd PI 11113rd Ave, #3400 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 0 1 Denis Law Mayor1[;R March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY— EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 111 Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals? Applicant - Notice of Issuance and A,ailabihtp FIS Consistency Analysis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov • Denis Law C I T F Mayo r Rentonv Community & Economic Development department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, 5M, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be simijar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. A !DL1 oj,:Department of Communit �onomic Development En nentol Review Committee Memo Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ERC ISSUANCE'& AVALABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CON—. ANAYSIS PAGE 2 of 2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 111 Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 2017 DATE OF DECISION: March 20, 2017 SIGNATURES: /ZA//7 Gregg Zimm r an, ministrator ick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works Drtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date e� Kelly Beymer, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Entire Document available for purchase at Renton CivHak, Finance Department 1-1 Floor for S10 per hard copy or can be downloaded for free can City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov Quendall Terminals c{TY OF nto"n R Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development r � ' When Recorded, Return to: CITY CLERKS OFFICE City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 95055 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 --<—Iln0 f, JcLr.:;,:3iI5r= rr.r :..c+J A a[ Ur:_r.'1: ' Fr;res LVF;rtr i_. Pxr ru W-;:rrr,•b�x,-ca,cirr 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 , 2015 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 35.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1(the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 LAND USE HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET 'R, Quendall Terminals � LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SAW, SM, DAkw April 18, 2417, 10:00 A.M. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone # with area code Email NAME (including City & Zip) (optional) (optional) l �Y YYl r .,nti rl G f ,o C gad 3 59 R. a ro+-J 9S 05q tEr�i• t C,�g?z?6z_z_ Af7Hv+hoN S4-tfR� k1A- S$lo ?d6-s'-a a i GOB F/1(3�fh 1I2 3LF"' St Ke, nfv 9$��"-� &�J,,j 3-vl� r.,�t-t, A\.S bA rA L�cUr�Peus rn r Tl� j-�arrc s � v� , � (7-06) (,QS -- 3 9 12 a,•h a•r {..air s •�w� o�% V_ nA Z4q c I/ZO/ /11 .- efzr- y!� �OJL3 la..��, .t�,��F!•-co ca -�c .6 h -APc.�11 IZ131 ��3T" (A Q 3�i I vF 'i� [ �Tc [} 7 �-12.� ` �'1(,' S LZ. 'i t • �1 r �' 7'fLA+�S t 7dila i.3Z J � � �'-�T r! /"P �Z lJ�b _ �ts-[/Ju � WC'�[!- � �7�fllo`''•'rj'i�• / � /&-ZD 41/ 4i2N1� tOO/C. A 25`$72 0 CO 0�1 js-d�-1 LrLl�[,� t1V Al-flaf- '�.i;'TZ- �Ild _F�-q-7 6 00 � e 4rj (v eA Z &i,� P PV _ LAND USE HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET t Sediment Deposition Mitigation r,7, LUA16-000977, ECF, SM April 18, 2017, 12:00 P.M. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS (including City & Zip) Phone # with area code (optional) Email (optional) V 2_ LAND USE HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET t Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M., SM, DA April 18, 2017, 10:00 A.M. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY 2t�� NAME ADDRESS (including City & Zip) Phone ## with area code (optional) Email (optional) �c C VA 9a rj 10 N 4-sr f L-- v Y" '-'72 s 4 e vA.(Lo t-- ?ENV ALA-, f,OvrW s EN ��67,;k2 - <;,ss�. C��'GL �<v1.i�+�L�v� ��J � L.�/ji� c��rr� r7�d K�7✓T�N �?� �`�� OZ �2�`3 Y�fflrrrrdrzl [1 f2C'o�Gr/,C� OC td Denis Law Mayor11;R Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator March 16, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications. The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 2 1(m 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov A 'R, Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals J LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 15t Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Yerminals 1 Applicant Notice of Issuance and AcailabiLty EIS Consistency Analyses 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law TY OF entonw. Mayor Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • BuildingSW4 would be 4 stories, buildingSW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. !ad of i, ,,4w, Department of Comm--ty & Economic Development _nvironmental Review Committee Memo Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SAW, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITYf ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANAYSIS PAGE Z of 2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 2017 DATE OF DECISION: March 20, 2017 SIGNATURES: J� ZcJds �7 Gregg Zimm r an, ministrator Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works Dertment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date na l� .ate 2a 1 keily Beymer, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Entire Dozun-nent 8Qailable for purchase at Renton CitF, Wall, Rnaru Departmnt 1" Floor for 510 per Hard copy or can be downloaded for free on City of Renton website,Rentonwa -gov Quendall Terminals CITY O i ento 1 ' Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 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 ---ir�_nlon 0 F-a k._i:i—i I i,,, Rw: - -ITi �a I fn'$1� rFtl'. :�5: ri: &'. �+f :l•-=L33t li jr 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 , 2015 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 35.706.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1(the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 Community & Economic Development Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton Renton WA 98057-3232 Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the I" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, faw�-D&lkep, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals I Applicant - Notice of Issuance and Alailability EIS Consistency Analysis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov a Denis Law TY OF Mayor -wwwwo�Ren on Community & Economic Development Department C.E_"Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4would be 4stories, buildingSW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. iq Of j icur, Department of Comm.,,ity & Economic Development environmental Review Committee Memo Quenda!l Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ERC ISSUANCE &-AVALABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTANCY ANAYSIS PAGE 2 of 2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 13t Floor of Renton City Hail for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 2017 DATE OF DECISION: March 20, 2017 SIGNATURES: 2 3 Z_ Gregg Zimm r an, ministrator Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works D rtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS yin 0 Engirt Uucurnent evadable for purchase at Renton City Fall, Finance Department 17' Floor for S10 pgr hard copy or can be downloaded for free on City of Renton websit�,. Rentonua.gov Quendall Terminals CITY OP -Renton 0 Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Jre—re When Recorded, Return to: av:cr; _u; .a!, Rr;rt. Qp;ir Brt :"F sa `cr il2 ,ter has'a2; r r,a"Ix ;:.y:�. ca sc `u CITY CLERKS 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 ❑ NOTYETA55IGNED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 4 Denis Law Mayor 1; Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip' Vincent, Administrator March 16, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications. The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov��, r G� Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendail Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P,S., Arnit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page Z 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov oft 'R Denis Law Mayor f Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator March 16, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications. The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.Rov. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 2 0 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator March 16, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications, The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval terra: to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Jr Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, I 4 / or Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 2 0 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Community & Economic Development DepartmentOww'w CITY of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 Bud Worlev 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 14' RDenis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY-- EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the V Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 201S FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, fa.no�-D&/ke�L, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals / Applicant - -%Dnce of Issuance and Mailability EIS Consistencti Anal%sis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law ITY OF Mayor enton t9 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vi ncent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. ! n,r of, _) ut, Department of Cam..._ ity & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Memo Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SAW, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis; Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSiSTSNCY ANAYSIS PAGE 2 of 2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the V Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 2017 DATE OF DECISION: March 20, 2017 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimm r an, ministrator Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works D rtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Entire Docur ent avaiIable for purchase at Renton City Hall, Finance DepartmPnt 1' Floor for S10 per hard cop} or can fie downloaded for free on City of Renton A%:,b in,, Rentonwa_gov Quendall Terminals DF RGi7Yenton Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development ---r--Rlon0 When Recorded, Return to: R. ':'r' , - 3-'�, P .-zrte N L-.,,, a•'1. _' = xr 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 an Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A) Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR ❑ NOTYETA551GNED 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 QU ENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1 Community & Economic IT Development Department CY of - 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ;ohn & Diane Haines 1014 N 27th PI Renton, WA 98056 ..- �....... . Denis Law Mayor1[;R Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator March 16, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications. The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: a The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; • Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; • Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.pov. Sincerely, , . , F Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and 3H Baxter & Co. / owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record IWO Ctuendall terminals "off -Hold" Notice Page 2 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 - rentonwa.gov Community & Economic Development Department r171r nF Renton(,o 1 OSS South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 3232 Charles Witrnann 907 N 42nd PI Renton, WA 98056 r � Denis Law Mayor1[;R Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator March 16, 2017 Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Mathewson: The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in combination with the already applied for Land Use applications. The original Quendali Terminals proposal for a Mixed -Use Development, including the Preferred Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum (establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document; however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following: * The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space; * Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) a The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; * Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining buildings would be 6-stories; * Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained. The above -referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the Quendall terminals "off -Hold" Notice Page 1 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued EIS documents on March 20, 2017. Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been taken Off -Hold and the City will continue review of the project. The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / owners Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Arnit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi Parties of Record n Quendall terminals "Off -Hold" Notice Page 2 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Community & Economic.._ Development Department ciTv cr x., lentor� . 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 John & Diane Haines 1014 N 27th PI Renton, WA 98056 Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave., #1580 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY — EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA Dear Mr. Matthewson, This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review_ The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that Cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Quendall Terminals ! Applicant - %ohce of Issuance and Atiaibhality EIS CnnsistencY Analysis 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law TY OF Mayor eonton URI a Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA APPLICANT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed -use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open 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 and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page: • 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 has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and is intended to be a mixed -use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 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. The Development Agreement establishes the following components which make up the Enhanced Alternative: • The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space; • Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) • Either a public dock/pierand/or an alternative approved bythe EPAto allow for public access to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is identified); • Building SW4would be 4stories, buildingSW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings would be 6 stories; In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc. would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated extensions. ! n,/ of,. ..,tur, Department.of Com... —ity & Economic Development En viron m en tol Review Committee Memo Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SAW, SM, DA March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals mixed -use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1: ERC Memo Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017 Exhibit 3: Draft Development Agreement ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTINCY ANAYSIS PAGE2of2 DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on the 11t Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC 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. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PUBLICATION DATE: March 24, 2017 DATE OF DECISION: March 20, 2017 SIGNATURES: 1' Gregg Zim r an, ministrator Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Public Works D rtment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Entire Docur k nt Availabie for purchas�-- a Ramon Cite Hall, Finance Departrnen€1- Floor for S10 psr hard copy or can be downloaded for fr€F on City of Renton website,. Rentcnwa.gov Quendall Terminals -------��RentonAo"" N%W Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development n0 When Recorded, Return to: F:a:cr �'r �r9, f,r;rx¢L�pa,7-arr;"; ar (u Sli'xr10 'or. mca'Fr�;M. -_a efcr 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 l] NOTYETASSIGNED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement. RECITALS A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")). B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed -use multi -family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1