The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-08-112CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: To: December 2, 2009 City Clerk's Office From: City Of Renton Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following Information to facilitate project closeout and Indexing by the City Clerk's Office . Project Name: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District lB LUA (file) Number: LUA-08-112, SA-M, FE IS Cross-References: LUA05-136, 06-004, 06-057, 06-068, 06-069, 06-071, 06-077, 07-031, 07-037, 07-048, 07-053, 07-066, 08-072 AKA's: Boeing Planned Action Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: August 23, 2008 Applicant: The Boeing Company Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Jeffrey R Adelson, The Boeing Company PID Number: 0886610010, 0886610020, 0886610030, 0886610040, 0886610050, 0886610060, 0886610070, 0886610080, 0823059209, 0823059019, 7223000115, 7564600055 I!RC Decision Date: I!RC Appeal Date: Administrative Denial: Appeal Period I!nds: Public Hearing Date: October 20, 2008 Date Appealed to HEX: BV Whom: , HI!X Decision: Date: , Date Appealed to CounCil: . BV Whom: October ij, 2008 Council Decision: Committee of the Whole -Date: Approved Mvlar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant Is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. Location: South of N 8th Street between Logan & Park Avenues N , Comments: , CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5416 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT I-B OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN AVENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, AND 6TH STREET. WHEREAS, RCW 43.21 C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled the "Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment ElS" has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of 130eing's Renton Plant property; and WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District I-B (see Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area -Industrial (EA-J), Employment Area -Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Office (EA-O) to Urban Center North (UC-N); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center North I (UC-NI); and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the EIS, which is recorded under King County recording number 20031210001637 ("Boeing Development Agreement"); and ORDINANCE NO. 5416 WHI,REAS, on November 7, 2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District 1-13 ; and Wl-mREAS, on October 20, 2008, the City approved an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-13 ("Amended 113 Conceptual Plan"), anached as Exhibit 13; and WlmREAS, an Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-District 113, which compares the Amended 113 Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WI·mRI'AS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District J -13 as "Planned Actions" that are consistent with the Urban Center N0I1h I (UC-NI) designation and zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHfNGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION J. Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District J-8 as "Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21 C.03 J; and B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a Planned Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District J -8 will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District I-B area that is consistent with the Amended J B Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 SECTION n. Findings. The City Council finds that: A. The EIS addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the Amended I B Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and B. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation fees (Parks, Fire and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of development pursuant to the Amended I B Conceptual Plan; and C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, wi II protect the environment, and will enhance economic development; and D. Opportunities for public involvement have been provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Plan review and approval process for Sub-District I-B. SECTION III. Designntion of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evnluating and Estahlishing Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District I -B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated off-site improvements. Uses and activities described in the Amended I B Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, are designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031. Additionally, the Planned Action designution shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the 3 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 proposed development on Sub-District 113, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the E1S. 13. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the EIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Review Criteria. I. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.2IC.031(2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following conditions: (a) The project is located on Sub-District 1-13, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District 1-13; and (b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and (c) The Director has determined that the project's significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC 190-11-315; and (d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and 4 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 (e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District I-B development; and (1) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modi fications or other special permits have been requested; and (g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. D. Effect of Planned Action. I. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS), 01' any additional review under SEP A. 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to fllrther procedural review under SEPA. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. 4. Amendments of the approved Amended Sub-District I B Conceptual Plan may be approved administratively, so long as such amendments remain consistent with the spirit 5 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 and intent of the adopted Plan. For development of Sub-District 1 B qualifying as a planned action pursuant to this Ordinance, a proposed amendment of the Amended Sub-District 113 Conceptual Plan is consistent with the adopted Plan's spirit and intent if such amendment does not exceed the maximum development parameters analyzed in the EIS. I f amendments of the Amended Sub-District 113 Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the ElS, supplemental environmental review may be required under the SEPA rules. E. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at n minimum, of the following: I. Development 'applications shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapters 4-8 Hnd 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist (where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)] or slich other environmental review forms provided by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The checklist may be incorporated into the fonn of an application. 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. 3. If the project application is within Sub-District 1-13, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in Section III of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the 6 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or ErS shall be required. 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. Ifnotice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 6. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEPA review procedure consistent with City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEI' A requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the EIS. SI~CTJON IV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 31, 2018, by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements. Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified. SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. 7 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 SECTION VI. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION vn. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 27th day of __ o~c""t~o~b;,!;e:.=.r ___ , 2008. Jason A. Seth, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MA YOR this 27th day of October ,2008. ~~ Dems Law, Mayor Approved as to form: d:.. .. ,.,. ~~G., 01' Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 11/1/2008 (summary) ORD.1503:9/11/08:scr 8 I --, ,. I, ',_ " " " ' , 't " \ " ' " I, I , " " , , I I I, \ I ' I I \ " , I I I' I I \ I, I I \ I, I I \ I I \ \ I I I, , I I I I I I I I I , , " \ " I,. I, \ \ " I I I \ \ \ " 1 I I, \ " I, ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Exhibit A I I ) ,,' I " ' 'I .. • "I I / L".,~ I ... '.'. .\ .., I , , , \ ' -\ ... \ '., I " , .... __ .-. -.... -_ .. -.-. ~~ ..... ~ " . ";--.. -----.", I I ---"'-'-'-1 Sub·District: B i ,'" Urban Center North District Sub-areas N Districts Subject to Conceptual Plan Approval Note: District boundaries include dedicated R·O·W e Department of Community and Economic Development A. Johnson November 3, 2008 EXHIBIT A i', 1\ j \ ,', ,', Background ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Exhibit ~ CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT I'LAN Sub· District I·B December 2008 Amendmcnt Renton, Washington The Boeing Company ("Boeing") has been working with the City of Renton (the "City") since early 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with its 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the "Renton Plant Site"). [n October of2003, Boeing prepared an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the Renton Plant Site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (the "E[S"). In Deccmber 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment (the "Development Agreement") that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: • Renton commitments to fund and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • Boeing commitments to fund certain pri vate aspccts of redevelopment; and • Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects to subdivide, develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not relatcd to airplane manufacturing. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub·Districts I·A and I·B, and District 2 (see Exhibit I). City COlUlcil approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub·District I·A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual!'lan for Sub·District l·A in early 2006. Sub·District l·A is now known as "The Landing" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theatre uses. Sub·District 1-0 Sub· District 1·13 is located immediately to the south of The Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit I, and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub· District I·B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of2005 and approved in November of 2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub·District l·B and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub· District I·B in the Original Conceptual!'lan, together with the cumulative AMENDED CONCEPTUAL RBDEVEI.OPMENT PLAN 0300J'{)1 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 9/11108 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 impacts of the uses approved for Sub· District I-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the ErS. A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of 2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-13 and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" (the "BSP"). The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District 1-13: Lots SA, 513, 5C, 50, sE, 7 A, 713, and 7C. The Original Conceptual Plan addressed infrastructure improvements imposed as conditions of development pursuant to the Development Agreement to support redevelopment of Sub- Districts I-A and I-B. In particular, a portion of Sub-District 1-13 was reserved for a four-lane extension ofS'h Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues (the "Extension"). The Extension and related improvements have been completed. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-13 (Lots SA and 713 of the BSP; formerly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as "North 1- 13") were planned for retail uses complementary to the Harvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1- 13 did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North 1-13 with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) thut are permitted within the underlying Urban Center -North, District One zone ("UC-NI" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District 1-13 contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the "Boeing Remainder." The Boeing Remainder is illustrated on Exhibit 1. Portions of the Boeing Remainder arc currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately l2.S5 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("01' I" through "DP4"). This amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District I-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the retail alternative proposed for North 1-13 in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes office and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots SA and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the UC-Nl Zone. floeing seeks the City's approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan so that it can market North 1-13 to potential developers under a greater range of uses. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 osn_EGA!. 14S05979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Suhmittal Included within this submittal is a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub-District I-B, a Conceptual Plan Diagram (see Exhibit 2), and a benefit analysis demonstrati'ng a range of potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the North I- E portion of the Sub-District (beginning in 200912010 for Lots SA and 7B of the SSP); and (2) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2010 for Dr 1 and 2016 for DI' 2 -DI' 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OlOOl-O I 05ILEGAL 14505979. 7 PAGEl 9/11/08 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Aerial, Exhibitl AMIlNOBO CONCBPTUAL RIlDEVELDPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OllLEGAL 14505979. 7 9111/08 PAGE 4 FULLER ,SEARS ARCHITECTs c. i i! . L R RETAIL L LAB o OFFICE P PARKING GARAGE MF -- • MULTI-FAMILY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS . ORDINANCE NO. 5416 CONCEPTUAL PLAI\j SUB-DISTRICT 1-B MAX. 30% L01f CClVEiw'E IF '-STORY RETAIl, .,,"""O:-J~ (270,OOO SF) HOTl!: M,u.TWO 6·srORY DLOOS IrOFFIC!: (300,000 SF) WITH NEW 2-3 STaR'( PARKING GARAGE rti-IIOEING " .. ,:.' ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Conceptual Plan Diagram, Exhibit 2 Conceptual Plan Sub-District 1 B North 8th Str .... ' ...... ,ggtK'~::!' R '";:::!::t:'t •. ;,. ;;~:,:'.-~, A a • •• . ii''f]:;!;' "8 • •• • ·~·R· . i". -;J • p • 1< • .~ H l 'i' .. " Ii ~ ~ D ...I DP·1 330,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP·2 260,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP·3 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB r ---. OP-4 125,000 SF TOTAL I OFFICE OR LAB I o L H R P Legend Office .~\~I;",\,:\), '-' two(.ep+wJ) Lab ~ "Fu'lure" N . She",' Hotel Retail Parking Garage AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 IOSILEGALI4S05979.7 9/11/08 !l ~ " i! :. - ., ... o ... - 10·16 ExIsting Garage ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Conceptual Development I'lan This Amended Conceptual1'lan for Sub-District I-B is comprised of two somewhat distinct parts. The North I -B area makes up the northern portion of the property along 8th Avenue, has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations, and is available for near-term redevelopment. The Boeing Remainder makes up the southern portion of the Sub-District, and contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space with re-use potential and approximately 12.85 acres ofland with future redevelopment potential. North I-B Boeing recognizes that high-quality development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City's vision for the Urban Center-North .. Potential developers of lots within Sub-District I-B must join with the City to ensure that such development is well-designed and is of a quality and at a scale that is consistent with the City'S long-tenn vision for the area. As plmming for Sub-Districts I-A and I-B has progressed, the land south of 8th has been identified as an important component of the overall project. The area, now known as North loB, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative scenarios: Scenario 1, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BS1') undertaken as separate development hy potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. Each scenario is described below. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of North loB containing a data hub for the Renton Plant Site (Lot 512 of the BSP), will he retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. 1. Scenario 1 Under this scenario, North I-B is envisioned to contain a large format "destination" retailer located along Logan Avenue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally, the large format retail development (users with footprints of 50,000 squarc feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet) is planned to occur along 8th and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue. The supporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 Ceet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park Avenue. Scenario 1 anticipates pedestrian connections to occur internally within the site both east toward Park Avenue and south toward 6th A venue. Vehicle access would occur off of Park Avenue, with loading and delivery functions relying upon Garden Avenue and un internal service road running along the southern edge of the North loB property line. At a maximum lot coverage ratio 0[30%, the North I-B site could accommodate up to 270,000 square feet of retail space. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OJOOJ-O 105iLEGALI4 505979.7 9/11108 PAGE 6 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 2. Scenario 2 a. Office and Employment Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 5A would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include teclmology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. Smaller-scale ground-floor andlor freestanding retail uses may also be included in this development scenario. At this maximum density, the majority of accessory parking would be provided in an above-grade structure, and impervious surfacc coverage would be up to 95%. Buildings would be three to six stories in height, with floorplatcs of up to approximately 40,000 square feet. The build-out of the Office and Employment Component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand,.·future buildings may include structured parking to achieve density of up to 600,000 square feet on- site, or build-out may be limited to a fully surface-parked option, in which overall density would be approximately 300,000 square feet. Development within this range of densities is also possible. h. Hotel/Retail Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 7B would contain a seven to nine story hotel and two separate, small- scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complcment and support the hotel use. The hotel would consist of a maximum of 130,000 square feet; the supporting retail uses would total a maximum of 13,000 square feet (consisting of two buildings, one approximately 5,000 square feet and one approximately 8,000 square feet). All uses would be surfaced parked. The hotel and retail uses would be oriented toward Park Avenue. 3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. In particular, this Scenario anticipates that either Lot 5A or Lot 7B is not redeveloped according to Scenario 2 and is instead redeveloped with retail uses. Any combination implemented would not exceed the . overall development capacities contemplated for North I-B. Summwy Redevelopment of the North loB parcel as contemplated by this Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent with the City's overarching goal for the Urban Center North: creation of a large- scale, mixed-use development including uses such as retail, research and development, labs, office, employment, residential and commercial. See, e.g., City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Urban Center North Land Use Designation ("Comp. Plan, LU- VCN"), Purpose Statement. This Plan is consistent with applicable goals for the Vrban Center North that encourage "a mix of uses to improve the City's tax and employment base" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-266), "support a range and variety of commercial and office uses" (Comp. Plan, LV-UCN, Policy LU-267) and "allow hospitality uses such as hotels" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-268). The City's vision for District One AMENDEO CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0300)·0 I 051LEGAL14505979. 7 9111108 PAGE 7 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 anticipates similar new development including retail, office, employment, lab, research and development, and hotel uses that ultimately result in a cohesive mixed-use district (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Vision-District One). In particular, proposed Scenario I supports the City'S vision and applicable goals for the Urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on North 1-13 that complement existing retail uses located north of 8th Avenue. Scenario 2 similarly supports thc City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North I-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios I and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center North and District One. All three scenarios would add to the City's tax base, provide additional jobs and help to expand tbe overall mix of uses currently located in District One. Boeing Remainder TIlis portion of the Amended Conceptual Plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, 1980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout the Boeing Remainder (the 10-13, lO-16, 10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is five to six stories in height, ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet in area, with a total area for all four buildings of 660,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in surrounding surface lots, at an overall ratio of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Boeing currently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in significant rehabilitation, lease or sale of the structures. At the time of the Original Conceptual Plan, a I 960s-vintuge lab building, known as the 10-71 building, wus located along Logan Avenue. The 10-71 building was demolished in 2008, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building ("DPI"; Lot 513 of the BSP). For purposes of this Amended Conceptual Plan, we have assumed that the existing office buildings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. If the existing buildings are occupied by other users at some point in the future, such buildings could be supported by parking at a market-driven ratio of 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a 3.9-acre site between the 10-1 Hand 10-20 huildings ("DP2"; Lot 50 of the BSP); a I ,8-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of 6th ("DP3"; the property constituting DP3 was not included in the BSP); and, a 2.2-acrc site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 6th ("DP4"; the property constituting DP4 was not included in the BSP). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMIlNT PLAN 0300).0 t 05lLEGALt 4505919.1 9111108 PAGE 8 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 I. DPI This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the North 1-13 property. Fronting on 61h Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 office building and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-term (20 10) redevelopment potential, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions DPI 's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more structures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. Given its size, 01'-1 could accommodate the parking needs of whichever use was ultimately implemented on the site, such that the site would be self-parked. 2. DP2 and 01'4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for the existing office buildings are reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow purking llrens for Boeing employees, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment of OP2 and OP4 with new buildings containing either lab or offices uses, consistent with the current development pattern. [n some instances where new lab uses could be developed, surplus parking within existing guruges could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new, private open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity, this Amended Conceptual Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings are sold or leased to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Renton Plant Site to accommodate its employees. The Amended Conceptual Plan contemplates the potential redevelopment of these parcels with approximately 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. Both DP2 and DP4 could accommodate structures containing as much as 260,000 square feet on DP2 and 125,000 square feet on 01'4. To accommodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on OP2, and any additional parking needs would be provided hy ear-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On OP4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing 10-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. 3. OP3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the comer of61h and Park Avenues. This Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, in both cases housed within a single six-story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. I f developed as lab space, the building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on OP2. If developed as office space, parking could either be provided in a new garage on OP3 or accommodated by providing additional parking levels within a OP2 garage. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 05n.EGALI4505979.7 911 1108 PAGE 9 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Summary The redevelopment of the Boeing Remainder proposed by this Amended Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's vision for the Urban Center North and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, commercial corridor south of The Landing between Logan and Garden A venues, with mid-rise office or lab buildings along street frontages and structured parking behind. Whether redeveloped with all office, all lab, or a mix of office and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. Economic Benefit Analysis Summary Boeing's Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-13 seeks to both allow for the near·term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix of uses that significantly improves the City's tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan (Exhibit 3) and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment Scenarios for North 1-13 (Exhibit 4), have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development on the North 1-13 portion of the Sub-District for either retail use or a combination of hotel and office/employment uses (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots 5A and 713 of the BSP); and (2) Development on the Boeing Remainder for office and/or laboratory uses (beginning in 2010 for DPI and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 051LEGAL14505979. 7 PAGE 10 9/11/08 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 EXHIBIT 3 2005 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY SUB DISTRICT 1-8 BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Sub District 1-13 at its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District I·B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if lully developed as follows: Lab Multi-Family Total 900,000 535,500 1,435,500 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targeted Renton Boeing parcels are entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring) in terms of: » Jobs » Income » Property values » Public revenues AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OJ 003·0 I OM.EGALI4505979.7 9111108 PAGE II ORDINANCE NO. 5416 State of Washington King County City of Renton II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels comprising 12.85 net acres into modem lab and multi-family space are only as valid as underlying assumptions. I These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment renects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: ~ By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District l-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into lab and multi-family uses? ~ Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 2013. I Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed In 2005 dollars. , This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) ITom expendinues associated with direct job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I osn>EGALI4505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 12 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 » These lab jobs would generate an additional $ 158 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2013. » Of this income total, over $88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District I-B parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 2013 and thereafter. » The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast at over $550 million by 2013. » The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the State of Washington is estimated ut over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi- family space on the four Boeing parcels at the Renton Sub District 1-8 site. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of redeveloping Boeing's four parcels of excess property in Sub District I-B are now summarized. » By 2013, it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District I-B. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City would be created by 2013. » The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over $6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. » The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring 8lillual tax revenues of over $2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. AMEN OED CONCEPrUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9111/08 PAGE 13 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Table 1 summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $40,000 during land development and over $6,168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-time municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the lab and multi-family buildings are completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $115,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $275,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT J-B DEVELOPMENT I)ARCELS One-time Land One-time Building Recurring Rodevolo ment Scenario Dovelo mont Oovelo mont 2008-2012 In 2013 CJ'I'Y JOIIS Direct Jobs 25 381 1,700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2.100 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ 123,146,400 lndircct Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 Totlllincome $ 1,696,873 S 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 1,952,593 Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ 115,496 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275,071 Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 Chart 1 shows that 2,100 pennanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton, Of these, 1.700 'would be direct on-site lab jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District loB parcels. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELCPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I OSILEGALI4S0S979. 7 9111/08 PAGE 14 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 1 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 3,000 2,100 2,000 1,000 With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off·site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2013 and thcreaficr. Cbart 2 New Job AnDuallncome in 2013 With Project AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I05ILEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 Without Project PAGE 15 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the four Boeing parcels in Sub-District I-B. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under $74 million to nearly $624 million-an increase of $550 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1·B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS WIthout Project WIth Project $0 $200 Dollars In millions AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 05lLEGAL 14505979.7 9111108 $400 $600 $623.8 PAGE 16 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of over $6,208,000 during the estimated 2008 through 2012 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Sub District 1-13 parcels starting in 2009. This will increase each year until 2013 where it peaks at over $2,343,000 million as an annual flow into the City. 53,000,000 ~ ;I ~ $2,000,000 ~ = f-< U ,000,1100 .~ U $- Chllrt 4 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I OSILEGALl4S0S979.7 9111/08 • Recuning II Onetime PAGE 17 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY (2005) HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON 1. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping certuin Sub District 1-13 property under option by J-Jruvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land llses. This "right of first option" (ROFO) property is the Phase II expansion of Harvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District I B property The ROFO Phase II land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-13 Rcnton property. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: Retail-Shop Space Retail-Big Box Total 91,000 135,000 226,000 Sq. FI. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises their option to purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full' redevelopment of this property as retail uses between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring) in tenns of: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 JOsn.EGALI4S05979. 7 9111/08 PAGE 18 ~ Jobs ~ Income ~ Property values ~ Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton ORDINANCE NO. 5416 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0)00)·0105ILEGALI4505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 19 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 H. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions.' These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. Ill. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFITFTNDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Doeing Renton Sub District 113 property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 between "redcvelopment" of thc Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no lise" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: » 8y 2008 (project stabilization), an estimatcd 1,667 jobs would be created if the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-8 are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box retail uses.4 » Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. » These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2008. J Although not guaranteed, tlle economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reOect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed In 2005 dollars. '. This job total includes both direct nnd indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the,measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with?irect job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 05/LEOALl4505979. 7 9/1 t/08 PAOE20 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 » Of this income total, nearly $45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District I-B ROFO parcels and over $35 million in indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. » The corresponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly $53 million by 2008. » The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5.1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3.8 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City oj Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this cxcess Boeing property in Sub District 1-8 are now summarized: » 8y 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District I-B. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City jobs would be created by 2008. » The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667,000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District 1-8 parcels. » The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly $856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $66,000 during land development and over $601,000 during construction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 OSILEOAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 21 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly $856,000. Nearly $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City'S employee head tax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $26,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS HARVEST PARTNERS sun DISTRICT I-B One·llme Building Redevelo mont Scenario Oevelo ment 2006·2007 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 Indirect Jobs 16 39 Total Jobs 58 131 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2.121,030 $ 9,432,720 Indirect Income $ 678,445 S 3,384,707 Tout! Income $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 Total Tax RevenueR $ 601,458 Recurring in 2008 859 202 1,061 $ 44,657,600 $ 8,889,439 $ 53,547,039 $ 186,873 $ 584,225 $ 58,346 $ 26,325 $ 855,769 Chart I shows that 1,061 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO property in Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-13 area. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I 05ILEOALI4 505979. 7 9/11/08 Chart 1 PAGE 22 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 1,200 800 4011 -l---- With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 20011 560 ,-------------------------- C $4" +-__ _ ~ .. ~ i no $. With Project Without Project Chart 3 shows the increa~es in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District J-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated tei increase from $8.6 million to nearly $61.3 million-an increase of$52.7 million. AMENDED CONCEPTUAl. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OJOOJ.() I 05ILEOAL 14505979. 7 911 1/08 PAOE23 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY Without Project With Project $61.3 $0 $25 $50 Dollars in millions $75 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one·time tax revenues from sales and real estate .transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District loB property starting in 2007. This will increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. AMHNDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0300)·010SILEGALI4S0S979.7 9111/Og Chart 4 PAGE 24 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues $1,000,000 '" $800,000 Ii = = Ii ~ $600,000 ~ ... 5400.000 r: i:' SlOO,OOO U $- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-010SILEGAL14S0S979.7 9111108 2013 ~ Recurring • Onetime PAGE2S ORDINANCE NO. 5416 Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS ROEING RENmN SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY Ono-tlme Land One-time Building Redevelo mont Sconarlo Dovelo mont Development 2008-2012 CITY,IORS Direct lobs 25 381 Indirect Jobs 9 159 TotAl Jobs 34 540 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ CITY TAX REVF.NUIiS Property Tax $ Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tux $ Real Estate Tmns fer Tnx $ 3,118,965 $ Tolal Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS OOEING RENmN SUO DISTRICT 1-0 PROPERTY Rodovolo mont ScenariO CITY JOJlS Direct Jobs Indirect lobs Total Jobs ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ Indirect Income $ Totallncome $ CffYTAX nEVllNUJiS Property Tax Sales Tax $ Employee Hend Tax Real Estate Trons for Tax Total Tax Revenues $ AMENDED CONCBPTUAL RBDEVELOPMENT PLAN Ol003 ,0 I 05ILBGAL 14505979. 7 9/11108 42 92 16 39 58 131 2,J2I,OlD $ 9,432,720 $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 $ $ 66,379 $ 295,201 $ $ $ 306,257 $ 66,379 $ 601,458 $ Recurring In 2013 1,700 400 2,100 123,146,400 17,596,700 140,743,100 1,952,593 115,496 275,071 2,343,160 Rocurrlng In 2008 859 202 1,061 44,657,600 8,889,439 53,547,039 186,873 584,225 58,346 26,325 855,769 PAGE 26 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 COMBINED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST P ARlNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOEING DEVELOPMENT I' ARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT I-a PROPERTY Redovelo mont Scenario CnYJOBS Direct Jobs Indirect Jobs Total Jobs ANNUAJ~ INCOME Direct Income $ Indirect Income $ Total lnc(1me S CITYTAXREVENIlES Property Tax Sales Tax $ F-lTIployee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax Tot"l Tax Revenues $ AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 OSILEGALI4S05979. 7 9111108 67 25 92 3,406,655 1,089,693 4,496,348 106,613 106,613 Recurring In 2013 473 2,559 198 602 671 3,161 $ 59,393,400 $ 167,804,000 $ 38,347,461 $ 26,486,139 S 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 $ 2,139,466 $ 3,344,519 $ 584,225 $ 173,842 $ 3,425,222 $ 301,396 $ 6,769.741 $ 3,198,919 PAGE 27 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DlSTlUCT 1-8 City of Renton Pennanent Jobs Created In 2013 4,000 ,--------------------------- 1,000 1,000 -1---- 1,000 $100 r: S150 ~ 'S $100 e ~ $50 $- $4.000,000 ~ 53;000,000 Ii ~. 51,000,000 ~ .. ... ~ Sl,OOO,OOO s- W Itb P roJCI ct Without Project New Job Annnal Income In 2013 With Project Withoui Project New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 1006 1007 2008 2009 2010 lOll 2012 2013 I!lI Recurring • Onetime AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OJOOJ-O 1 OlILEOALI4 505979. 7 PAGE 28 9/11/08 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT I-B, NORTH 1B COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON This Economic Benetlt Study (Exhibit 4) was prepared to help align, support and provide context for recent land use amendments applicable to Sub-District 1-B as reflected in the attached Conceptual Redevelopment Plan. The analysis included in this Exhibit 4 was developed by CB Richard Ellis in an effort to conform to prior analyses performed for the Lakeshore Sub District J-B. CB Richard Ellis obtained the information contained herein from sources we believe to be reliable. However, we have not verified its accuracy and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is submitted subject to the possibility of errors, omissions, and change of conditions. Any projections, opinions, asswnptions or estimates used are for example only and do not represent the current or future performance ofthe property. AMENDED CONCEPTUAl. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I osn.EGALI450S979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 29 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT 1-B, NORTH 1B COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. HISTORY The original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B ("SO I B"l, approved by the City of Renton, included a mix of multi· family and retail development. Over the past two years, however, the Puget Sound real estate market has changed. Highest and best use for the north 21.2 acres of SO I B (referenced by the original Plan as the "ROFO" area; now referenced as "North I B"l, has shifted away from retail and multifamily to office/commercial and hotel uses. The redevelopment now anticipated for North Il3 includes a hotel and restaurants on Lot 7B and office/business/R&D uses on Lot SA. This analysis supplements the Economic Benefit Analysis performed in 2005 to support the original Conceptual Plan for SO I B by generally assessing the economic benefit associated with redevelopment of North 1 B for office and hotel uses. As discusscd in greater detail below, we conclude that the anticipated hotcl and office redevelopment of SO I B will benefit the City, County and State at a rate equal to or greater than the retail redevelopment program assumed by the original Conceptual Plan. II. SCOPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HOTEL/RESTAURANT Lot 7B is approximately 5.07 acres. On the south side of N 8th Street, the property is bordered by Park and Garden Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with a regional hotel management and development company with more than 20 years of experience in the Pacific Northwest.. A hotel and commercial development is planned according to the following program: » Residence Inn by Marriott; "Extended Stay" » 170 rooms » 130,000 sq. ft » Total employees -approximately 45 to 50 AMENDED CONCEI'TUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003'{} I OSILEOALI4S0S979. 7 9111108 PAOE30 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 » Average Daily Rate (ADR) -approximately $165 » Annual beginning revenue of approximately $8,500,000 » Completion is projected in early 2010 » 2 restaurant pads » 2 "sit down" style restaurants; one approximately 5,000 sq. ft., the second approximately 8,000 sq. ft. » Total employees for both restaurants -approximately 1 00 » Annual beginning revenue of approximately $3,500,000 (for both restaurants) » Completion is projected in early 2010 The combined value of the hotel and restaurant development is projected to exceed $42 million (land + construction). OFFICE Lot SA is approximately 14.21 acres. On the south side of N Hth Street, the property is bordered by Logan and Park Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with one of the largest publicly traded office and industrial property developers in the United States. An office/business/R&D development is planned according to the following program: » Class "An office project for general office use » 4 huildings @ +/. 150,000 sq. ft each; total office of 300k to 600k sq. ft. » Project to be 100% built out by 2014 » 2,000 to 3,000 employees/jobs » Parking is planned to be a combination of structural and surface, based on the ultimate size of the office buildings » Construction is projected to start in 2009 with completion of the initial phase in 20 I 0 The combined value of the office development is projected to exceed $165 million (land + construction). III. ANALYSIS The 2005 Economic Benefit Study addressed and quantified the original Conceptual Plan's positive etfect on jobs, annual income and city tax revenues. That analysis continues to be relevant to Scenarios I and 3 of the Amended Conceptual Plan now proposed. With respect to Scenario 2, which assumes redevelopment of the North 1 B portion of Sub· District 1 B for office/businesslR&D/hotelicommercial uses as described above, we conclude the following: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 051LEGAL14S0S979. 7 9111108 PAGE 31 ORDINANCE NO. 5416 • Proposed sit-down restaurants and hospitality components complement the current retail development at The Landing. Proposed additional hotel lodging near the downtown core encourages revenue generating traffic and a tourism multiplier that will be beneficial to the City. • Washington state sales tax on the improvements and excise tax on the sale of the land should exceed $15 million. Using an industry standard of 200 square feet for each employee, the office portion should directly bring 3,000 jobs to Renton in additions to the 150 jobs created by the hotel and restaurants. • While there are many variables, we conclude that the current/revised conceptual plan for SOl B essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic henefits to those untici pated as part of the original conceptual plan. Proposed changes to the original Conceptual Plan provide for an increasingly diverse redevelopment of downtown Renton. A new hotel, restaurants, retail space and additional class A office space will continue to draw people to the downtown area. The city, county and state will continue to benefit via additional jobs, increased property values and public revenues. AMENDED CONCEPTIJAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 osn.IlGALI4S0S979. 7 9111/08 PAGE 32 To: From: Dutc: Subjcct: CJIT MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney September 23, 2008 OR.D ()F RENTON Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Senior Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanella L. Fonte. Assistant City Attorneys Ann S. Nielsen Garmon Newsom II Shawn E. Arthur CITY OF RENTON SEP 2 4 2008 Boeing Planned Action and Amended Conceptual Plan Project, LUAOR-112 vy,., ~~t)ta4 I have enclosed a copy of the above-mentioned ordinance. The original has been sent to the City Clerk. LJW: scr Enc. cc: Jay Covington [19OO!~Th1J if~ Lawrence 1. Warren 0.: J()-~!-~Mr PIIf!u fumlah the fo!!owtng 10 the City Clerk DivtIIDn AMP __ I Celt. OfVllld Petition ..... .,..,... --t-VIrItt Content .. "PIeiie ~ onIlnancI far lCCUiacy, numbertng aequenoe, IIId oampIlance willi CIty Code. If you note any emili, pIIIIe 00IIIIICt \til car Alton.,.. afIIce 10 make IIVIIIanI. Approved (lliHlII) Post omce Box 626 -Renton. Washington 98057 -(425) 255-86781 FAX (425) 255-5474 ® This paper cor.wlns 50% fac:yQed mmerial, 30% pootcon!lumer AHEAD 01' TilE CURVE '- 1---· - I .------:slllO ~aA no~vi(J 11191:> '(1i:> 'J,il 01 gniwolio; ertl l1eirnui OJISolQ noilqi'i;)ZSU 16P.9.l ___ 11Oililoq b!18V 10 .n!!;) _ .• _._ '''11191000 ,(\h&V ___ _ .oon9tJp!la !jni1sdmun 8;)Glu:J:)1; 10l !lCnWlibl0 ""SMI' oosolGH OOGo!q .1.'10110 ~illil !lIOn uov II .GboO '(to ,jliw S:l!IRilqrrtOO bllIi .enoieivsl '3l1Qll 01 o~1IIo 3'~JmoiIA ~n:,) sm t;)6If'iCJO ~-------,-------------- , , CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. __ _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT loB OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 51 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN AVENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, AND 6TH STREET. WHEREAS, RCW 43.2IC.031 and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) entitled the "Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS" has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of Boeing's Renton Plant property; and WHEREAS, the ElS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District I-B (see Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area -Industrial (EA-I), Employment Area -Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Office (EA-O) to Urban Center North (UC-N); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center North I (UC-N I); and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the ElS, which is recorded under King County recording number 20031210001637 ("Boeing Development Agreement"); and ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District loB ; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2008, the City approved an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B ("Amended I B Conceptual Plan"), attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-District I B, which compares the Amended I B Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District I-B as "Planned Actions" that are consistent with the Urban Center North I (UC-NI) designation and zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District I-B as "Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21 e.031; and B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a Planned Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District I-B will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District I-B area that is consistent with the Amended IB Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. 2 .; ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Findings. The City Council finds that: A. The EIS addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives J, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the Amended 1 B Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and B. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation fees (Parks, Fire and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of development pursuant to the Amended 1 B Conceptual Plan; and C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, will protect the enviromnent, and will enhance economic development; and D. Opportunities for public involvement have been provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Plan review and approval process for Sub-District I-B. SECTION III. Designation of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Establishing Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District 1-B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated off-site improvements. Uses and activities described in the Amended I B Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, are designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.2I.C.031. Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall· apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the 3 ORDINANCE NO. proposed development on Sub-District IB, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the EIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Review Criteria. I. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.2IC.031(2)(a), if the project application meets WAC 197-11-172 and all of the following conditions: (a) The project IS located on Sub-District I-B, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District I-B; and (b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and (c) The Director has determined that the project's significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC 190-11-315; and (d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and 4 , ORDINANCE NO. (e) The Director has detennined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District I-B development; and (f) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and (g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. D. Effect of Planned Action. I. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned Action. the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold detennination, an envirorunental impact statement (ElS), or any additional review under SEPA. 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. 4. Amendments of the approved Amended Sub-District I B Conceptual Plan may be approved administratively, so long as such amendments remain consistent with the spirit 5 ORDINANCE NO. and intent of the adopted Plan. For development of Sub-District 1 B qualifying as a planned action pursuant to this Ordinance, a proposed amendment of the Amended Sub-District 1 B Conceptual Plan is consistent with the adopted Plan's spirit and intent if such amendment does not exceed the maximum development parameters analyzed in the EIS. If amendments of the Amended Sub-District 1 B Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the EIS, supplemental environmental review may be required under the SEPA rules. E. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: 1. Development applications shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist [where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)J or such other environmental review forms provided by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application. 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. 3. If the project application is within Sub-District I-B, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and ineets all of the qualifications specified in Section III of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the 6 I ORDINANCE NO. appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or EIS shall be required. 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 6. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEPA review procedure consistent with City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant clements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the EIS. SECTION IV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 31, 2018, by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements. Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified. SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. 7 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VI. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of _______ , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MA YOR this day of _______ , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: _____ _ ORO. I 503:9/1 1/08:scr 8 , . .'; ".:; :,: : .. ' .. '", . ., .. ' .. : ' .. :' ' APPROVED' BV' CITY COUNCIL ...... . . . .. COMMrrTEE OF THE WHOLE' . COMMITtEE REPORT ",' . . October lOt 2008· . Date/t?~~d~~i" Sub·District l-B'Plimned,ActiQn Qrdinancc'and Amended ,Conceptual Plan. . . ... . . . . ". .. . (Referred October' 6,Z0081 ... . .' .'. . ., .. '. The .Coinmittee: of the. Whole recommenos' concurrence with. the .staff recommendation, to adopt,the·, Planned Action Ordinance and adopf the Amended ConceptualPhin 'proposed by. the B~eijj'g Co. for . the· nidevelopmentof SO.7-ncres of BurP Ius Boeing pr~pertYidentltied. as "~ub,District 1-13".· The projeCt' site is bounded' by. Logan AvenueNon the ·\Ves~· .. Gafden Avenue N.on .theeas~ NSIh Street on the north, and N 61h Street on. th.SOlith.Thq Arriende;1' Com:eptUaiPlan',dividesth~prop~rty iilt? tWo distinct parts :t~e northerly . , 21.2 acres, that iscurrenily know' as,North' I,Band ~1ieeii .identitied as sUrplus by Boeing operatiimsand IS .. "vaiiable for near-tenn redevelopmen~ilnd·th., sO)lthem portion of the Sub, district c!"1'ently know as the Boeing.. . ." . Remainder"whichcontilins 660,000 sqjlarefeei of existing' oftice.b\lildings'With re;use potential and nSS·acres .' . ofreffiaining land.availableJ~~ iIi~till redevel.op~~!!hl1i~A1h~,~~ed C~nceptual Phincontains severalalteijtntive .•.. soenanos: .. Scenan.o,I; a.retiul complelrumt·"to}1ie, Lal)<lmg's' urbl\l1. retaIl center to the north; Scenan02, a.·" combinatioriof omc~imd,e'\lployinen.tirse~(ta>tSA~qrt¥, BSP) Mdlio!~IWles (Lot 7B of the BSP) und,ertaken:. ., as separate.develiipment by potenti~;\'tI~~~~lo~er~;~f,I!~~i1arif!.J, :s~1he c,?mlli!)a~on of Scenarios I' im~ 2 .. ·' . '.. .':. ". To enhance the Plan and/rts' consIstency With. the. V'lslon', and .Pohcles for the 'Urban Center-':'-Nqrth, . ~dopted In the' Comprehensiv~lifaii;the66nuititt~erecommeiids'the:;fJji\iWihg conditionS heiinposed,6h th~·· ... Amepded Co.n~ep,~at'.PI~~·:.·."-· ,~;,~ '~':>':.I' ":~::':<':, ._ ~ ... ' '.i?Mtit#~~~i1i~1~~;'" '?<~' ", < ~.> _' "" .:..,':, ....... '.', " ':: .:':' ,'J":" ; 'I). That Park Avenue. bi: desigriateda !'Pe<lesttir\1iYc;neriied!$tree~,~ to ens~an urban· form Of development .. . and' pr~vide pedestrian .linkIig~s:be~i;e~~iile';lub,ais~jh ana' thejplanned ret'iVent~rtaininent tenter'. ' . . ",:' .,'. :-..•• \.'.,. ·"'-;"~.l;".·.'.·,_1:;¥.'''''~''bq'·,;,-'·': " I' -": . -." • develoPlngt" thci·north;.ali'd;.'.. w',: ":' ·;!"·~.'r~:'~II.':"'" '.' .,:. '; •.• :, .. .' , ., '.. . , .'., _,' ) -~: : ' .1 1 ,~,,~,(, ~.}ji.(,.,' _ _ I' . " , : • ' '. 2). PedestrianconnectioilsshilllbCi provid~d';fQr' anil<sbown intlieConceptual'Plan for Slib,District'I.,B, aligningWith:exi8tingJ~toposed'j)edestn;ri'i2;;imecti~~';ln.~Urroundingafeas; arid;· ". .. ,', '. '., 3), Provisiorushall beri1\ldo.~ii\""iJieiConcCptiuil :~liIirfor4:~.U~Dj'Stri~i . J -13 to allow for: tne future\,,., .. development and'exteilsfon'of'N, 7th;Stre~t;.prilvided •• t1iiIt,constnlction .0fN. 7th between Logan Ave, ... . andPark.Ave: .shilll not oii'bl1i. p~j.6tlt(l\re~oy~i:'?(tlie'''B,~.emg;'D~ta(Hub currentlylocat~d.im LOt.5E: ,of'·: ., tl)e~akesho,;e'L~~~ing:2.B!lldii1~~it~,PJ,n;'~li~;,'.: :\",:":;i/~: ;. '.: <.,',' . <, 4) Thata' translt'faclhty.be an;allowe4,,,use,lnlhe 1=,~~I.~tely:avaIJable property,.lffundll1g"for·,~u:~"a .. ·,· .. . . : " ', .. facility em~rilednnd developediri ;\'Viiy~thW:wii't supptirtive,of.sUtrotiriding redevelojimeil! arid" ., .. ,,;. 'suPPclrted by the property, owner(s);. . ",: ;, :,.' ". :, .. ". .. ..,. .' . .'. ' ....... '. ' . "'. ···Theenvisi()ned·retail,ofticelmdlor~nipio~rit centerresultirig' fr.om, the, red~velopmerit. IifQpiised ". .., ... " ,-.' , .. ,' ".' under the conditioned Amended Gohceptual pian \yillMve positive'economic and sOl,inl impacts fcii the di!Yc,as:a:' . .> '.:'" . whole,' As outlined in' the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all supsequent land' use applications related to this property will be ch~c~e" ~gai!lst this document for consistency prior to approval.: ' . . In, addition, the adoption of the proposed' ~la~ed Acti~n Ordinanc~ would ~treamline, the pernlitiing .. -"'" ' process by utiliZing existing envircinriiental documeritati'cio; ,The'Coinmittedurther ,recommends that'the·Planned .. . ' Actionordir\~ni:e nignrding tliismatter~epr.esenied foririr$til!ldsu¢QI14rciai;ling: ........... ,i .. :. : ...... . , . , ' " ., ,. ..... . ' .. '., , , 1 ~ " ." ,', 1f)rw.1ozfa~:·".: .. Marcie palmer, Coimci1.president· , .,:. ,. ~ ", -.' -, cc: . Ja) SS"iR8*IHl YI:B eiii'efJtdllilillsuatiw, effieCi . Alex Pictsch~ CEO Admiriistr8tor. Gress ZifnmeIl1U1n .:. Public Work Administmto_f C'-E. ' Vincent" Planning' DirectOr Neil Watts;'Devclqpment Services Director JeinlifeTHcimin'g~ Plaiming Manager .' Vanes8~ D9Ib~e. Associate-Planner: "" : -: , . 1I,IDivi,ion.,lDevelop.serlDev&plan.ingIPROJECTSI08-1 i 2.Vanc"'ICOMMJ1TEE OF THE' WHOLE Subdisc I b 08-1 i 2.do~ , '-. . .. " .. ". .. ,-.' • ! " ,,', ' -, ,', COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT October 20, 2008 Sub-District loB Planned Action Ordinance and Amended Conceptual Plan (Referred October 6, 2008) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Planned Action Ordinance and adopt the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed by the Boeing Co. for the redevelopment of 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District I-B". The project site is bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8110 Street on the north, and N 61h Street on the south. The Amended Conceptual Plan divides the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North I-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment, and the southern portion of the Sub-district currently know as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres of remaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. The Amended Conceptual Plan contains several alternative scenarios: Scenario 1, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. To enhance the Plan and its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Committee recommends the following conditions be imposed on the Amended Conceptual Plan: 1) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the sub-district and the planned retaiVentertainment center developing to the north; and, 2) Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, 3) Provisions shall be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; provided, that construction ofN. 7th between Logan Ave. and Park Ave. shall not occur prior to removal of the Boeing Data Hub currently located on Lot 5E of the Lakeshore Landing 2 Binding Site Plan; and, 4) That a transit facility be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail, office andlor employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Amended Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. In addition, the adoption of the proposed Planned Action Ordinance would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation. The Committee further recommends that the Planned Action ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first and second reading. Marcie Palmer, Council President CC: Joy Covington -AJl.S Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch-CEO Administrutor Gregg Zimmermnn -Public Work Administrator C. E. Vincent, Plonning Director Neil Watts. Development Services Director Jennifer Henning. Plonning Manager Vanessa Dalbec, Associate Planner H:lOivi.ion .• IOcvclop.serIOcv&pl.n.ingIPROJECTSIOR-112.V.ncs •• \cOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Subdist Ib OR-112.doc Yl BOEING SUB-DISTRICT I-B CONCEPTUAL PLAN & PLANNED ACTION PUBLIC MEETING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE October 20, 2008 This Hearing will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the following issues: The Boeing Company is requesting approval of Planned Action legislation and an Amended Conceptual Plan, as required by Boeing's Development Agreement with the City of Renton. The 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District I-B" is bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8th Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south. The original Conceptual Plan was approved by City Council in November of 2005, which is represented as "Scenario I" within the Amended Conceptual Plan. The subject site is zoned Urban Center North I (UC-NI) and is designated Urban Center North on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Additional public comment opportunity will be available, for site- specific development, at the Master Plan and Site Plan stages. Amended Conceptual Plan: The proposed Amended Conceptual Plan continues to divide the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North I-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment. The southern portion of the sub-district currently known as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres of remaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. This Amended Conceptual Plan addresses development under several alternative scenarios: Scenario 1, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office, employment, and hotel uses undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. The Boeing Co. Development Agreement states, "The Council will base its approval on the proposed Conceptual Plan's fulfillment of the adopted Comprehensive Plan ViSion and Policies for the Urban Center- North." Once adopted, the City will use the Conceptual Plan to evaluate all subsequent development permit applications within the sub-districts based on consistency. Planned Action: The applicant is also requesting the Council adopt a Planned Action Ordinance. This Planned Action would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October 2003. The approval of Planned Action legislation would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation, as allowed by RCW 43.2lC.031 and WAC 197- 11-164,168 and 315. As a result of approving this Planned Action Ordinance, development permit applicants would be required to submit an environmental consistency analysis and receive subsequent approvals from the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC). A consistency analysis would be required as individual master plans and/or site , plans are proposed. In addition, the adoption of Planned Action legislation provides added entitlement and schedu ling predictability as developers begins to prepare for the redeve lopment of the 50.7-acre site. Dlpll1m'r1 of Corrm.anlt'( & Econornt OrtvilOpMlnl .... ,., ... _-.... _-,...... ....... -.. ..... -~ -." .,. ,. , ~ ~' ... to ..... .. I, I Legend: o ProJectS~e LUA08-11 2 -Vicinity Map /'to._ . n. ,oc;.,o.",,~ ...... ....... , ........ .Am.nd,d Conceptu.1 Red.velopm.nt pt," (or Sub-Oittrict 1·8 o lI!O .,. ___ ==='ili~ ... o \ i I Department of Community & Economic Development Aiel( Pietsch, AdminIstrator Adriana Johnson. Planning Technician :xJtlce {Cll'li '.'1'111(1) J08 t U'(l'JI ttll.l,.' l' I:; rt!Slt''I8·1 Nq .... al' .. ,a-,)1 llnf II x1 I Jlfl"(>lJ111 hJloac'JlacyllJ'tH6'f I 11 .. 1011",.. lIa:D'l'flilr.'t 11'11. r-o I. I Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan & Planned Action for Sub-Di strict 1-8 Legend CZJ Parce ls SUb-District 1-8 r::J City limits D Parcels Delobel' 7, 2008 :.0 __ .""'<:::=='::;000 _ 'HI 112,000 N~<I" I·l Ir~ f , .... ,~ IT "f ,"'",,!h(lle .p.f-' I. ~ .1 , -. 't I' , , , , " '1 " , \ \ , " -----',' 'I f : ····11 ' \;' :"-'j" :~I , '~"1' I 1..::'::::"",:-;' ,::;:' ::;:':;:' ':'::::: ./;::.:: .. -- " \ \ \ , \ -'''l*::::::::::::--':~L [ Sub-District \, \ \ \, \, \ \ . I. V \, I, \, , I: Urban Center North District Sub-areas Districts Subject to Conceptual Plan Approval Note: District boundaries include dedicated R·O-W Department of Community and Economic Development A. Johnson November 3,2008 EXHIBIT A A N Background CONCEPTUAL RED1~VELOJ)MENT PLAN Sub-District 1-B December 2008 Amendment Renton, Washington The Boeing Company ("Boeing") has been working with the City of Renton (the "City") since early 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with its 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the "Renton Plant Site"). In October of2003, Boeing prepared an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the Renton Plant Site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (the "ErS"). In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment (the "Development Agreement") that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: • Renton commitments to fund and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • Boeing commitments to fund certain private aspects of redevelopment; and • Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects to subdivide, develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not related to airplane manufacturing. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub-Districts I-A and I-B, and District 2 (see Exhibit I). City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I -A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-A in early 2006. Sub-District I-A is noW known as "The Landing" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theatre uses. Sub-District I-B Sub-District I-B is located immediately to the south of The Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit I, and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub- District I-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October 0[2005 and approved in November of2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District I-B and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub-District I-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05/UlGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District I-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the ElS. A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of 2006 under Ordinance No. S242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" (the "BSP"). The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District 1-B: Lots SA, SB, SC, SO, SE, 7 A, 7B, and 7C. The Original Conceptual Plan addressed infrastructure improvements imposed as conditions of development pursuant to the Development Agreement to support redevelopment of Sub- Districts I-A and I-B. In particular, a portion of Sub-District I-B was reserved for a four-lane extension of 81h Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues (the "Extension"). The Extension and related improvements have been completed. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B (Lots SA and 7B of the BSP; formerly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as ''North 1- B") were planned for retail uses complementary to the Harvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1- B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center -North, District One zone ("UC-NI" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District 1-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the "Boeing Remainder." The Boeing Remainder is illustrated on Exhibit I. Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.8S acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("DP I" through "DP4"): This amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District I-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the retail alternative proposed for North I-B in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes office and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots SA and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the UC-N1 zone. Boeing seeks the City's approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan so that it can market North I-B to potential developers under a greater range of uses. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 osn"EoAL 14S0S979. 7 9111108 PAGE 2 Submittal Included within this submittal is a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub·District I ·B, a Conceptual Plan Diagram (see Exhibit 2), and a benefit analysis demonstrating a range of potential one·time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the North I· B portion of the Sub·District (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2010 for DP 1 and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I OSnJlGAL I 4S0S979.7 PAGE 3 9/1 1/08 • A erial, r.'xhibit I AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVFLOPMEN r PLAN OJOOJ·OI051l EOAL 14505979 7 <JIll/OS • PAOE4 FULLER· SEARS ARCHI'TECTs Ii '." "d, I" . ,," . , 11" ',·,11"1 : . :."l,i;·I' ~ ~.:"-.: . ". ('j \. ,f I' I "j ",' fl'" r , d. r'o ! .' ,-.:-: .! . R RETAIL L LAB o OFFICE P PARKING GARAGE MF MULTI·FAMILY - -PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS • .... ,ONCEPTUAL PLA SUB-DISTRICT 1-B '" NO,o. MAX ONE '6-STOR'f aloG.- IFOFFlCE •. ; ..... -(12Q,OOO SFF' 4 wITHNEW: : '~A~INO GARA;GE '':' NOTE: w.x, TWO 6·STORY BLDOS. IForneE (300,000 SF) WITH NEW H STORY PARKING GARAGE ~.I?'NG Conceptual Plan Diagram, Exhibit 2 Conceptual Plan Sub-District 18 o L H R P • • ~ •. ,_ •• II •• • • p .. ::J Ii .'t c J DP·1 330,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB p • DP-2 260,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAS Legend Office Lab Hotel Retail Parking Garage ," 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05ILEGAL 14505979,7 9111108 r - . DP4 125,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB I I rtl-IIDE'NO R H .~ DP-4 - - Conceptual Development Plan This Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B is comprised of two somewhat distinct parts. The North I-B area makes up the northern portion of the property along 8th Avenue, has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations, and is available for near-term redevelopment. The Boeing Remainder makes up the southern portion of the Sub-District, and contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space with re-use potential and approximately 12.85 acres ofland with future redevelopment potential. North I-B Boeing recognizes that high-quality development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City'S vision for the Urban Center-North .. Potential developers of lots within Sub-District I-B must join with the City to ensure that such development is well-designed and is of a quality and at a scale that is consistent with the City's long-term vision for the area. As planning for Sub-Districts I-A and I-B has progressed, the land south of 8th has been identified as an important component of the overall project. The area, now known as North I-B, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative scenarios: Scenario I, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. Each scenario is described below. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of North I-B containing a data hub for the Renton Plant Site (Lot 5E of the BSP), will be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. I. Scenari 0 I Under this scenario, North I-B is envisioned to contain a large format "destination" retailer located along Logan Avenue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally, the large format retail development (users with footprints of 50,000 square feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet) is planned to occur along 8th and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue. The supporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 feet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park Avenue. Scenario I anticipates pedestrian connections to occur internally within the site both east toward Park Avenue and south toward 6th A venue. Vehicle access would occur off of Park Avenue, with loading and delivery functions relying upon Garden Avenue and an internal service road running along the southern edge ofthe North 1-8 property line. At a maximum lot coverage ratio of30%, the North 1-8 site could accommodate up to 270,000 square feet of retail space. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9111108 i'AGE6 2. Scenario 2 a. Office and Employment Component Under Scenario 2, Lot SA would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include technology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. Smaller-scale ground-floor and/or freestanding retail uses may also be included in this development scenario. At this maximum density, the majority of accessory parking would be provided in an above-grade structure, and impervious surface coverage would be up to 95%. Buildings would be three to six stories in height, with floorplates of up to approximately 40,000 square feet. The build-out of the Office and Employment Component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand, future buildings may include structured parking to achieve density of up to 600,000 square feet on- site, or build-out may be limited to a fully surface-parked option, in which overall density would be approximately 300,000 square feet. Development within this range of densities is also possible. b. I-IotellRetail Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 7B would contain a seven to nine story hotel and two separate, small- scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complement and support the hotel use. The hotel would consist of a maximum of 130,000 square feet; the supporting retail uses would total a maximum of 13,000 square feet (consisting of two buildings, one approximately 5,000 square feet and one approximately 8,000 square feet). All uses would be surfaced parked. The hotel and retail uses would be oriented toward Park Avenue. 3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. In particular, this Scenario anticipates that either Lot SA or Lot 7B is not redeveloped according to Scenario 2 and is instead redeveloped with retail uses. Any combination implemented would not exceed the overall development capacities contemplated for North J-B. Summary Redevelopment of the North loB parcel as contemplated by this Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent with the City's overarching goal for the Urban Center North: creation of a large- scale, mixed-use development including uses such as retail, research and development, labs, office, employment, residential and commercial. See, e.g., City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Urban Center North Land Use Designation ("Comp. Plan, LU- UCN"), Purpose Statement. This Plan is consistent with applicable goals for the Urban Center North that encourage "a mix of uses to improve the City's tax and employment base" (Comp. Plan, LU-VCN, Policy LV-266), "support a range and variety of commercial and office uses" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-267) and "allow hospitality uses such as hotels" (Comp. Plan, LU-VCN, Policy LU-268). The City's vision for District One AMENDED CONCEI'rUAL RBDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 05n.EGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 7 anticipates similar new development including retail, office, employment, lab, research and development, and hotel uses that ultimately result in a cohesive mixed-use district (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Vision-District One). In particular, proposed Scenario I supports the City's vision and applicable goals for the Urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on North I-B that complement existing retail uses located north of 8th Avenue. Scenario 2 similarly supports the City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North I-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios I and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center North and District One. All three scenarios would add to the City'S tax base, provide additional jobs and help to expand the overall mix of uses currently located in District One. Boeing Remainder This portion of the Amended Conceptual Plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, 1980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout the Boeing Remainder (the 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is five to six stories in height, ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet in area, with a total area for all four buildings of 660,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in surrounding surface lots, at an overall ratio of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Boeing currently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in signilicant rehabilitation, lease or sale of the structures. At the time of the Original Conceptual Plan, a I 960s-vintage lab building, known as the 10-71 building, was located along Logan Avenue. The 10-71 building was demolished in 2008, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building ("DPI"; Lot 5B of the BSP). For purposes of this Amended Conceptual Plan, we have assumed that the existing office buildings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. If the existing buildings are occupied by other users at some point in the future, such buildings could be supported by parking at a market-driven ratio of3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a 3.9-acre site between the 10-18 and 10-20 buildings ("DP2"; Lot 50 of the BSP); a 1.8-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of 6th ("DP3"; the property constituting DP3 was not included in the BSP); and, a 2.2-acre site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 61h ("DP4"; the property constituting DP4 was not included in the BSP). . AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I OSILEGAL 14 505979.7 9111108 PAGE 8 I. DPI This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the North I-B property. Fronting on 6th Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 office building and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-tenn (2010) redevelopment potential, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions DPI 's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more structures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. Given its size, DP-l could accommodate the parking needs of whichever use was ultimately implemented on the site, such that the site would be self-parked. 2. OP2 and 01'4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for the existing office buildings are reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow parking areas for Boeing employees, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment of OP2 and OP4 with new buildings containing either lab or offices uses, consistent with the current development pattern. In some instances where new lab uses could be developed, surplus parking within existing garages could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new, private open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity, this Amended Conceptual Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings are sold or leased to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Renton Plant Site to accommodate its employees. The Amended Conceptual Plan contemplates the potential redevelopment of these parcels with approximately 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. Both DP2 and DP4 could accommodate structures containing as much as 260,000 square feet on DP2 and 125,000 square feet on 01'4. To accommodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on DP2, and any additional parking needs would be provided by ear-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On DP4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing 10-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. 3. DI'3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the comer of 6th and Park Avenues. This Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, in both cases housed within a single six-story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. If developed as lab space, the building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on 01'2. If developed as office space, parking could either be provided in a new garage on OP3 or accommodated by providing additional parking levels within a OP2 garage. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 1 05~JlGAL 14505979.7 9111/08 PAGE9 Summary The redevelopment of the Boeing Remainder proposed by this Amended Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's vision for the Urban Center North and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, commercial corridor south of The Landing between Logan and Garden Avenues, with mid-rise office or lab buildings along street frontages and structured parking behind. Whether redeveloped with all office, all lab, or a mix of office and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. Economic Benefit Analysis Summary Boeing's Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B seeks to both allow for the near-term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix of uses that significantly improves the City'S tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan (Exhibit 3) and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment Scenarios for North I-B (Exhibit 4), have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development on the North I-B portion of the Sub-District for either retail use or a combination of hotel and office/employment uses (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development on the Boeing Remainder for office and/or laboratory uses (beginning in 2010 for DPI and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 051WGAL 14 505979.7 PAGE 10 9111108 EXHIBIT 3 2005 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY SUB DISTRICT I-B BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Sub District I-B at its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District I-B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if fully developed as follows: Lab Multi-Family Total 900,000 535,500 1,435,500 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targeted Renton Boeing parcels are entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring) in terms of: ~ Jobs ~ Income ~ Property values ~ Public revenues AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.{) 1 05~"EGAL 14505979.7 9111108 PAGE 11 State of Washington King County City of Renton II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels comprising 12.85 net acres into modem lab and multi-family space are only as valid as underlying assumptions. I These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: ~ By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District I-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into lab and multi-family uses? ~ Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 2013. 1 Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figure .. are expressed In 2005 dollars. 2 This job total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL RI,DEVELOI'MENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05n~EGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 12 ~ These lab jobs would generate an additional $ 158 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2013. ~ Of this income total, over $88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District I-B parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 2013 and thereafter. ~ The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast at over $550 million by 2013. ~ The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the State of Washington is estimated at over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi- family space on the four Boeing parcels at the Renton Sub District \-B site. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of redeveloping Boeing's four parcels of excess property in Sub District I-B are now summarized. ~ By 2013, it is estimated that over 2, I 00 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District I-B. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City would be created by 2013. ~ The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over $6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District I-B parcels. ~ The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of over $2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.{) I 05ILEGAL 14505979. 7 911110R PAGE 13 Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $40,000 during land development and over $6,168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-time municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the lab and multi-family buildings are completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $115,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $275,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS Recurring Redevelo men! Scenario In 2013 CITY.IOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 1,700 Indirect Jobs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2,100 ANNUAL INCOME Dircclincome $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ 123,146,400 Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tnx S 1,952,593 Snles Tnx $ 40,234 S 3,049,318 $ Employee l'lead Tax . $ 115,496 Real Estnte Transfer Tnx $ 3,118,965 $ 275,071 Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 Chart 1 shows that 2,100 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renion. Of these, 1.700 would be direct on-site lab jabs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-8 parcels. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.() 1 05n.EGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 14 Chart 1 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 3,000 2,100 2,000 1,000 With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2013 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2013 5150 550 ,-----1 $- With Project AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OSILEGAL 14505979.7 9111108 Without Project PAGElS Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the four Boeing parcels in Sub-District I-B. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under $74 million to nearly $624 million-an increase of$550 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS WIthout Project $73.7 WIth Project ! . • 1 " . . t $0 $200 Dollars In millions AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9111108 $400 $600 $623.8 PAGE 16 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of over $6,208,000 during the estimated 2008 through 2012 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Sub District I-B parcels starting in 2009. This will increase each year until 2013 where it peaks at over $2,343,000 million as an annual flow into the City. $3,000,000 :J = e 52,000,000 t =: .. 01 r-$1,000,000 .€ U $- Chart 4 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05fl_EGAL 14505979. 7 9111/08 • Recuning o Onetime PAGE 17 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY (2005) HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping certain Sub District I-B property under option by Harvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land uses. This "right of first option" (ROFO) property is the Phase II expansion of Harvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District IB property The ROFO Phase II land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-B Renton property. The specific purpose of this document is to show Ci ty of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: Retail-Shop Space Retail-Big Box Total 91,000 135,000 226,000 Sq. 1'1. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises their option to purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full redevelopment of this property as retail uses between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring) in terms of: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LEGAL 14 505979. 7 9111108 PAGE 18 ~ Jobs ~ Income ~ Property values ~ Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 OS/LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 19 II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions.3 These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. Ill. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Boeing Renton Sub District IB property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 between "redevelopment" of the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary ofkey findings follow: ~ By 2008 (project stabilization), an estimated 1,667 jobs would be created if the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-8 are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box retail uses.4 ~ Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. ~ These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2008. ] Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed 10 be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed In 2005 dollars. 4 This job lotal includes both direct and indirect jobs. lndirecljobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OS/LEGAL 14505979.7 9/lliOH PAGE 20 ~ Of this income total, nearly $45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District l-B ROFO parcels and over $35 million in indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. ~ The corresponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly $53 million by 2008. ~ The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5.1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3.8 miIlion in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this excess Boeing property in Sub District I-B are now summarized: ~ By 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District 1-8. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City jobs would be created by 2008. ~ The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667,000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District l-B parcels. ~ The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly $856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. ll1ese data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $66,000 during land development and over $60 1,000 during construction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVEI.OPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05ILEGAL14505979. 7 9111108 PAGE 21 Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly $856,000. Nearly $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City'S employee head tax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $26,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS HARVEST PARTNERS SUB DISTRICT I-B One-time Land One-time Building Redevelo ment Scenario Develo ment Develo ment 2006-2007 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 Indirect Jobs 16 39 Total Jobs 58 131 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 Indirect Income $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 Total Income $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 CITY TAX REVENUES Properly Tax Sales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 Total Tax Revenues $ 601,458 Recurring In 2008 859 202 1,061 $ 44,657,600 $ 8,889,439 $ 53,547,039 $ 186,873 $ 584,225 $ 58,346 $ 26,325 $ 855,769 Chart I shows that 1,061 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO property in Boeing's Renton Sub District I-B area. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 osn.EGAL 14S0S979. 7 9/11/08 Chart 1 PAGE 22 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 1,200 -,--------1;061--------------------- 800 400 With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. 560 ~ 540 ~ -• • • ~ 510 $. Chart 2 New Job Annual Income in 2008 S54 With I'roject Without Projeci Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District 1-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from $8.6 million to nearly $61.3 million-an increase of $52.7 million. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05/LEGAL14505979. 7 9/11108 PAGE 23 Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY Without Project With Project $0 $25 Dollars in millions $50 $61.3 $75 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate .transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District I-B property starting in 2007. This wiJI increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.{) 1 05ILEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 Chart 4 PAGE 24 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues $1,000,000 '" $800,000 .. .. .. .. ;-$600,000 .. ~ .. $400,000 os E- .f' $200,000 u $- 2008 2009 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-ll 1 05/LEGAL 14505979.7 9111/0H 2010 2011 2012 2013 o Recurring II Onetime PAGE 25 Table] CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY Redevelo ment Scenario CnY.IOIIS Direct Jobs 25 381 Indirect Jobs 9 159 Total Jobs 34 540 ANNIJAL INCOMIC Direct Income $ 1,285.625 $ 49,960,680 $ Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ CrIT TAX IUNw/IJICS Property Tux $ Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ Rcnl r:'.Stute Trans fer Tax $ 3,118,%5 $ Totul Tux Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY Rodevelo ment Scenario COY,JOIIS Direct Jobs Indirect Johs Total Jobs ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ Indirect Income $ Totnllncome $ COY TAX IlEVW!lIICS Property Tax Sales Tax $ r~ployee Hend Tax Reol Es tnte Trans fer Tax Totnl Tax Revenues $ AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I 05n"EGAL 14505979. 7 9111/0R 42 92 16 39 58 131 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 $ $ 66,379 $ 295,201 $ $ $ 306,257 $ 66,379 $ 601,458 $ Recurring In 2013 1,700 400 2,100 123,146,400 17,596,700 140,743,100 1,952,593 115,4% 275,071 2,343,160 Recurring In 2008 859 202 1,061 44,657,600 8,889,439 53,547,039 186,873 584,225 58,346 26,325 855,769 PAGE 26 COMBINED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY Redevelo mont Scenario CITY.IOIlS Direct Jobs Indirect Jobs Total Jobs ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ Indirect Income $ Total hlcome $ CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ Employee Head Tax Real Es tate Trons fer Tax Total Tax Revenues $ AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9111108 67 25 92 3.406,655 1,089,693 4,496,348 106,613 106,613 Recurring in 2013 473 2.559 198 602 671 3,161 $ 59,393,400 $ 167,804,000 $ 38,347,461 $ 26.486,139 $ 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 $ 2,139.466 $ 3,344,519 $ 584,225 $ 173,842 $ 3,425,222 $ 301,396 $ 6,769,741 $ 3,198,929 PAGE 27 TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DISTRICT I-B City of Renton Pennanent Jobs Created In 2013 4,000 3,161 3,000 .. ' " .. ' 1,000 ·'.~·.,.~;l~r.t~I----------------- " . '<," '," 2,000 With Project Without Project New Job Annual Income in 2013 $100 C 5150 ~ '0 S)OO S i $50 $- With Project Without Project New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 54,000,000 il = 53,000,000 " .. ~ .. .. $2,000,000 [J Recurring • Onetime (-0 a-51,000,000 $- 2006 1007 1008 2009 2010 2011 lOll 1013 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OJOOJ'() I 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 28 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT I-B, NORTH IB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON This Economic Benefit Study (Exhibit 4) was prepared to help align, support and provide context for recent land use amendments applicable to Sub-District 1-B as reflected in the attached Conceptual Redevelopment Plan. The analysis included in this Exhibit 4 was developed by CB Richard Ellis in an effort to conform to prior analyses performed for the Lakeshore Sub District I-B. CB Richard Ellis obtained the information contained herein from sources we believe to be reliable. However, we have not verified its accuracy and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is submitted subject to the possibility of errors, omissions, and change of conditions. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates used are for example only and do not represent the current or future performance of the property. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 05/LEGAI. 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 29 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT I-B, NORTH IB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. HISTORY The original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District loB ("SOIB"), approved by the City of Renton, included a mix of multi-family and retail development. Over the past two years, however, the Puget Sound real estate market has changed. Highest and best use for the north 21.2 acres of SD I B (referenced by the original Plan as the "ROFO" area; now referenced as "North I B"), has shifted away from retail and multifamily to office/commercial and hotel uses. The redevelopment now anticipated for North lB includes a hotel and restaurants on Lot 7B and office/business/R&D uses on Lot 5A. This analysis supplements the Economic Benefit Analysis performed in 2005 to support the original Conceptual Plan for SO lB by generally assessing the economic benefit associated with redevelopment of North IB for office and hotel uses. As discussed in greater detail below, we conclude that the anticipated hotel and office redevelopment of SD 1B will benefit the City, County and State at a rate equal to or greater than the retail redevelopment program assumed by the original Conceptual Plan. II. SCOPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HOTEL/RESTAURANT Lot 7B is approximately 5.07 acres. On the south side of N 8th Street, the property is bordered by Park and Garden Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with a regional hotel management and development company with more than 20 years of experience in the Pacific Northwest.. A hotel and commercial development is planned according to the following program: :.-Residence Inn by Marriott; "Extended Stay" :.-170 rooms :.-130,000 sq. ft ~ Total employees -approximately 45 to 50 AMENOED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 30 » Average Daily Rate (ADR) -approximately $165 » Annual beginning revenue of approximately $8,500,000 » Completion is projected in early 2010 » 2 restaurant pads » 2 "sit down" style restaurants; one approximately 5,000 sq. ft., the second approximately 8,000 sq. ft. » Total employees for both restaurants -approximately 1 00 » Annual beginning revenue of approximately $3,500,000 (for both restaurants) » Completion is projected in early 201 0 The combined value of the hotel and restaurant development is projected to exceed $42 million (land + construction). OFFICE Lot 5A is approximately 14.21 acres. On the south side of N 8th Street, the property is bordered by Logan and Park Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with one of the largest publicly traded office and industrial property developers in the United States. An office/businesslR&D development is planned according to the following program: » Class "A" office project for general office use » 4 buildings @ +/-150,000 sq. ft each; total office of 300k to 600k sq. ft. » Project to be 1 00% built out by 2014 » 2,000 to 3,000 employees/jobs » Parking is planned to be a combination of structural and surface, based on the ultimate size of the office buildings » Construction is projected to start in 2009 with completion of the initial phase in 2010 The combined value of the office development is projected to exceed $165 million (land + construction). III. ANALYSIS The 2005 Economic Benefit Study addressed and quantified the original Conceptual Plan's positive effect on jobs, annual income and city tax revenues. That analysis continues to be relevant to Scenarios I and 3 of the Amended Conceptual Plan now proposed. With respect to Scenario 2, which assumes redevelopment of the North I B portion of Sub-District I B for officelbusiness/R&D/hotellcommercial uses as described above, we conclude the following: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.{) I 05ILEGAL 14505919.1 9111108 PAGE 31 • Proposed sit-down restaurants and hospitality components complement the current retail development at The Landing. Proposed additional hotel lodging near the downtown core encourages revenue generating traffic and a tourism multiplier that will be beneficial to the City. • Washington state sales tax on the improvements and excise tax on the sale of the land should exceed $15 million. Using an industry standard of 200 square feet for each employee, the office portion should directly bring 3,000 jobs to Renton in additions to the 150 jobs created by the hotel and restaurants. • While there are many variables, we conclude that the current/revised conceptual plan for SD I B essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic benefits to those anticipated as part of the original conceptual plan. Proposed changes to the original Conceptual Plan provide for an increasingly diverse redevelopment of downtown Renton. A new hotel, restaurants, retail space and additional class A office space will continue to draw people to the downtown area. The city, county and state will continue to benefit via additional jobs, increased property values and public revenues. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05/LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 32 .'" " .. ' '.: , ',' October 6,2008 Jeffrey Adelson' The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, WC 7H-AH Seattle, WA 98124 ' '. . .. .. CITY.F, RENTON: Department ofCommuility and Economic D¢velopinenf' ' Alex Pietsch, Admlnistrnto'r , .' . SUBJECT: Amended conceptual Redevelopinimt for Sub-J)lstrlct IJU , LuA08-112,PA,CP' , , Dear Mr. Adelson: , , , ." , " Please, fiili;l-eitciosed 'a copy ofthe Agenda Bill and, Issues Paper for the subje~t !lppllcati9fl. 'These documentshaveileen prepared in preparation-Corilie Public'Hearing with cityCourioii: " , .,' . . .',' . '. . .. .. A City Council, Public Helii'ing :hasbeen schedi/,Ied,for 7:00P .. m. October·20, 2008 hith'e < , <Council Cbambers on tbli7'h flooratRimtonClty Halt The applicantorreptesentaiive(s),of, 'the applicantare,r1iq~ested t6 be present. " , • , ' If you have any questions; please feel free to contact;Ue at (425) 430-7314. ' .'" , .' "".." ", :.' -', '> .. :, .--': '. " . ."' . Sincerely, . ., . . ,... . '. ::.~ ,: ::",;, ", ~. .,~ . '., " ,' . -1f,~'t;idL:)' ' -', Vanessa Dolbee, " Associate, Planner' ' Enclosure, ," . cc: LaureWbiiiikerl Party(ies)';fRecord, ' ' Yellow File ' " , , .-" : " . , " ,:. . .... ' ,:. : .. .. .' '.' . ':, . ->, '~ ------~iO-5-5~S-ou-th-G-r-ad-Y-W-a-Y---:R-en-to-n-.-w-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-8b-5~7'--:---"-~ It EN T ON, ~ '-AH;'AD oy 'THE' CURVE \:I This pa~co~ains 50% recycled material, ~O% post consumer "; .. . ". From: To: Date: Subject: Ms. Dolbee, "Palisoc, Felixbarto" <PallsoF@wsdot.wa.gov> <VDolbee@cl.renton.wa.us> 10/06/2008 04:47PM SR 405 (Boaing Redevelopment) Can you please forward us a copy of the 2003 EIS, if you have a copy available. We do not have further comments for tha Consistency Analysis for the Amended Conceptual Plan. I send a memo to you tomorrow. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this development. Felix Palisoc WSDOT· NW Region SnoKing Local Agency & Development Services, MS 240 PO Box 33031 0 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133·9710 phone: 206·440-4713 email: palisof@wsdot.wa.gov fax: 206·440-4806 DATE: ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORA September 5, 2008 TO: Jennifer Henning, CED -Planning FROM: ~ndY Moya, Records Management Specialist SUBJECT: CAG-08-135 -Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. The attached document has been fully executed and is being returned to you. The City Clerk has retained an original for the file. Thank you! Attachment CAG-08-135 F'~ r:-. ~ \. ' ~ "\11 ---.J ..J CONSULTANT AGREEMENT ",rd ~ ~ THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the .j . day of ' ,200q between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washi gton, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", for them to perform environmental analysis services related to a proposed amendment to the Conceptual Plan for the Boeing Renton Plant Sub-District 1 B. Information shall be made available for use by the City of Renton Staff and City Council. The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below: 1, Scope of Services, The Consultant will provide all labor necessary to perform all work, which Is described In the attached Scope of Services (Exhibit A). This Agreement and Exhibit hereto contain the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior oral or written representation or understandings. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of the parties. The scope of work may be amended as provided herein. 2, Changes In Scope of Services, The City, without Invalidating the Consultant Agreement, may order changes In the services consisting of additions, deletions or modifications, and adjust the fee accordingly. Such changes In the work shall be authorized by written agreement signed by the City and Consultant. If the project scope requires less time, a lower fee will be charged. If additional work Is required, the consultant will not proceed without a written change order from the City. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain In full force and effect to serve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. 3, Time of Performance, The Consultant shall complete performance of the Consultant Agreement for the items under Consultant's control in accordance with Exhibit A. If Items not under the Consultant's control Impact the time of performance, the ConSUltant will notify the City. 4, Term of Consultant Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall end at completion of the scope of work Identified in Exhibit A, but no later than March 31, 2009. This Agreement may be extended to accomplish change orders, if required, upon mutual written agreement of the City and the Consultant. 5, Consultant Agreement Sum. The total amount of this Agreement is not to exceed the sum of $16,850.00. Washington State Sales Tax Is not required. The Cost Estimate provided by the Consultant to the City specifies total cost. 6. Method of Payment. Payment by the City for services rendered will be made after a voucher or Invoice is submitted in the form specified by the.City. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days after receipt of such voucher or invoice. The City shall have the right to withhold payment to the Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as the Consultant modifies such work so that the same Is satisfactory. 7. Record Maintenance and Work Product. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and services provided in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access to any records required by the City. All originals and copies of work product, exclusive of Consultant's proprietary items protected by copyright such as computer programs, methodology, methods, materials, and forms, shall belong to the City, including records, files, computer disks, magnetic media or material which may be produced by Consultant while performing the services. Consultant will grant the City the right to use and copy Consultant copyright materials as an inseparable part of the work product provided. 8. Assignment Agreement. The Consultant shall not assign any portion of this consultant Agreement without express written consent of the City of Renton. 9. Hold Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or death of Consultant's own employees, or damage to property caused by a negligent act or omission of the Consultant, except for those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or omission by the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the contractor and the city, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, the contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the contractor's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitute the contractor's waiver of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration Or termination of this agreement. 10. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain commercial liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 in full force throughout the duration of this Consultant Agreement. It is agreed that on the CONTRACTOR's policy, the City of Renton will be named as Additionallnsured(s) on a non-contributory primary basis. A certificate of insurance and the Primary & Non-Contributory Additional Insurance Endorsement page, properly endorsed, shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. Please note: The cancellation language should read "Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 45 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left." 11. Independent Contractor. Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City. The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on .the part of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered 2 herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant. 12. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant and all of the Consultant's employees shall perform the services in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and ordinances. Discrimination Prohibited: Consultant, with regard to work performed under this agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, creed, age, sex, the presence of any physical or sensory handicap, or sexual orientation, in the selection and/or retention of employees, or procurement of materials or supplies. This agreement Is entered Into as of the day and year written above. el BI ,resident LUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 720 6th St S, #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 APPROVED AS TO FORM: cf; {,.' ...... ~jllAlfl. f d9 City Attorney le Pietsch, Administrator Dept. of Community & Economic Development ATTEST: ----- Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 3 Exhibit A August8,2008 Nell Watts, Development Services Director Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF REN rUN r1ECEIVED AUG 1 22008 BUILDING DIVISION RE: Boeing Renton Plant Sub·dlstrlct 1 B Conceptual Plan Amendment Dear Nell: '·~BLUMEN ':1 CONSULTING 5:GROUP, INC 425·284·5401 FAX 425·284·5402 www.blumencg.com 720 Sixth 51. 5, Suite I DO KIrkland, WA 98033 Blumen Consulting Group Inc. (BCG) Is pleased to submit this proposed Scope of Work and Budget for environmental analysis services related to a proposed amendmant to tha Concaptual Plan for the Boeing Renton Plant Sub·dlstrlct 1 B, We are Interested and available to provide environmental services for this project and welcome the opportunity to continue as part of the City's team, . PROJECT UNDERSTANDING As you know, Blumen Consulting Group previously managed preparation of the Boeing Renton ComprehensIve Plan Amendment EIS (2003) for the City. Wa also prepared a Consistency Analysis for potential redavelopmant contemplated for Sub-dlstrlct 1 B In 2006, as envisioned In Boeing's 2006 Conceptual Plan. The Conslstancy Analysis Included an environmental analysis of redevelopment proposed under the Conceptual Plan and compared It to the assumptions and environmental analYSis Included In the 2003 EIS. The Consistency Analysis also evaluated a request for designation of proposed uses In Sub-dlstrlct 1 B as a Planned Action under SEPA, We understand that Boeing Is preparing an amendment to the Conceptual Plan for the Sub·dlstrlct 1 B area, This Sub-dlstrlct Is part of the overall site that was evaluated In both the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Anelysls. The revised Plan contemplates a broader range of uses, potentially Including office and hotel uses on a portion of the Sub· distrlct 1 B property, as compared to only retail use contemplated In the 2006 Conceptual Plan. A mix of uses was assumed In the 2003 EIS. Boeing Is seeking a Planned Action designation for their revised redevelopment plans for Sub-dlstrlct 1 B: therefore, an environmental analysis will be prepared for this proposal to Insure that the range of redevelopment and associated Impacts under the amendment to the Conceptual Plan are within the range addressed In the 2003 EIS (and within the range evaluated In the 2006 Conslstancy Analysis). BCG will prepare an analysis (via a Memo) of the amendment to the Conceptual Plan to determine If the redevelopment assumptions and environmental Impacts are within the range covered In the 2003 EIS. (Our assumption for this scope of work Is that the renge of redevelopment contemplated In the revised Conceptual Plan will be within the renge previously evaluated In the prior environmental documents.) We propose to use the 80e/ng Renton Plant Sub-dlstrlct f 8 Scope of Worle for Environmentsl Analysis Memo Page f of6 SEPIIINEPII Compliance Land Use Enlltlement Project COOIdfnation services of Transportation Engineering Northwest (TENW) to address transportation Issues associated with redevelopment under the revised Conceptual Plan. SCOPE OF WORK Blumen Consulting Group will prepare an environmental analysis of the amendment to the Conceptual Plan and potential redevelopment of Boeing Renton Plant Sub-distrlct 1 B, and produce a Memo for City review of ourflndlngs. We propose to provide our services on a phased basis, as described below. Phase 1 -Environmental Analvsls and Preparation of a Memo BCG and TENW will complete the following tasks: BeG • We will review the amendment to the Conceptual Plan for proposed redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B and other relevant information. We will coordinate with a Boeing representative to obtain adequate Information on their revised plan. • Transportation will be the key element analyzed In the Sub-district 1 B environmental analysis. We assume that BCG will review and Incorporate the technical memolinformation provided to us by TENW to descrlba the consistency of the transportation Impacts from the proposed redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B under the amendment to the Conceptual Plan with Impacts analyzed In the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. BCG will provide a brief, qualitative comparison of the Impacts from the proposed redevelopment of Sub-dlstrlc\. 1 B on other relevant elements of the environment addressed In the 2003 EIS. This will be based on an assumed range of uses contemplated under the amendment to the Conceptual Plan under two to three possible scenarios. • BCG will prepare a draft Memo for submittal to the City of Renton and Boeing for review and comment. . • Meetings -We assume partiCipation at up to six (6) meetings or conference calls with the City and/or Boeing to prepare the Sub-district 1 B Environmental Analysis. • Printing -BCG will coordinate printing of up to eight (8) copies of the Sub-district 1A draft Environmental Analysis Memo for submittal to the City and Boeing. TENW TENW will prepare a transportation technical memorandum that will be appended to the Sub-dlstrlct 1 B Analysis Memo (see Attachment A for their scope of work). In the memorandum, they will provide a detailed trip generation analysis and comparison of the Boeing Renton Plant Sub-dlstrlct 1 B Pege20fe Scope of Wor/( for Environmental Analysis Memo , I I Sub-dlstrlct 1 B proposal with the alternatives addressed In the 2003 EIS end the 2006 Consistency Analysis. They will review key transportation planning assumptions and Infrastructure needs outlined In the 2003 EIS and determine whether any relevant changes have occurred since that time. TENW assumes attendance at up to four (4) meetings or conference calls with BCG, the City and/or Boeing to prepare the Sub- district 1 B transportation memorandum. Phase 2 -Respond to Clty/Bgelng Review In this phase of work, BCG and TENW will coordinate with the City regarding the City's review of the Environmental Analysis Memo; revise the analysis based on the City's comments or requests for any additional Information; participate at up to two (2) meetings or conference calls with the City and/or Boeing; and, provide support through Issuance of the City's determinations regarding consistency and confirmation of a Planned Action designation. SCHEDULE BCG and TENW are prepared to Initiate work on the Environmental Analysis for Sub- district 1 B Immediately upon receiving authorization from the City. To the extent that Information Is provided to us on the revised SUb-dlstrlct 1 B plan In a timely fashion by Boeing, we are targeting submittal of a draft Memo to the City during the week of September 1". BUDGET Based on the work described under the above Scope of Work, we propose to establish a not-to-exceed budget of $12,850 for BCG's and our sub-consultant's (TENW) services during Phase 1 -Environmental Analysis Memo for the Sub-district 1 B amendment to the Conceptual Plan (see below for a budget breakdown). Our services, and those of TENW, will be billed on an hourly (lime-and-materials) basis consistent with the hourly rates Identified In Attachment B (the appllceble hourly rate for TENW Is $165). The budget amount for Phase 2 -Respond to City Review Is estimated at $4,000, bringing the total budget to $16.850. However the budget for Phase 2 will ultimately depend upon the specific comments and Issues raised by the City and/or Boeing as part of the review, as well as the timing of the review. Booing Ronton Plant Sub-d/atrlct 1 B Pag030fe Scopo of Work for Envlronmontal Analys/a Memo Phase 1 Budget Breakdown S -ell let 1 BEl t I An I ub str nvronmen a alVs s Labor Hours Rate/Sl CosteSI BCG M. Blumen 20 $160 3200 G. Brunner 32 $125 4000 P. Murphy 5 $60 300 Graphics 150 Reimbursable Expenses (copying, prinling, faxing, delivery, mileage, 250 etc.) Subtotal 7,900 TENW 4950 Phase 1 Not·to·Exceed Total t12850 Phase 2 Estimate 4,000 OVERALL BUDGET TOTAL $16850 We look forward to continuing to provide environmental services to the City of Renton. If the proposed Scope of Work and Budget described herein are acceptable to the City, we assume that you will incorporate this letter Into a standard City of Renton Consultant Agreement. Please cali if you have any questions regarding the above. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~~~oe;n~sultlng Group, Inc. Attachments Boeing Renton Plant Sub-dlstrlct 1 B Page 4 of6 Scope of Work for Environmental Analysis Memo ATTACHMENT A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING NORTHWEST Scope of Work and Budget Boeing Renton Plant Sub-dlstr/ct 1B Scope of Work for Environmental Analysis Memo Page6of6 ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Scope of Work DATE: TO: FROM: RE: August 8, 2008 MikeBlumen Blumen Consulting Group Michael J. Read, P.E. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment BIS -Transportation Support for the Consistency Analysis of Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan This memo outlines our proposed scope of work to provide transportation analytical support for a consistency analysis of a revised Conceptual Plan on what's known as Subdistrict IB of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment (BRCPA) BIS. To address transportation consistency of these proposed redevelopments with the BRCPA BIS, we propose to provide a detailed trip generation analysis and comparison of each Scenario of the Conceptual Plan with the BIS Alternatives in a similar manner to previous consistency analyses. Initially our task will be to identified the worst-case scenario from a trip generation standpoint and then compare this to the BIS Alternatives and the currentiy adopted Planned Action ordinance assumptions. The trip generation analysis will review similar peak trip generation periods evaluated in the BIS (a.m. peak and p.m. peak hours) using the approved trip generation rates, methods, and procedures outlined in the BRCPA EIS. For Subdistrict IB, a cumulative assessment of the Conceptual Development Plan (as proposed by Boeing Realty Corporation) and The Landing will be documented in order to properly consider trips that remain within the redevelopment area. Comparison of trip generation during both BIS horizon years (2015 and 2030) will be conducted. In addition to the trip generation analysis, key transportation piJuullng assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the BRCPA EIS will be reviewed to ensure that no significant changes have occurred since the EIS approval. If significant consistency issues arise from this review, additional scope elements and budget needs would be outlined to address these concerns. The total cost to complete the above scope of work is estimated at $4,500. A technical memorandum summarizing key findings and conclusions would be prepared for your review within approximately 2 weeks from notice to proceed and land use assumptions are received. Detailed trip generation tables support the document would also be provided as attachments. An additional $1,500 to respond to any City comments and revise as necessary is also identified; bringing the total estimated fee to $6,000. If you have any questions or concerns regsrding this proposed scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 361-7333 ext. 101. YNNI.tenw.com PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220:7333 Michael Blumen Terry McCann Rich Schlpanskl Gretchen Brunner Jeff Buckland Michele Sarlitto Amy Gritton Jeff Ding Susan Mueller Paula Murphy ATTACHMENT B BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 2008 Billing Rates Senior Principal Principal Principal Senior Associate Senior Associate Senior Associate Associate Associate Office Manager Administrative Assistant Other Rates Auto mileage, per mile $0.565 In-house photo copies, per page $0.15 Handling charge on subcontractors and expenses 10% Rates are valid through December 2006 Boeing Renton Plant Sub-dIstrict 1 B Scope of Worlc for EnvIronmental Anelysls Memo $160 155 135 125. 115 115 95 90 60 60 Page 60f6 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian IN CURRENT PLANNING 6TH FLOOR SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property, The subject site is 50,7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C, The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21,2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B, An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan, The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29,5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations, Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12,85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels, A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS E/emont of tho Probable Probable More Eloment of tho Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impact. Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water ~ PIBn/S LanrllS/lOrelina Use lIilitias Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources I~~nc;~; ;'~~~ '.: B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C, CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those BreBS in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director ~A~~~epresentative IO-9-0g- Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic D~ve/opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: &'(}~+n JOJh nn APPLICATION NO: LUA08-112 PA CP APPLICANT: The Boeing Company PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of N 8'h St btw Looan & Garden Avenues COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian EXISTING BLDG AREA (oross): N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (aross) N/A i UIVIOIVI .. I WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of Ihe potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Elomont of tho Probablo ProbDblo Mora Elemont of the Probablo Probablo Moro Envlronmont Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary EnvIronment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Nocossary 'rlh .ter ~ ~ ~. Public SeNices :.~~~{, A~~,~~n"o 14.000 Feet B, POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C, CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where altlana/lnformation Is needed t properly assess this proposal. , Dale' f • " CITY OF RENTON RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 20th day of October, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 9S057, to consider: ' Amending the Conceptual Plan and adopting a Planned Action Ordinance for a second phase of redevelopment of surplus property for Sub-district I-B ofthe Boeing Renton Plant property, an approximately 51-acre parcel bounded by Logan Ave. N. on the west, Garden Ave. N. on the east, N. Sth St. on the north and N. 6th S t. on the south. For further infonnation regarding the plan or the ordinance, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, City of Renton, 425-430-7314. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Written comments are due to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. Monday, October 20th. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For infonnation, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published: Renton Reporter October 11, 200S Account No. 50640 10/9/2008 -Notice sent to 51 Parties of Record per attached labels. c. Moya ~~c: Vanessa Dolbee • • ANDERSON JOSEPH JR+KATHLEEN 772 UNION AVE NE RENTON WA, 98055 CHENG KAM KEUNG+ANGELA WC 229 SWI93RD PL NORMANDY PARK WA, 98166 FISH JOHN T+N.VEANN TAWNEY 526 PELLY AVE N RENTON WA, 98055 GALLUZZO JOHN & LINDA 8519129THPLSE NEWCASTLE W A, 98056 HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF SEATTLE SOUTH K[NG COUNTY [3925 INTERURBAN AVE S STE JEFF'S AUTO REPAIR INC 21701 HIGHWAY 99#A LYNNWOOD W A, 98036 KURASPEDCANI TIM POBOX 208 MAPLE VALLEY WA, 98038 MATHWIG DAVID J 440 PELL Y AVE N RENTON W A, 98057 MORELAND DON & BOB 809 N 6TH #3 RENTON W A, 98057 NICOLl MAR[O J 529 WELLS AVE N RENTON W A, 98055 BOEING COMPANY THE, PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 3707 M/C 2000 SEATTLE W A, 98124 COLLODI FLORIO 3709 JONES AVE NE RENTON W A, 98056 FIX GRACE 15004 SE [8TH ST BELLEVUE WA, 98007 GIETZEN JEFF D+ JENNIFER 21701 HIGHWAY99#A LYNNWOOD W A, 98036 HART SHIRLEY 512 PELL Y AVE N RENTON W A, 98057 KAERCHER RICK POBOX8 HOBART WA, 98025 LOUGHEIN & CO 433 SPRAGUE ST EDMONDS WA, 98020 MC GROUP LLC 702 175TH PL NE BELLEVUE WA, 98008 MUNSON RONALD W+ELIZABETH A 623 CEDAR AVE S RENTON WA, 98055 P&L VENTURES 179[5 NE 19TH PL BELLEVUE WA, 98008 CARRILLO JOSE LUIS+ZA YDA N 530PELLY AVEN RENTON WA, 98055 FAKHARZADEH AM[R I [226 AUBURN AVE S SEATTLE WA, 98178 FRANKLIN IRA L+BEVERLY K 537 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON W A, 98057 GUNDMUNDSON NANCY L 102 LAKE AVE S RENTON WA, 98055 HOLMES DENNIS W 546 N WILLIAMS RENTON W A, 98055 KENNYS AUTO REBUILD 618 PARK AVEN RENTON WA, 98057 LYMANPAULS 16206 SE 134TH ST . RENTON W A, 98059 MCEVOY AL B+SALL Y G 18321 SE 147TH PL RENTON W A, 98059 NEW LOVE RICHELLE MAR[E 541 WELLS AVE N RENTON W A, 98057 PACCAR INC, ATTN: CORP ACCOUNTING PO BOX 1518 BELLEVUE WA, 98009 • . ' PETCHNICK GRATZER & GUNDERSON 534 WELLS AVE N RENTON WA, 98055 RIFFLE GARY+LINDA 16846 188TH AVE SE RENTON W A, 98058 RUBIO ANTONIO CASTILLO 17825 NE 65TH ST #A 165 REDMOND WA, 98052 SCHULTZ NORMAN M 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD SEATTLE WA, 98178 TARGET CORPORATION, C/O PROP TAX DPT T2290 PO BOX 9456 MINNEAPOLIS MN, 55440 UYSAL MEHMET+RAZIYE 529 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON W A, 98055 YOUNKIN RONALD M 535 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA, 98055 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 300SW 7TH ST RENTON WA, 98055 ROBBINS BENJAMIN & HACKLEMAN JAIME PO BOX 1581 RENTON WA, 98057 RUSSO ROBERT A 528 WELLS AVE NORTH RENTON WA, 98055 SCHULTZ NORMAN+MARIAN 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD SEATTLE WA, 98178 TRANS WESTERN HARVEST LKSHOR 150 N WACKER DR #800 CHICAGO IL, 60606 VIDELL VICTOR E+LANCE M 536 BURNETT AVE N . RENTON WA, 98055 ZWICKER BETTE 448PELLY AVEN RENTON WA, 98055 RIFFLE GARY M 541 PARK AVE N RENTON W A, 98055 ROGOJIN PETER J+LINDA M 7634 S LAKERIDGE DR SEATTLE WA, 98178 SCHULTZ NORMAN CORP 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD SEATTLE WA, 98178 SIMMS DANIEL+VICKIE FRIEND 20901 134TH PL SE KENT W A, 98042 TRAS WESTERN HARVEST, LK SHORE 150 N WACKER DR #800 CHICAGO IL, 60606 . WONG PHILIP J 4067 24TH PL S SEATTLE W A, 98108 ZWICKER RICHARD D+MARTHAG 446 PELLY AVE NORTH RENTON W A, 98055 -. . DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0 RAN DUM October 13, 2008 Environmental Review Committee Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner \~ LUA08-112 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District l-B The Boeing Company (Boeing) is requesting approval of Planned Action legislation and an Amended Conceptual Plan, as required by Boeing's Development Agreement with the City of Renton. The 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District I-B" is bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8th Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south (Exhibit I). The applicant is required to submit an environmental consistency analysis and receive subsequent approvals from the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC), as a requirement for approval of the Planned Action legislation. Boeing and the City of Renton have been working together since 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with Boeing's 737 facility in Renton. The City issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement in October 2003 (2003 EIS). The 2003 EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Renton plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses. Sub-District 1-B comprises a portion of this overall site area. The City of Renton has contracted with Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. (Blumen) to prepare the Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub- District I-B. This analysis was completed in September 2008 (Exhibit 2). Pursuant to Blumen's report, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District I-B under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be within the range of potential impacts identified for redevelopment under the EIS Alternatives and the Original Conceptual Plan. Table A below provides a comparison of the Sub-District 1-B redevelopment levels assumed under the EIS Alternatives, the Original Conceptual Plan and the Amended Conceptual Plan. The proposed Sub-District I-B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. Table A Sub-DIstrIct 1-B Redevelopment Levels ComparIson 201S -2030 Year 2015 Year 2030 Total Building Area Total Building Area Square Feet Square Feet 2003 EIS 880,000 -1,830,000 880,000 -2,570,000 2006 Consistency Analysis 1,265,000 -1,808,000 1,535,000 -2,258,000 2008 Amended conceptual 852,500 -1,325,500 1,765,000 -2,238,000 Plan h:ldivision,sldeveiop.serldev&pian,inglprojectsIOS-ii2.vanessalere memo OS-ii2.doc Environmental Review Committee Page 2 of2 October 13, 2008 B1umen's report indicated that no new analysis of environmental impacts was necessary for the Amended Conceptual Plan. However, an analysis of potential total vehicle trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan was evaluated. B1umen's evaluation of trip generation levels during the AM and PM peak hours at both the 2015 and 2030 periods would be less then those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and identify mitigation in the 2003 EIS. Therefore, based on the estimated trip generation, Blumen determined there would not be a difference in probable significant traffic impact or mitigation with redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B, as compared to those disclosed in the 2003 EIS. The report concludes that redevelopment and associated environmental impacts/mitigation under the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-District 1-B are considered to be within the range of redevelopment and associated impacts/mitigation under the EIS Alternatives analyzed in the 2003 EIS, as weB as the range of redevelopment and impacts/mitigation under the Original Conceptual Plan analyzed in the 2006 Consistency analysis. Sub-District 1-B is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation by the City of Renton without undergoing any additional State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Staff recommends the ERC committee concur with "Boeing Renton Sub-District loB Environmental Consistency Analysis/or The Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan ", dated September 2008, determination that Sub-District 1-B is eligible for Planned Action designation by Renton City Council. DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Hlgashlyama, AdmInIstrator CommunIty Services October 13, 2008 /0112///4, Date' . David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department Date h:ldivision.8Idevclop.serldev&plan.inglprojectsIOS-112.vanessalere memo OS-112.doe Date Departmet't of Community & Econorric Development Jt •• ,.IIct~"""" tttol ......... ~, '1rr'fnI'ft4ndltl ... ,til ••• t. It, "tl\I., ,.,.~ f 'flllnllll~.hl_lfl."~ •• "a,lr: ~ •• ,I I. 'III'III~,'I" 11,,,lIt'" ~MI~, 1r,,:. 1 ,,,'-l"'I!I'III, .•.••• "." II 1-.01 •• .1 Legen d: D Project Site EXHIBIT 1 LUA08-11 2 -Vicinity Map Mended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan fo r Sub-District 1-8 " a :;so S20 ___ -===::J'FeeI ,-, " NT p\.Al'!!'llNG DINFt~~ REIoITON ,SEP 222008 RECE\VEO BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS For the Amended Conceptual Plan City of Renton, Washington September 2008 EXHIBIT 2 BOEING RENTON SUB·DISTRICT 1·B ENVIROMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC FOR THE CITY OF RENTON SEPTEMBER 2008 In Compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C) And the City of Renton SEPA Policies and Procedures , , , . BOEING RENTON SUB·DISTRICT 1·B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the City of Renton (the City) have been working together since 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with Boeing's 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the Renton Plant site). The City issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement in October 2003 (2003 EIS). The 2003 EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Renton Plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this ConSistency Analysis for a depiction of the EIS site area). Sub- District 1-B comprises a portion of this overall site area. In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant site. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, conceptual planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the site, known as Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B and District 2 (see Exhibit 1 in the ·2008 Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City of Renton, and Figure 1·2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a depiction of these districts). The Renton City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub- District 1-A is now known as "the Landing" project which is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-B is located immediately south of the Landing and totals approximately 50.7 acres (see Figure 1-1). A Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted to the City in October 2005 and 'approved in November 2005 (called the Original Conceptual Plan herein). Thereafter, Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B from the City (per the State Environmental Policy Act rules, WAC 197-11-164 and RCW 43-21 C.031). Under SEPA. a "Planned Action" designation indicates that the significant environmental impacts of a project have been adequately addressed in an EIS prepared at the plan level (in this case the 2003 EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning stage), and that the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan .. As a next step in the request for a Planned Action designation, the Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis (2006 Consistency Analysis) was prepared in May 2006. The 2006 Consistency Analysis included environmental analysis of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan and compared it to the assumptions and environmental analysis included in the 2003 EIS. The Consistency Analysis also evaluated the request for designation of proposed uses in Sub-District 1-B as Planned Actions under SEPA. The Consistency Analysis concluded that the environmental impacts of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-District 1-B (and the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment plans for both Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B) were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1·B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 1 Source: Boeing '· ... BLUMEN ~CONSULTING ~,GROUP, INC ~ -, , r· Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Consistency Analysis Figure 1-1 , Boeing Renton Plant Site Districts , . · . A Planned Action was approved for Sub-District 1-B in December 2006 by the Renton City Council, under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007, the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Binding Site Plan (BSP) for the same area under the name of "Lakeshore Landing 2". The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub- District 1-B: Lots 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 7 A, 7B and 7C. Due to a change in market conditions, redevelopment of the northern part of Sub-District 1-B did not proceed. Based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City, and the provisions of the Urban Center -North (UC-N1) or District One zone, Boeing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels for Sub-District 1-B that are within those evaluated for this district in the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see the following description of the Amended Conceptual Plan for details). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub-District 1-B's UC-N1 or District One zoning classification. Boeing is now seeking approval of their Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B and a Planned Action designation by the City. Goal of this Analysis. This environmental analysis is intended to determine whether the range of redevelopment and associated impacts under the Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan are within the range addressed in the 2003 EIS. If determined to be within this range, Sub- District 1-B would be eligible for designation as a Planned Action. 1.2 COMPARISON OF REDEVELOPMENT RANGES 2003 EIS The 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS evaluated a site area that included approximately 275 acres of Boeing property and 15 acres of contiguous property owned by others. Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B are portions of this overall site area. Sub-District 1- B is generally equivalent to Subarea C in the 2003 EIS (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). Four redevelopment scenarios were analyzed in the 2003 EIS (Alternatives 1 -4). These scenarios encompassed a broad range of land uses that the Boeing Renton Plant site could potentially accommodate in the future, given existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning poliCies and designations (note: the UC~N1 or District One Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification were adopted for the site area in November 2003). The redevelopment assumed in Sub-District 1-B by 2015 in the EIS ranged from approximately 880,000 to 1,830,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The assumed redevelopment by 2030 ranged from approximately 880,000 to 2,570,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The Sub-District 1-B redevelopment ranges included 480,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 660,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 3 and 4 within the overall totals (see Tables 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 3 2006 Consistency Analysis The Original Conceptual Plan for redevelopment of Sub-District 1-8 evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed a range of land uses and potential redevelopment levels for Sub-District 1-8 by 2015 and 2030. These land uses and potential redevelopment levels were within the ranges addressed in the 2003 EIS. In the 2006 Consistency Analysis, it was assumed that redevelopment of Sub-District 1-8 by 2015 would range from approximately 1,265,000 to 1,808,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. 8y 2030, the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed that redevelopment would range from approximately 1,535,000 to 2,258,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. All of SUb-District 1-8 was assumed to be fully built out by 2030 (see Table 1-3 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a summary of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan in the 2006 Consistency Analysis; see Figure 1-3 in Appendix A for the Sub-District 1-8 Original Conceptual Plan). Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan As indicated above, based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City and provisions of the UC-N1 or District One zone, 80eing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8 (the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan is on file at the City of Renton). As reflected in the Amended Conceptual Plan, Sub-District 1-8 is comprised of two areas: the North 1-8 and 80eing Remainder areas (see Figure 1-1). The approximately 21.2-acre North 1-8 area is located in the northern portion of the district, immediately south of N. 8th Street. The North 1-B area has been identified for surplus by 80eing, and is available for near-term development. The approximately 29.5-acre Boeing Remainder area is located in the southern portion of the district, immediately north of N. 6th Street. The 80eing Remainder area contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space in several buildings that are owned and currently used by Boeing as part of ongoing airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these buildings and associated parking structures are approximately 12.9 acres of land with future redevelopment potentiaL Figure 1-2 shows the general locations of the assumed future uses for Sub-District 1-8 redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan (the oval shapes labeled 0 -Office, L - Lab, H -Hotel, R -Retail, and P -Parking Garage). Existing garages and office buildings (the rectangular shapes labeled 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20) are also depicted on Figure 1-2. Table 1-1 provides breakdowns of the assumed redevelopment levels for the various areas in Sub-District 1-8 by 2015 and 2030 under the Amended Conceptual Plan. In total, it is assumed that Sub-District 18 would feature between 852,500 and 1,325,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015 and between 1,765,000 and 2,238,000 square feet of redevelopment by 2030. It is also assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub-District 1-8 until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 4 · ' North 8th Street O\L\R R O\L P P 10·1B .c ~ Existing P € I Garage ~ c( O\L O\L ~ a; O\L j .....~L DP~_~;? NZ DP~ ~ R H Existing Garage DP-4 Dp·1 330,000 SF TOTAL Dp·2 260,000 SF TOTAl OFFICE OR LAB DP-3 r----- ! OFFICE I OR LAB I , Legend o Office L Lab H Hotel R Retail p Parking Garage Source: Boeing .. • .... BLUMEN '!lCONSULTING 5:GROUP, INC 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP4 126,000 SF TOTAl OFFICE OR LAB Boeing Renton Sub·District 1·B Consistency Analysis 10·16 Existing Garage Figure 1·2 Sub·District 1·B Amended Conceptual Plan Table 1-1 SUB-DISTRICT 1-B AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS - 2015 & 2030 Redevelopment Areas Land Percent Total Building Percent Area Bulldout Area -Square Feet Bulldout Acres (2015) (2015) (2030) approx. North 1-B Options Lote SA & 7B 21.2 100% 100% Retail and/or Office, 270,000 -743,000 Employment, Hotel Retail SUB-TOTAL 21.2 270,000 -743,000 Boeing Remainder DP-1 Options 4.9 100% 100% Office or Lab 330,000 DP-2 Options 3.9 50% 100% Office or Lab 130,000 DP-3 Options 1.8 50% 100% Office or Lab 60,000 DP-4 Options 2.2 50% 100% Office or Lab 62,500 Existing OffIce Uses 16.7 100% 100% SUB-TOTAL 29.5 582,500 TOTAL 50.7 852,500 -1,325,500 . Source: Boeing, 2008. Total Building Area - Square Feet (2030) 270,000 -743,000 270,000 -743,000 330,000 260,000 120,000 125,000 660,000 1,495,000 1,765,000 -2,238,000 Note: For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 6 , . that the 660,000 square feet of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses (see Table 1·1). North 1·B For the North 1·B area, the Amended Conceptual Plan identifies three possible redevelopment scenarios: Scenario 1 features retail uses that would complement the Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2 features a combination of office and employment uses (on Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel and retail/restaurant uses (on Lot 7B of the BSP); or Scenario 3 which features some combination of those uses of Scenarios 1 and 2, within the overall redevelopment levels assumed for North 1·B. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of the site containing a data hub for the Boeing Renton Plant (Lot 5E of the BSP) would be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. Under Scenario 1, the North 1·B area could feature up to 270,000 square feet of retail uses, under Scenarios 2 and 3, the North 1·B area could feature up to 743,000 square feet of office, employment, hotel and/or retail uses. The North 1·B area is assumed to be fully built out by 2015 (see Table 1·1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Boeing Remainder All of the available redevelopment parcels that comprise the Boeing Remainder area (DP·1, Dp· 2, Dp·3 and DP·4) are assumed to be redeveloped as either office and/or lab uses under the Amended Conceptual Plan. By 2015, it is assumed that Dp·1 would be fully built out and DP·2, Dp·3 and Dp·4 would be 50 percent built out. It is assumed that the overall Boeing Remainder area could feature up to 582,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015. By 2030, it is assumed that all of the development parcels in the Boeing Remainder area would be fully built out and that this area could feature up to 1,495,000 square feet of redevelopment; this includes assumed reuse of the existing office space by others by 2030 (see Table 1·1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Comparison Table 1·2 provides a comparison of the Sub·District 1·B redevelopment levels assumed under the EIS Alternatives (evaluated In the 2003 EIS), the Original Conceptual Plan (evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis) and the Amended Conceptual Plan (evaluated in this Consistency Analysis). As shown in Table 1·1 and 1·2 and described in this section, the proposed Sub· District 1·B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see Figure 1·2 and Table 1·1). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub·District 1·B's UC·N 1 or District One zone. Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1·B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 7 Table 1·2 SUB·DISTRICT 1·B REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS COMPARISON- 2016 & 2030 2016 2030 Total Building Area -Total Building Area - Square Feet Square Feet 2003 EIS 880,000 -1,830,000' 880,000 -2,570,000' 2006 Consistency 1,265,000 -1 ,808,000' 1,535,000 -2,258,000' Analysis 2008 Amended 852,500 -1,325,500' 1,765,000 -2,238,000' Conceptual Plan Source: Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS, 2003, Boeing 2006, Boemg 2008. , Includes the assumed reuse of 480,000 -660,000 SF of existing office space. depending on the EIS Alternative. 2 Includes the assumed reuse of 660,000 SF of existing office space. 3 For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses. Boeing Renton Sub·District 1·B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 8 1.3 COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SUB-DISTRICT 1-B AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN As described in the previous section, the proposed Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. As a result, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-8 under the Amended Conceptual Plan are expected to be within the range of potential impacts identified for redevelopment under the EIS Alternatives and the Original Conceptual Plan (see Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for the 2006 Consistency Analysis on the Original Conceptual Plan). No new analysis of environmental impacts was determined to be necessary for the Amended Conceptual Plan. However, an analysis of the potential total vehicle trip generation that would result from redevelopment· under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan is included in this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be ,?onsistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The 2006 Consistency Analysis compared the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-8 Original Conceptual Plan (and Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8 plans cumulatively) to the potential impacts from redevelopment disclosed in the 2003 EIS for the EIS Alternatives. Storm water Drainage, Transportation, Land Use Patterns, and Relationship to Plans and Policies were the key environmental elements analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. As such, more expanded analyses of these elements were provided. A comparison of potential impacts on all other elements of the environment was presented in matrix form. The 2006 Consistency Analysis determined that the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8, and for Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8 plans cumulatively, were within the range of impacts adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-8 under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be within the range of potential impacts identified in the 2006 Consistency Analysis and adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS for all environmental elements. Transportation As indicated above, an analysis of the potential trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan was conducted for this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. Trip generation assumptions for redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan were compared to the assumptions that were used to evaluate transportation impacts in the EIS. 8elow is a brief summary of the results of this analysis; see Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for the complete transportation analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest). A potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-District 1-8 were analyzed from a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpoint in the transportation analysis for this ConSistency Analysis (see Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for details on these worst-case assumptions). Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the 2003 EIS were used to estimate AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the mix and level of uses under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan (see Table 1 in Appendix B for a comparison of the estimated 2015 and 2030 AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation from redevelopment Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 9 under the Amended Conceptual Plan compared to trip generation under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS -the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the EIS). Attachment A to Appendix B also contains detailed trip generation estimates for both Sub-District 1-A and 1-8 and compares them in a cumulative manner to those estimates included in the 2003 EIS for all EIS Alternatives. Total off-site vehicle trip generation under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be significantly less than the trip generation estimated under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS for both Sub-District 1-8 independently, and for SUb-Districts 1-8 and 1-A cumulatively. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-District 1-8 relative to Alternative 4 would range from approximately 203 AM peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 PM peak hour trips in 2015. Trip generation levels during the AM and PM peak hours at both the 2015 and 2030 periods would be less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and identify mitigation in the 2003 EIS. Therefore, based on the estimated trip generation, there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation with redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8, as compared to those disclosed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, these conclusions regarding trip generation, transportation impacts and mitigation reached in the transportation analysis are consistent with those reached in the 2006 Consistency Analysis (see Appendix A). Further, based upon the review of potential trip generation from redevelopment in SUb-District 1- 8 and evaluation of transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the 2003 EIS, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8 or cumulative redevelopment of Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8, as compared to those infrastructure improvements outlined in the 2003 EIS. 1.4 CONCLUSION Redevelopment and associated environmental impacts/mitigation under the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-District 1-8 are considered to be within the range of redevelopment and associated impacts/mitigation under the EIS Alternatives analyzed in the 2003 EIS, as well as the range of redevelopment and impacts/mitigation under the Original Conceptual Plan analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. Sub-District 1-8 is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation by the City of Renton without undergoing any additional SEPA review (per RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315). Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 10 · . APPENDIX A Boelng.Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis -2006 APPENDIX A Provided Separately · . APPENDIX B Boeing Amended Conceptual Plan (Sub·Dlstrlct 1·B) Transportation Consistency Analysis· 2008 DATE: TO: cc: FROM: RE: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC August 25, 2008 Memorandum Neil Watts, Director, Development Services Department, City of Renton Mike Blumen, President, Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. Michael J. Read, P.E., Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Boeing Conceptual Plan (Sub-district lB) -Transportation Consistency Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan with the 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The memorandum summarizes a detailed comparative trip generation analysis of the Boeing Conceptual Redevelopment Plan -Sub-district 1 B, a proposed amended conceptual redevelopment plan calling for mixed use development within Sub-district 1 B of the overall Boeing Renton Plant site. Redevelopment of the 290-acre Boeing Renton Plant site was evaluated in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment (BRCPA) EIS (2003). Sub-district 1 B is noted as Subarea C in the 2003 E1S. This analysis addresses consistency with the transportation element of the EIS, and specifically with the land use and trip generation assumptions that were used to evaluate the transportation impacts of redevelopment. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of 2005 and approved in November of 2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub-District 1-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District I-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the EIS. As part of the Original Consistency Analysis, TENW completed a detailed evaluation of trip generation and transportation infrastructure assumptions and compared them to the 2003 EIS, and found that the range and mix of land uses would not generated additional impacts beyond those levels originally evaluated. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected development of North 1-B did not proceed as evaluated in the Original Consistency Analysis. Boeing now desires to market North 1-B with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/ development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying UC-Nl zone. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. This analysis evaluates the Amended Conceptual Plan to ensure the range and mix of land uses remain within those parameters evaluated in the 2003 EIS and the Original Consistency Analysis. WWIN.tenw.com PO Box 65254. Seattle. WA 98155 OfficelFax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub·distrlct 1 B of the BRCPA EIS August 25. 200B Page 2 For traffic analysis purposes, proposed uses under the Boeing Conaptllal Plan -Sub·distrietlB were assumed to comprise approximately 1,578,000 square· feet of new development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings at build-out in 2030. The Amended Plan assumes approximately 1,182,500 square-feet in new office/lab space, a 176-room extended stay hotel facility, and 13,000 square feet of restaurant uses developed by 2015. By 2030, an additional 252,500 square feet of new office/lab uses were assumed to be constructed. Under the 2015 horizon year, the existing 660,000 square-feet of Boeing- occupied office space within Sub-district 1 B was assumed to continue to be used by Boeing. By 2030, this space was assumed to be sold or leased to non-Boeing owners/tenants. Existing Boeing employees within these buildings were assumed to be consolidated within Boeing operations located in facilities west of Logan Avenue N., consistent with the BRCPA ElS assumptions. This traffic assumption (related to relocation of Boeing employees) provides a worst-case analysis of transportation impacts from redevelopment (Refer to the Consistency Analysis Memo by Blumen Consulting Group for more information on the assumed breakdown of uses under the amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-district I B). This memorandum analyzes a potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-district 113 from a worst·case vehicle trip generation standpoint. Therefore, within individual Development Parcels (DP) noted within the Amended Boeing Conaptuai Plan -SlIb·distrietl B office uses were primarily assumed; it should be noted that retail uses in the northern portion of the Sub-district and laboratory/technology uses in the southern portion could be developed in lieu of office space. Retail and lab uses have different trip generating characteristics than traditional office use. For trip generation comparisons however, new commercial buildings were all assumed to contain traditional office uses (with the exception of the hotel and restaurant uses noted above) in order to evaluate a worst-case scenario. Trip Generation Comparison Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRCPA EIS were used to estimate a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by rede\·elopment under the Amended Boeing Conceptllal Plan-SlIb·dislrittlB. Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated 2015 and 2030 a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation of redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan compared with those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportation impacts and outline mitigation measures for Alternative 4 in the BRCI'A EIS (i.e., the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the ElS). Detailed trip generation comparisons to all EIS alternatives are provided as Attachment A. In addition, trip generation comparisons of cumulative impacts of both development of Sub-district 113 together with development of Sub-district lA (The Landing) is also provided herein. The Landing project was approved and is under construction. As shown in Table 1, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels of redevelopment under the llo,il!.~ Com.plual Plan are significantly less than those estimated under Alternative 4 in the BRCP A EIS. Reductions in vehicle trip generation ftom Sub-disttict 113 would range from approximately 203 a.m. peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 p.m. peak hour trips in 2015. These trip generation levels would aU be less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and develop mitigation for the 2003 EIS. Transpprtatipn EngIneering Northwest LI C PO Box B5254 • SeaHle. WA 98155 Office/Fax (20B) 361·7333 • Toll Free (BBB) 220·7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub·district 18 of the 8RCPA EIS Augusl 25. 2008 Page 3 Table I -Sub-district I B 2015/2030 Trip Generation Comparison ?n.~ Development Scenario Enter Exit Total JI M PASO" U;'", RnAinn · PI"n (A"n ,nnRI 1 1M ,nR 1 ~RA e::,,"_ni.t,i~t 1 R .' .. BRCPA EIS ',"Of "-If ',fO" , fmm RR('PA 1=1e:: _~?7 _RQ _~M PM PDQ" I-Inu, , PI"n IA"n 'MAl '''n Q"" 1 ?n" e::""-,,i.t,i~t1 R AI .. BRCPA EIS ~~ .. " .... ~ ',OU~ , f,nm 1=1e:: _1 n" -"a" _~aa .,n~n Development Scenario Enter Exit Total JIM P""k Un", RMinn ~ · PI"n (A"n ,nnRI 2 n~n ~'7 , ~.~7 e::"h_rli.trid 1 R A 4 , 1aa ~Fl1 , "Fln BRCPA EIS ,fmm RR('PA 1=1e:: _1Ra _~4 _'n~ PM PDQ" I-Inu, RnAinn · Plan IAtlo ?nnAI ~QQ 1 FlR~ , nR' e::, 1R A ,4 4na , n47 , 4"R BRCPA EIS ,f,nm RR('OJ:\, Elc:: _1n -364 -:174 \lote; These cQmQar" s do at consider addi·o 1 odo lil adius ,cnts made in the ~o I!enerntion eStl[natc~ evaluated In the BRCPA EIS. and therefore. should be considered conserv:ttlVC. Trip generation estimates from the RRePA EIS can be found in Attachment B of Appendix E in Volume II of the Draft EIS. Therefore, based upon this comparative analysis maximum redevelopment according to the Amended Boeing Comep/ual Plan for Sub-dis/rid 1 B would result in less peak hour vehicle trip generation as compared to the trip generation reported and evaluated in the 2003 EIS for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site; there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment under the proposed Plan as compared to those disclosed In the BRCPA EIS. Redevelopment of approximately 1,578,000 square-feet of new mixed use development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub-district 1 B, as assumed under the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan, is within the range of development alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, the conclusions regarding transportation impacts and mitigation reached in this consistency analysis are consistent with those reached in the 2006 Original Consistency Analysis. As noted previously, the potential range of uses proposed within the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan -Sub-district lB could result in a different mix or total square footage of redevelopment than evaluated in this report (less office usc and more lab and/ or retail use). However, to evaluate a worst-case trip generation scenario, office uses at certain levels of development in the individual Development Parcels (DP) within Sub-district lB, that were estimated to generate the highest number of vehicle trips, were used in this consistency analysis of transportation impacts (refer to the Consistency Analysis Memo prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest LLC PO Box 65254. SeaHle. WA 98155 OfficelFax (206) 361·7333. Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub·district 1 B of the BRCPA EIS August 25, 2008 Page 4 Blumen Consulting Group for more information on assumed uses and development scenarios). Attachment A contains detailed trip generation tables of both Sub-districts 11\ and 1 Band compares these in a cumulative manner to those assumptions from the 2003 BRCPA ElS. On a cumulative basis, trip reductions of between 1,119 p.m. peak hour trips in 2015 to over 3,000 a.m. peak hour trips by 2030 are estimated versus those land use assumptions tested and evaluated in the BRCPA ElS. Infrastructure Comparison Based upon the review of potential trip generation from development in Sub-district 1 Band evaluation of key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the BRCPA ElS, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support development under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 113 or cumulative development under the Sub-district 1A and 113 plans, as compared to those levels of infrastructure improvements assumed within the EIS. Transportation Engineering Northwest I LC PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 9B155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (BBB) 220-7333 · . Attachment A Detailed Project Trip Generation Estimates Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Difference from Subarea BRCPAEIS The landing (212006) A & B (BRCPA EIS) Peak Period nter it otal nter xit otal nter xit ota Alternative 1 • No Action AM Peak Hour 708 7 7 750 . 80 PM Peak Hour 0 244 Alternative 2 . Partial Redevelopment AM Peak Hour 2 7 PM Peak Hour 527 Altemative 3 . Full Redevelopment (Low· to Mid.Rise) MPeakHour 7 4 . 7 ·7 ·47 PM Peak Hour 297 Alternative 4 • Full Redevelopment (Mid-to High-Rise) AM Peak Hour 7. 247 7 47 ·7.7 ·7, PM Peak Hour ·521 Note: The~ comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjuStrnolts made in the trip generation estimates enlwred in the BRCPA EIS, and thettfore, should be considered conset1."ative. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/1912008 Page 1 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant • Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off·Site Trip Generation Difference from Subarea C BRCPAEIS Peak Period Note: These comparisons do not consider additional mode spli[ adjustments made in the trip generation estimate~ evaluated in the BRCP A EIS, and therefore:., should be considered con~en·ative. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/1912008 Page 2 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The landing and Boeing BRCPAEIS Concept Plan (81200B) Peak Period alai AM Peak Haur 1, 1, 45 PM Peak Hour 1,93 Alternative 2 -Partial Redevelopment AM Peak Hour 1 1, 1, 1, 45 PM Peak Hour Alternative 3 -Fun Redevelopment (Law-to Mid-Rise) AM Peak Hour 7 PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) xii ala 5 246 111 14 5 653 -181 -1 119 Note: Th~sc comp:ttison~ do not CODslder ~tiona.l mode split adjumnems mme in the trip generation estimates ex:uulred in the BRCP.\ EL"i, and then=fott.. should be considered conset\'2U\'t. Transportation Engineering Nonhwest 811912008 Page 3 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Difference from Subarea The Landing (212006) A & B (BRCPA EIS) Peak Period Enter Exit Total tnter I txit I lotal tnter I txit I lotal Alternative 1 -No Action AM Peak Hour I IU~ I 183 I I1Y1 I 334 I 14 I 401 I -314 I -wy J ~114 PM Peak Hour I jYL I YII I l,jUY I 53:> I I1IL I 1,4Uo I 14.1 I -4:> I 97 Alternative 2 -Partial Redevelopment AM Peak Hour I 41i1i I Yli I :>lio I .1.14 I 14 I 401 I -7:>4 I -24 I -IIY PM Peak Hour J 33~ I 0111 I I,ULo I 535 I I1IL I 1,4Uo I IYo I 7 Ii:> I 380 I Alternative 3 -Full Redevelopment (Low-to Mid-Rise) AM Peak Hour I 1,0$'" I 481 I 1,110$11 I 0$0$4 I 74 I 407 I -1,uo I -4UI I -1,431 PM Peak Hour I 757 I 7,;'/7 I 2,322 I 535 I Ii 12 I 7,4Uo I -ZJo I -699 I -916 Alternative 4 -Full Redevelopment (Mid-to Hi h-Rise) ~ AM Peak Hour I 2,I1UI I 4LI I j,L211 I 334 I 14 4UI I -2.47.1 I -.147 I -L,I1LI PM Peak Hour I 68". I 2,/88 I 3,473 I "0$" I 1172 7,4UO I -750 I -1,"10 I -2067 Note: These comparisons do nO[ consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation estimates c\'a!uated in the BRCPA EL.<';, and therefore, should be considered conservati,'c. By 2030. no mcrease in additional development is assumed with Subarea la. Howe'-cr. other redevelopment assumptions in Subarea IB increase berwe<:n 2015 and 2030 and therefore, "internalize" more \-ehic1e trips within the Boeing Renton Plant area as a whole. ;\s !>-uch, a slight reduction in total otT-site trip generation by Subarea la is exp<:cted by 10.\0 over those leyels estimated in 2015. Thj~ ch;tr.tcterioSnc ioS consistent \\-1th the trip geneu.tion methodologie.s llnd assumprions applied in the BRCPA EIS. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page4 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Boeing Concept Plan (812008) Peak Period Enter EXit Total Olal M Peak Hour .{~ 2,3 PM Peak Hour 181 1, Alternative 2 -Partial Redevelopment AM Peak Hour ,0 5 PM Peak Hour Alternative 3 -Fun Redevelopment (Low-to Mid-Rise) AM Peak Hour 7 PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ' 47 Note: TheSt: comparisons do not consider additionaJ mode split adiwrrnenl§ made in the trip genrntion estimates cnluated in the BRCP A EL'i, lind therefore, shouLl be consUkred conscn-arive. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Difference from Subarea C (BRCPA EIS) otal 1 1 879 ,5 525 -1 4 -374 Page 5 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant • Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The Landing and Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) Peak Period Enter EXit Total ota AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Alternative 2 -Partial Redeve/o men! AM Peak Hour 4 2.7 5 PM Peak Hour 5 , 5 Alternative 3 -Full Redevelo ment (Low-to Mid-Rise) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Alternative 4 -Full Redeve/o ment (Mid-to High-Rise) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Note: These comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation estimates e,·aluateu in the BRCP l\ EJS, and therefore, should bt: considered conservative:. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) nter xit ota 1 1 1,383 5 -391 -2441 Page 6 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fife.. COMMENTS DUE: OCT( BI!i Rri1 , ~\I~ <> APPLICATION NO: LUA08-112 PA, CP DATE CIRCULATED: SEP, ~I'~~_\l!l , M , U '@ IIi r APPLICANT: The Boein~ Company PLANNER: Vanessa Dolb I I, L LJ (Jtr l4 2008 PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illi n ~ for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (dr oss): N/ArPIJY QF RENTOII LOCATION: S of N 8'h St btw Lo~an & Garden Avenues PROPOSED BLDG AREA (~ross) N/A 'Co., ::'..HI ':JlNT I WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1·B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and Is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the north em 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northem portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between Ihese existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Eloment of tho Probablo Probable Mora Element of tho Probable Probablo More Environment Minor Major Infarmor/on Envlronmont Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Hausin, Air Waler Plants Land/Shoreline Use ~ Animals , Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy/ Natural Resources ":~:~~~::: B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Nt' S/1ec..l.e/? c.t?,M'#$/V;r.s .-I.T W/s .T7/f.?/. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signa~~.pr.s.ntativ. Date DATE: TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM September 30, 2008 Vanessa Dolbee, Planner FROM: Jan JIIian, Plan Reviewer g.Q SUBJECT: Boeing Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District IB LUA 08-112 PA,CP I have reviewed the application for the Boeing Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District I-B located south ofN. 8th between Logan and Garden and have the following comments: I. I have no utility related comments at this time. Jl 08-012 .doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Deve/opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Plan ~evi€l..J APPLICATION NO: LUA08-112 PA, CP APPLICANT: The Boeing Company PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of N 8'" St btw Logan & Garden Avenues COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7,2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBEc ~.f.I'l'tO\'f'f~:u,!:!, .. " .. u .... ,,'W PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian SEP l 42008 EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA .- PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office. employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currenlly improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Elemont of the Probllblo Probable More Element of tho Probablo Probablo More Environment Minor Major Information Envlronmont Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impllcts Necossary Earth , Air Water Plants ~ Land/Shoreline USB "'litlas Animals Environmental Health o"b/le SaMeas Energyl Natural Resources Aff~g~::: B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additi I Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date -City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: T t7I.f)~O(1 ~M APPLICATION NO: LUA08-112, PA CP I APPLICANT: The Boeinq Company PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50,7 acres LOCATION: S of N 8'h St btw Logan & Garden Avenues COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian cln OF FlENrON RECEIVED EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SF'P 2 A ?OO!l PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77968 iDIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avanue N and Park Avanue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Elemont o( tho Probable Probable More Element of tho Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housing Air Aesthetics Waler Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energyl HlstorlcJCultural Natural Resources PrOSBNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet S, POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date , City of Renton Department of Community & Economic tJ~velopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'RlY~ APPLICATION NO: LUA08-112 PA CP APPLICANT: The Boein~ Company PROJECT TITLE: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-B SITE AREA: 50.7 acres LOCATION: S of N 8'h St btw Logan & Garden Avenues COMMENTS OUE: OCTOBER 7, 2008 DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77968 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action appticable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-B property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would allow for a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District 1-B including; hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses in addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1-B. An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub-District 1-B is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office-buildings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Elomont of tho Probable ProbDblo More Elomont of tho Probablo Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Mojor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air Aesthetics , I r LI MIG/are Plnnts Recrentlon Land/Shoreline Use Utilities AnImals Trans or/alion Environmental Haaltl! Public Services Energyl Historic/Cultural N8Iurn/ Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feot 14000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS \ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified aroas of probable impact or areas where additional information is ne ed to properly assess this proposal. Date . . Fonn No. I~ Subdivision Guo"""",, GUI""'1I!e No.: NC8-18WSo-WAl " '. .. " ";"'-. ,.. -'. ',-,'::;-~:." " . . '. . G· . ·u· ". A' '···RA .... ··· ',' 'N' : .. "T":F: .. :'W;::' .' " ',' -' -' . '," .' ,.;-. <' '. . ,,' '. ' " ~ .::,' .' ", . '.' .' .' .' '-. . ' . " ::: ,", ' ....... ," ":", ",-:'; . -' <.o' .. ;:.: . " : :.:", . ~ .. :<:" ;{ .~;. : ;';.<...;: '. "'"::,, ':";:: : :." :j:' ' "J;:',,; . .' . :' .'.' .. :' ,.,: ..... .:.., ... . ... ::--....... . , Issued by First American Title Insurance Company 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121 ntle Officer: Mike Cooper Phone: (206}728-0400 FAX: (206}448-6348 Rrst AmetiaJn TTIIe /fIS/J1'iJfICe Compilny • Fonn No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4,111-75) Guarantee No.: NC8-I8I7Io-WAI Page No.: 1 First American Title Insurance CDmpany UABIUTY $ FEE $ IU/JoMI t:rImtrrot$/ ~ 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, seattle, WA 98121 (206)728·0400 • (800)526,7544 FAX (206)448·6348 SUBDMSIOH GUARANTEE! 3,000.00 ORDER NO.: 500.00 TAX $ 45.00 YOUR REF.: Plrst American nile InBul'llnca Company a Corpora~on, herein called the Company HC5-38971O-WAl Multiple APH's, King County, WA Subject to the Uabliity exclusions and Umlta~ons set forth below and In Schedule A. GUARANTEES Perkin. Cole LLP herein called the Assured, against loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any InaltTectness In the assurances set forth In Schedule A. UABIUTY EXCLUSIONS AND UMITATIONS 1. No guarantee 15 given nor liability assumed with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actuall05s sustained by the Assured because of rellanos upon the assuranos herein set forth, but In no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. 3. This Guarantee Is restricted to the use or the Assured for the purpose of providing title evldenos as may be required when subdividing land pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 58.17, R.C.W., and the local regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to said statute. It Is not to be used 85 a besls for ctoslng any transaction affecting title to said property. Dated: September 23, 2008 at 7:30 A.M. Rrst AmerIciIn TTtle Insurance Comp8ny Fo .. No. I~ SUbdivision GUllfllntee (4'11)075) SCHI!DULI! A 'The assurances referred to on the face page are: A. TItle Is vested In: The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation Gu ... ntoo No.: NC:S-368710·WAl Pogo No.: 2 B. That according to the Company's tide plant records relative to the followtng described real property (Indudlng those records maintained and Indexed by name), there are no other dOOJments affecting title to said real property or any portion thereof, other than those shown below under Record Matters. 'The followtng matters are exduded from the coverage of thIS Guarantee: 1. Unpatented Mining Oalms, resarvations or exceptions In patents or in acts author1z1ng the issuance thereof. 2. Water r1ghts, dalms or title to water. 3. Tax Deeds to the State of Washington. 'I. Documents pertaining to minerai estates. DESCRIPTlON: PARCEL A: NEW LOTS 5M, 5B'1, 5C'1, 50·1 AND 5E·l OF LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-Q8·07HLA, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080916900008, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCELB: LOTS 7A, 7B AND 7C, BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2, A BINDING SITE PLAN, RECORDED JANUARY 11, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080111000854, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCELC: PARCEL B OF CTTY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. 93-89, ACCORDING TO THE PlAT '!liEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 14, 1989 UNDER RECORDING NO. 8911149006, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT '!liAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CTTY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED NOVEM8ER 9, 1989 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8911090473. PARCEL 0: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SEcnON 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Rrst American TTtle InsurBnc8 Company FORn No. 14 5IIbdIvIsIon G\11t11111118 (4-11).75) Guarantee No.: NCIIoJCI97100WAl PagINo.: 3 BEGINNING AT THE INTERSEcnON OF THE WEST UNE OF PARK STREET WITH THE NORTH UNE OF SIXTH AVENUE NORTH; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST UNE 185 FEET; THENCE WEST 107.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH IB5 FEET; THENCE EAST 107.5 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE Cl1Y OF RENTON BY DEEDS RECORDED JUNE 9, 1972 AND JUNE 7, 1994 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NOS. 7206090448 AND 9406070574. PARCEL E: LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 4, RENTON FARM Aal.EAGE ADDmON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 37, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCELF: LOTS 1 AND 2 OF Cl1Y OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. 282-79, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JULY 10, 1979 UNDER RECORDING NO. 7907109002, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH LOTS 1 THROUGH 8, 8LOCK 1, SARTORlSVlLLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 80FPLATS, PAGE 7, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF ABOVE SAID LOTS 1 THROUGH 3, BLOCK 1 OF SARTORlSVlLLE, CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 14, 1972 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7203140338; TOGETHER WITH LOTS 1 THROUGH 13, 8LOCK 11, RENTON FARM PLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 97, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF ABOVE SAID LOTS 6 THROUGH 13, BLOCK 11 OF RENTON FARM PLAT, CONVEYED TO THE Cl1Y OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 14, 1972 AND JUNE 7, 1994 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NOS. 7203140338 AND 9406070578. APN: 088661-0010-03 APN: 088661-0020-01 APN: 088661-0030-09 APN: 088661-0040-07 APN: 088661-0050-04 APN: 088661-0060-02 APN: 088661-0070-00 APN: 088661-0080-08 APN: 082305-9209-00 APN: 082305-9019-00 APN: 722300-0115-0B APN: 756460-0055-04 FifSt American Title Insurance Company Form No. \~ SUbdivision Gu ... ntee (4·\0·75) RECORD MAneRS: 1. 2. 3. General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount BIlled: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: OBB661·0010·03 $ 5,944.72 $ 2,972.36 $ 2,972.36 $ 0.00 $ 60B,OOO.00 (Affects New Lot SA-I of Parcel A) General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Asse55ed Improvement Value: 08B661-0020-o1 $ 12,514.23 $ 6,257.11 $ 6,257.12 $ 0.00 $ 1,279,900.00 (Affects New Lot 58-1 of Parcel A) General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Asse5sed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: OBB661-0030-09 $ 231,754.59 $ 115,8n.30 $ 115,877 .29 $ 0.00 $ 23,702,800.00 (Affects New Lot SC-l of Parcel A) 4. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. Tax Account No.: 088661-0040-07 Guo ...... No.: NCSoJ8871o-WAl Plge No.: 4 Note: The public tax records are not currently available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects New Lot 50-1 of Parcel A) Rrst Amer/Qln TTtle Insuf'ilnce COmpany Form No. 11 G ......... No.' NC8-J087l0-WAl Page No.' S SutICIlvI,lon CilIarI""'" (4-10075) 5. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. 6. Tax Account No.: 088661-00SD-04 Note: The public IlIX records are not currently available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects New Lot 5E-1 of Parcel A) General Taxes for the year 200S. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Lot 7A of Palall B) OS8661-!l060-02 $ 123,172.30 $ 61,5B6.15 $ 61,5B6.15 $ 0.00 $ 12,597,500.00 7. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. Tax Account No.: OSS661-0071HlO Note: The public tax records are not currentlv available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects Lot 7B of Parcel B) 8. General Taxes, If unpaid, and assessments, If any. 9. Tax Account No.: 088661-00S0-0S Note: The public tax records are not currentlv available from the Assessor's Office. When the records are available a supplemental to the commitment will be Issued. (Affects Lot 7C of Pan:el B) General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Palall No. C) 082305-9209-00 $ 11,066.70 $ 5,533.35 $ 5,533.35 $ 1,130,600.00 $ 0.00 First Amerfr:an TTtJe Insurance CrJmPilny Fann No. 14 Su1>dIvIsIon GIII .. nteo (40111-75) 10. 11. 12. General Taxes for the year 200B. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. D) General Taxes for the vear 200B. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (AffedS Parcel No. E) General Taxes for the vear 200B. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (AffedS Parcel No. F) 082305-9019-00 $ 3,606.30 $ 1,803.15 $ 1,803.15 $ 343,700.00 $ 23,900.00 722300-0115-08 $ 16,738.79 $ B,369.40 $ 8,369.39 $ 1,710,700,00 $ 0.00 756460-0055-04 $ 335,879.45 $ 167,939.73 $ 167,939.72 $ 3,730,300.00 $ 30,620,600.00 13. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions CDntalned therein: Gua ... tet No.: NCll-36171O-WAI Page No.: 6 ReCDrdlng InformaUon: April 23, 1942 under ReCDrdlng No. 3235B07 In Favor of: The Northern Pad"c Rallwav Companv, a WiSCDnsln CDrporaUon For: Spur Track AffedS: (Parcel A) as described therein 14. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions CDntalned theraln: ReCDrdlng InformaUon: November 6, 1944 under ReCDrdlng No. 3426556 In Favor of: The etv of Renton For: Sewer Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein first American 77t1e Insurance ComfNIny F .... N •• 14 SubdlvislOn GuarIntee (4-10-75) 15. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Guarantee No.: NCS-38971o-WAl Pille N •• : 7 Recording Informa~on: December 1, 1944 under Recording No. 3132120 In Favor of: United States of America, acting through the Federal Public Housing Authority For: Storm, sewer and sidewalk AffectlI: (Paroel A) as described therein 16. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Inform aU on: December 1, 1944 under Recording No. 3432121 In Favor of: United States of America, acting through the Federal Public Housing Authority For: Storm, sewer and sidewalk Affects: (paree( A) as descr1bed therein 17. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording InformaUon: December 1, 1944 under Recording No. 3132122 In Favor of: United States of America, acting through the Federal Public Housing Authority For: 6 Inch water pipeline Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 18. Easement, Including terms and provisiOns contained therein: Recording InformaUon: Mav 12, 1954 under Recording No. 4445036 For: Sewer service AffectlI: (Paroel F) as described therein 19. ReservaUons and exceptions, Including the terms and condlUons thereof: Reserving: Minerals Reserved By: Padftc coast Railroad COmpany Recorded: February 9, 1956 Recording Information: 4662540 20. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: June 6, 1962 under Recording No. 5436445 In Favor of: The Munldpallty of Metropolitan seattle For: Underground sewer line Affects: (Parcel A) es described therein 21. Easement, Including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: JulV 16, 1962 under Recording No. 5453013 In Favor of: Munldpallty of Metropolitan seattle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington For: Sewer pipe lines system Affects: (Paree( A) as deSCribed therein Rrst AmerlQ/n TItle Insurance Compsny Form No. 14 SUbdivision GuoronleO (4-10·75) 22. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Guaramoo No.: NCI-Ielno-WAl Page No.: 8 Recording Information: December 4, 1964 under Recording No. 5819195 In Favor of: ety of Renton, a munldpal corporation of the Slate of Washington For: Sewage pipe lines and any other public utilities Affects: (tDt 7B of Pan:el B) as described therein 23. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions conlalned therein: Recording Information: December 8, 1967 under Recording No. 6276238 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Ught Company For: EIectJ1c line, Indudlng all necessary polas, anchors, underground cablas, conduits, manholes, wires and fixtures Affects: (Parcel A) as desalbed therein 24. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 24, 1968 under Recording No. 6295580 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Ught Company For: ElectJ1c line Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein 25. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions conlalned therein: Recording Information: November 29, 1973 under Recording No. 7311290292 In Favor of: Washington Natural Gas Companv, a public utility corporation For: Gas pipeline Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 26. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: Mav 2, 1977 under Recording No. 7705020589 In Favor of: Washington Natural Gas Company, a public utility corporation For: Gas pipeline Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 27. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 17, 1977 under Recording No. 7708170733 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Ught Companv, a Washington corporation For: EIectJ1c transmission and/or dlsbibutlon system Affects: (Parcel A) as desalbed therein 28. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 7, 1977 under Recording No. 7709070598 In Favor of: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington For: PubliC utilities (Indudlng water and sewer) Affects: (tDt 7B of Parcel B) as described therein Rrst AmeriCiIn ntle Insurence ComfNIny Ponn No. \4 Subdlvblon Guarantee (40\0,75) 29. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: GUI .. ntee No.: NCS-36t7Jo.WAS PagaNo.: 9 Recording Information: October 3, 1977 under Recording No. 7710030507 In Favor of: 1l1e ety of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 30. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained theraln: Recording Information: October 25, 1977 under Recording No. 7710250275 For: Ingress and egrass Affects: (Parcel C) as described therein 31. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 18, 1977 under Recording No. 7711180856 In Favor of: The City of Renton, a munldpal corporation For: Public utilities Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 32. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: May 21, 1979 under Recording No. 7905210642 In Favor of: The City of Renton For: Utilities Affects: as described therein 33. COvenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: July 10, 1979 Recording No.: 7907100783 (Affects Parcel No. F) 34. Easement and conditions contained therein es reserved by: Ordinance No.: 3327 Approved On: July 2, 1979 Recording Information: August 13, 1979 under Recording No. 7908130670 In Favor of: ety of Renton For: Utility and related purposes Affects: (Parcel 8) as described therein 35. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 28, 1980 under Recording No. 8003280586 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Ught COmpany, a Washington corporation For: Underground electr1c transmission and/or distribution system Affects: (Parcel F) as descrtbed therein FllSt American ntle Insuranre Com/Jilny • Fann NO. 14 SUbdiVIsion GUlllnleO (4-10-75) 36. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: GUIllllIeO No.: NC8-JI971I1-WAl Page NO.: 10 Recording Infonnatlon: Aprtl28, 1980 under Recording No. 8004280538 In Favor of: ely of Renton, a munldpal corporation For: Public utilities (Indudlng water and sewer) with necessary appurtenances Affects: (Parcel F) as desalbed theretn 37. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained theretn: Recording Infonnatlon: July 25, 1980 under Recording No. 8007250713 In Favor of: Padflc Northwest Bell Telephone COmpany, a Washington corporation For: Underground communication lines and conduit Affects: (Percel F) as desatbed therein 3B. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained theretn: Recording Information: January 19, 19B1 under Recording No. 8101190465 In Favor of: ely of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities (Indudlng water and sewer) with necessary appurtenances Affects: (Parcel F) as desalbed therein 39. Easement, Indudlng tenns and proviSIons contained theretn: Recording Infonnatlon: JuiV 24, 1981 undar Recording No. 8107240568 In Favor of: Puget SOUnd Power and Ught COmpany, a Washington coporatlon For: Electrfc transmisSIon and distribution lines Affects: as desalbed therein 40. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording Infonnatlon: October 26, 1984 under Recording No. 8410260692 In Favor of: PUget Sound Power & Ught COmpany; a Washington coporatlon For: Electrfc transmission and/or distribution svstem Affects: (Parcel B) as desalbed therein 41. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained theraln: Recording Information: November 7, 1984 under Recording No. 8411070958 In Favor of: Padftc Northwest Betl Telephone COmpany, a Washington corporation, Its successors and asSIgns For: Underground communication lines and above ground cabinets Affects: (Parcel F) as desatbed theretn First Amerlam TIlle InsUf'8fICr! ComPiiny • Form No. 14 SUlldlvlSlOn Guarantee (4-10075) Gu_ No.: NCB-leInO-Will page No.: II 42. Reservations and IllCceptiOns, Including the tenns and conditions thereof: Reserving: Minerai Reserved By: Gary M. Riffle and Unda R. Riffle, husband and wire Recorded: March 15, 1985 Recording InfonnatiOn: 8503150405 (Affects Parcel No. D) 43. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording InfonnatJon: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160946 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power &. Ught Company, a Washington corporation For: Electrfc transmission and/or distribution lines Affects: (Parcels C &. D) as described therein 44. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160947 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power &. Ught Company, a Washington corporation For: Electrfc transmission and/or distribution lines Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 45. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160949 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power &. Ught Companv, a Washington corporation For: Electrfc transmission and/or distribution lines Affects: (Parcel A) as described therein 46. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 3, 1986 under Recording No. 8612031434 In Favor of: City of Renton, a munldpal corporation of KJng County, Washington For: Public utilities (Indudlng water and sewer) Affects: (Parcel C) as described therein 47. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: December 23, 1986 Recording No.: 8612231613 Document(s) declartng modlflcatlons thereof recorded August 29, 1989 as Recording No. 8908290477 of Offldal Records. FlfSt Amet1aJn ntle Insurance Company fann No. 14 Subdlv~1an Guarontee (4-ID-'S) 48. Easement, Induellng terms and pt'OIIISions contained therein: Guarantee No.: NCIIo3&97100WAl PllIlNo.: 12 Recording InformaUon: December 28, 1987 under Recording No. 8712280271 In Fawr of: The ety of Renton, a munldpal corporatton For: Roadwav and uUllttes Affects: (Parcel F) as described thenaln 49. Easement, Indudlng terms and pt'OIIIslons contained thenaln: Recording InformaUon: February 24, 1988 and March 29, 1988 under Recording Nos. 8802240805 and 8803290822 In Fewr of: The Bank of california, N.A., a nattonal banking association, Stewart lItie COmpany of Washington, Inc., and H & M IV Associates, a Washington general partnershlp For: Parking fadllty Affects: (Parcels B & F) as described therein 50. Easement, Indudlng terms and pt'OIIIslons contained therein: Recording InformaUon: August 22, 1988 under Recording No. 8808221055 In Fawr of: Puget Sound Power & Ught Company, a Washington corporation For: Underground electr1c lransmlsslon and/or dlstrlbutton svstem Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein 51. Easement, Induellng terms and provisions contained theretn: Recording InformaUon: August 30, 1988 under Recording No. 8808300587 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Ught Companv, a Washlngton corporation For: Underground electric lransmlsslon and/or dlstrlbutton system Affects: (Parcel B) as described thenaln 52. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained tharetn: Recording Information: August 30, 1988 under Recording No. 8808300593 In Fawr of: Puget Sound Power & Ught Companv, a Washlngton corporation For: Underground electric dlstrlbutton system Affects: (Parcel F) as described theretn 53. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained theraln: Recording InformaUon: August 30, 1988 under Recording No. 8808300594 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Ught Companv, a Washington corporation For: Underground electric dlstrlbutton system Affects: (Parcels C & D) as described therein First AmerIcan T1t1e inslJl7Jnc8 ComfJ/Iny • FcmI No. 14 SubdlYlIlCln Glllrllniet (4-I1)o7S) 54. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: G ......... No.: NClJ.J897SD-WAl PIIJO No.: 13 Recording Infonna~on: September 7,1988 under Recording No. 8809070561 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power 8. Ught Company, a Washington corporation For: Electric transmission and/or distribution line Affects: (Parcel C) as described therein 55. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provlstons contained therein: Recording Infonnatfon: October 21, 1988 under Recording No. 8810210273 In Favor of: elY of Renton, a munldpal corporation For: Roadway and uUllties Affects: (Parcel B) as described therein 56. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording Infonnatlon: December 29, 1988 under Recording No. 8812290204 In Favor of: elY of Renton, a munldpal corporation For: Public utilities (lndudlng water and sewer) with necessery appurtenances Affects: (Parcel F) 8S described therein 57. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording Infonnatlon: April 24, 1989 under Recording No. 8904240682 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power 8. Ught company, a Washington corporation For. Undl!lgrDund electric transmission and/or distribution system Affects: (Parcel F) as described therein 58. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording InfonnaUon: August 29, 1989 under Recording No. 8908290480 In Favor of: elY of Renton, a munldpal corporation For: Public utillUes (Indudlng water and sewer) Affects: (Parcel B) as described therein 59. Easement, Indudlng tenns and provisions contained therein: Recording Inmatlon: August 29, 1989 under Recording No. B908290481 In Favor of: elY of Renton, a munldpal corporation For: Roadway, slopes and sidewalk areas Affects: (Parcel B) as deSCrIbed therein First Amerfan ntle Insurance CDm/Niny • Fonn No. I~ Sulldlvlslon GUIll""'" (HG-7S) GO. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Gulll"tee No.: NCll-3 •• 71o-WAI Page No.: 14 Recording Information: November 9, 1989 under Recording Nos. 891109M75 and 891109M74 In Favor of: For. Affads: ety of Renton, a munldpal corporation Public UtIlities (Indudlng water and sewer) (Parcels 8 and F) as desatbed therein 61. Restr1ct1ons, condltfons, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Short Plat No. 93·89 recorded November 14, 1989 under Recording No. 8911149006, In KIng COunty, Washington. (Attads Parcels No. 8 and C) 62. The terms and provisions contained In the document entitled Agreement and Ucense for Fire Main Inter-lie at North 8th st. and Park Avenue, executed by and between ety of Renton, a munldpal corporation and The Boeing COmpany by and through Its division, BoeIng COmmercial Airplane Group, recorded May 23, 1991 as Instrument No. 9105231158 of Ol'/ldal Records. 63. Easement, Including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 9, 1992 under Recording No. 9201090734 In Favor of: The ety of Renton, a Washington munldpal corporation For: Public utilities (lndudlng water and sewer) Attads: (Parcel F) as desatbed therein 64. Easement, Including terms and proviSiOns contained therein: Recording Information: July 13, 1992 under Recording No. 9207130661 In Favor of: Puget SOund Power & Ught COmpany, a washington corporation For: Electric transmission and/or dlstrlbutlon lines Affads: (Lot 78 of Parcel B) as desatbed therein 65. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 13, 1992 under Recording No. 9207130662 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & ught COmpany, a Washington corporation For: An electrical transmlsslon/dlstrlbUtion lines Affads: (Parcel E) as desatbed therein 66. COvenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: September 2, 1994 Recording No.: 9409020504 CAttads Parcel No. F) Rrst Ametfam 71t1e IlISIJ1'8fICB ComP/lny '. Form No. 14 Subdlv~lan GUfrantee (4-111-75) 67. Easement, Indudlng terms and provisions contained thereln: Guarantee No.: NCSo30871CJ.WAl Pege No.: 15 Recording Infonnation: November 22, 1994 and November 23, 1994 under Recording Nos. 9411220523 and 9411230706 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power &. Ught Companv, a Washington corporation For: Underground electric transmission andlor dlsb1bUtlon system Affects: (Lot 7B of Partel B) as desa1bed therein 68. COvenants, conditions, restrictions andlor easements: Recorded: March 18, 1997 Recording No.: 9703181422 Said Instrument Is a re-record of Recording No. 9612120855, recorded on December 12, 1996. 69. COvenants, conditions, restrictions andlor easements: Recorded: November 17, 2000 Recording No.: 20001117000535 70. Covenants, conditions, restrictions andlor easements: Recorded: November 17, 2000 Recording No.: 20001117001354 71. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: June 1, 2001 Recording No.: 20010601000022 (Affects Parcel No. F) 72. The terms and provisions contained In the document entitled Davelopment Agreement, executed by and between The Boeing COmpany, a Delaware corporation and atv of Renton, a munldpal corporation, recorded August 2, 2002 as Instrument No. 20020802000224 of Offldal Records. 73. The tenns and provisions contained In the document entitled Development Agreement, executed bV and between The Boeing COmpany, a Delaware corporation and atv of Renton, a munldpal corporation, recorded December 10, 2003 as Instrument No. 20031210001637 of Offldal Records. FIrst Amerlt:lJn TTtle /nsurancs Compony Form NO. 14 G_ No.: Nar-l.971o-W.\1 PIg. No.' 16 Subdlvlslon Guarantee (4-111-75) 74. Restrtctlons, conditions, dedlca~ons, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Boeing Lakeshore Landing Binding Site Plan recorded December 23, 2004 under Recording No. 20041223000856 and also In Volume 225 of Plats, Pages B3 through 86, In King County, Washington. Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded March 14, 2007 as Recording No. 20070314001933 of Offldal Records. (Affects Parcels No. A, B and C) 75. Covenants, conditions, restrtctlons and/or easements: Recorded: December 2B, 2004 Recording No.: 20041228001871 76. The terms and provisions contelned In the document enUtied Strander Agreement, executed by and between The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation and ety of Renton, a munldpal corporetlon, recorded April 20, 2006 as Instrument No. 20060420001032 of Offldal Records. n. Restrtctlons, conditions, dedlcaUons, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or detlneated on the face of the Boeing Lakeshore Landing 2 Binding Site Plan recorded January 11, 200B under Recording No. 20080111000B54, In King County, Washington. 78. (Affects Parcels No. A and B) Mechanics Uen. Oalmant: Against: Amount: For: Date Work Commenced: Date Work Ceased: Recorded: Recording No.: Straight Une Strtplng, Inc. Millennium Building Co. $4,221.70 Labor and/or Materials and/or Equipment October 1, 2007 October 18, 2007 January 11, 200B 20080111001220 Document(s) declaring modlnca~ons thereof recorded January 1B, 200B as Recording No. 200B0118001094 of Official Records. Affects: (Parcel A and other property) 79. Terms, covenants, conditions and restrtctlons as contained In recorded Lot Une Adjustment (Boundary Une Revision) LUM)B·072-LLA : Recorded: september 16, 200S Recording Information: 20080916900008 (Affects Parcel No. A) FIrst American 71t1e Insuraf1Cfl CDmpeny PormNo.14 Subdivision GUlrantIe(4-10075) 80. Matters that may be disclosed. upon recordation of final subdivision. First AmerlaJn TItle Insurance COrnpI/ny Guarantee No., NCll-a8971CJoWAl Page No.: 17 ... ... . Fonn No. 14 SUbdivision Gu ... 1\IIIe (+11).75) INfORMAnONAL NOTES Gumntee No.: NCSoU87100WAl Page No.: 18 A. Any sketch attached hereto Is done so as a courtesy onlv and 15 not part of any title commitment or policy. It Is fumlshed solelv for the purpose of assisting In locating the premises and first American expnesslV disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon It. B. If this preliminary report/commitment was prepared based upon an application for a policy of title Insurance that Identified land by street address or assessor's parcel number only, It Is the responsibility of the applicant to detennlne whether the land referred to herein Is In fact the land that Is to be described In the policy or polldes to be Issued. First American TItle InsUl'llIlCe Company form No. 14 5._ Guallllltee (4·10'75) Guarentee NO.: Nc:&-3 •• 7100WAl Page No.: 19 SCHI!DULI O'IICWIION8 fROM COVlRAG! Of ntIS aUARAN'I1I1 1. ewccpt to tile melU that spedft( assurance IfI Jlrovided In SChedule A of tNI Guarantee. Ule COmpanv IllUMes no liabilIty for loA or damage by reason of the follOwing: (.) DoI_.IIens. oncumbtln ............ dalml or oUIar mlllOtllll.lnst U1a 1ItIe. whOlllor or natlllown by th. Public_nil. (b) (I) ,.. ... or ......... nII at.ny _0 .utI1onl'/ 1llal1eYI .. _ or ............ an real property; or. (I) _'111 by • public agency which mlY result In tam. or ......... nco. or n_ atlUdl proceedlnQl. wllllllor or no! the m-. _ under (I) or (I) ... III .... by l1li .... RIS 01 the ~ .utIIontv or by the pUIIIIt -. (e) (I) Unpalnntod mining claImS; (I) _ or...."aons In polnnll or In ACII.utI1OrUIng l1li ... """, l1li ... ,; (3)"'" r1ghll, d.1mS or IItIe 10 walnt ..... ther or nat U1a mallll" Ududod under (I). (2) or (1) .re IIIown by U1a pUlllit recordS. 2. Notwithstanding any specific InurBnCCtl which are provided In Schtdufe A of Uti. Guarani". the Company IlIUm .. no UabUIty for lou or damage by reDlOn or the 1.llowing: (.) eol-. lI.ns. OllC1lnlbtl""", ..... '" claim. or other _" .WOCUna U1a IItIe 10 any proporty boyond the lin .. or 1110 land ....",.,aIy _In tho d_pdon ret Iorthln SChedu~ (A). (e) or In PIn 2 at this Guo .. nteo. or IItIe 10 _as. ro.do, ... nuos. IaneI, WI\II or walltWlyl 10 which _land .b .... or 1110 rfShIlD malnllln 1II ... ln VlUIll. _ell. rlmpo. or .ny IlrUCIIIrO or 1m_II; or ony Rghbr or oasementJ U1aroln, unleu _ property. r1gh1l or 0_'" olllJ!lSSlV.nd specUlQDv lit IortII I. IIlCI deKrtjIt1On. (b) DoIIcII.oens. enc:umb ............... _orothor __ ror not_ by l1li poblle_: (I) whkh oro ~.IUII1Ired. ... ,,,,,,,d or IGJIIICIID by one or more or 1110 _; (2) which result In no I ... III l1li _red: or (3) which do no! nmrIt In 1110 invalidItY or po18ftIIal _Idll'/ at any jUdldal or _JudlClll proceeding which IS wllt"n lha scapt Ind purpose of the ISSUrincu provided. (c) Th. idenbl'/ ol.ny party "' .... or relemod to In SChedule A. (4) The VI'ldlty.IIQ.1 ,"oct or prlOnl'/ III.ny mltter lIIown or reren.d III In 1111. Guerin"". aUAAANTlI CONDmONl AND mpUlAllONS 1. DoIInltron of T ...... The rol .. wInO tetmI when UIId In me G ..... "" mean: (I) tht -Assured-: lhe party Dr paftln named II tho ADun!d In rbls GuaRintee. or on •• upplemental wr1IinO ex_ by the company. (b) "land": Ihe land dnatbtd or relmod 10 I. Sdlo4ulo CAl (C) or In PIn I. and _menu ."",ad IheraID which by law conslllllln real property. The Intm "lend" d ... nol indudO any preperty beyond Ihe una or tho .... ~ or ,.,,,,04 to In SChedule (A) (e) or In Pan 2. ncr any r1ght, Udo. Inllrest. .... 10 or .. _ In abutting 1IrItIts. fOldS, avenwl, Ill..,., lan~ ways Of w~ (c) "mortgage": mongage. clead or IMI. trull dead. or __ 11'/ Instrum.nL (d) "putrIIc: records" 1 _RIS .... bllshod under l1l1I _ al 0.1n or Guarantee fo, the purpose of Imparting caltSCrUCtMt notice or mlttafl reIIung ID real property to purdla .. " lor wlue .nd wlU1aut -.tge. (.) "datt": III. eIIectIvtr d.",. 1. _ of Claim 10 be Ghran by _ Cillmont. An Assured lllall notify Ihe Compon, pn>mjlltf I. wntJng In case kn-.sgo .hlD came 10 IfI AssuNld hereunder of In'l dlim of bUt or intemt whICh II advetIe 10 the tllIe to Ihe atatl or mleteSt. II lilted heRin, and whICh mfOht cause loa Of dImIge lor which the COmpany may be lI.bIe by virtue or thll Guore_. II prompt nctJal lllall nat be given 10 U1a COmpany. thon .11 O.bililV or tho Company .hail IInnlnlll with ragen! to III. mallllr or ma_ ror which prempt ncUco II required: provlcled, however. IIIIt r.llure 10 notI/y U1a Company IheIIln no case preJudIaI the r1ghll or any Assured under tNs Gu_ unl'" tho Compony lllail be preJudiI:ed by U1a failure and then onf';' to the extent of the prejudice. 3. NoDIIIVIo_O._. The Companv .hell have nc dul'/ 10 dorOnd or _In .ny .ctIon or proc:eedlng to which tho _red II • parIV. nOlwlthltlndlng the n.t." or .ny aIiIQ.Uon In lOch aCllOn or pnraedtng. 4. call\lllll"" 0pU0n 10 Dolend or _ ActIonII Duty 01 Allured Clllimanllo COopando. even though the COmpan., hal no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth In parlgraph 3 above: (.) The COmpeny Il1011 hMIIII rtghI, 01111 ""a GII1IOn Ind """ 10 lns1llUtI.nd prosecute a"V action or proceeding, Interpose I defense, II IImbd In (b), or to dO .ny oUIar .ct whICh In ItO opinion mlOY be n"" ... " or deIIr1b1e 10 _ISh the tItI. 'Dille ...... or InteRIII as ItIIDd heroin, or to IIIDbilsh the lien r1Qhll 0/ th. _. or 10 p ..... t or _I ... or damage 10 Ihe _ed. The COmpany may take .ny .,p .. prIIln action undor U1a to"'" at this GuoIJnIee. wIIIIIIIr or no! ft IIIaII be liable he_ •• nd iliaD not thereby _ llebilil'/ or ....... ny provision 0/ IhIS GuarentH. If the Campany ahall .xltf'dll: Itl riGhts under tillS paragraph, It shell do .. diligently. (b) 111110 company ~e<u to exerdlllbr opIIo ••• ,11lI1Dd In PIFIgrlph 4(.) tho Company III~I hm Ihe RgIllID lllea counsel or III choice (subJect 10 Ihe ~ght at _ -..<I III Dbjta for ....... DIe ",use) 10 represent Ihe _red .nd ""D not be bltde tor and will not PlY d'Ie feel 0' any olM, counsel, nor wtl the Companr PlY .ny rea. CIIS1I or ___ by an Assured In l1li d_ or _ ClUB at laton wtJIch allege millers nat awered by this Gulranteo. (c) Wh.nMlIIII campeny IllaU hi .. broIrght .n acaonor InllrpooeG • dII .... •• permltled by Ihe """,,Ions III till. GU.rI_. lho company may p."ue any fiUgaUon III nnll cltrIDnnlnadon by • coun III ",,,,,,,tenllurlsdlCIIOO and OIIP-'I _Ihe r1g111. In III .. ~ d_don. 10 a_I lram an ........ jUdgment or .rder. (d) In all "'III wlllre 11111 GUltlntet pennill tho COmpany 10 ,rosearta or provtdl for thI defense of anv lICtton Of proceeding, In Assured shlD secure to the COmpany Ihe r1ght to .. proIIC\Il8 or prevIde lor the d.r .... at .ny ldIon or .prooeedinO. and .1I.ppe.~ therein. .nd penn~ lIIe COmpany 10 .... 01111 OPIIDn. tho name 01 SUCh Allured I'ar thil purpose. Wbtnever requeaed trt the COmpany, an AllUred •• t U1a COmparr(1 _ .... IheII gIva l1li Company IU ..... nabla .Id In Iny action or proceeding. IIClIrlng evidence. olrtainlnO -. prooear1lng or doIendlng U1a ldIon or lawful acI which In the opftlon or the Company may be nec:asso" or de ... bl. to __ the Ude to Ihe IItIID or 1_ as I1lItod herein. or 10 IItIbiiSII l1li111. rlghll or the Assured. llihe Comp.ny 10 prelUdlCOd by lIIe IIlIure at U1a _red 10 rurniSll Ihe "quIred CIOporeIIOn. l1li COmparr(1 obligatiOns 10 U1a Alsured undor Ihe Gue_ ""D IDrmI .. lD. 8. PnIof 01I.0Il0. Damaga. In .ddWon to .nd lifter the _ required undor _on I of thsso CondJUonl .nd Sllpuladons h ... botn provided to the COmpany •• proal of loss or damage Iigned and .... rn 10 by l1li _ ",.n be _ to the Company within ninety (10) davI.rtor the _lIIalI .... noln me lias giving"" 10 the loss or damape. The preor or I0Il or damage .hOU d_ U1a mellll1 """"" by 11111 GUllln"" which ",nstIMe the l1li111 or loa or damlll' end .hlil l1l1I. 10 l1li txtent possIbla. Ihe _ at "'lCuIItIng Ihe .mounl III me I0Il or d.mage. lillie Compeny 10 projUdlCOd by the r."", or l1li _red to provlcle l1li required proor of IoU or damage. me Comparr(1 obQgldon 10 IUdI _ under tho Guore_ IIIaII _,te. In .lIddon. the Assured m.., ....... bIy be required 10 IUbmlllll ..... Inedon under oaIII by .ny a_ rep,."teUve 0/ lIIe Company .nd ""'I pradua! lor ... mInIll ... Inspection .nd COpying. .t """ re ... nable U .... Ind placas .. mey be deIIgn.lad by .ny euthoriled repreIInteUve at the ComP.ny •• 11 r ... nII. beoill. .... cheW. _011."", .nd memoranda, wllllIIor bolrinl! • daln before or after Date of Guarantee, wIIlCh rDllOnab¥ pertItn to the loss Of damqlt. FutdIa', If reqUlllDd by any ."'hemed rep_ at tho company. the _red III.U grant III permtalon, In wnttno, far any authortzed representltNe of the CamPiny to examine. inIPect .nd CIIlI'/ .11 _n!~ botill. ledgorI. -. ..... spondenar end """",rende In the aIIlDdy or con ... 1 or .tlllrd PlrIV. which "III_ portBIn to U1a llIss or Damege. All Inlotmatton doSIgnaIed II con_I by the _ IIf1I'Idod tD the COmplny, PUrlUllll CD INs 5ection shall not be dlsdDrcd tD othe" un_ In the reasonable Judgment of the Company, 1& II nllCUllry In the IdmlnlsltlltlOn of ttle claim. failure of the AntIred to submit for examination under Dlth, produce other ... .. nab~ rtlluelled Inrormedon or grlnt pennlssion 10 ""' .. r .... nab~ necessa" InIDrm.uon lram third parUes as required In III •• __ reph. unlesS prehlblled by law or g ........ ntal _lItIon. lllall _II any llebllrty or the Company under II1II Go_ 10 Il1o Assured lor lllat Claim. First AmerfclJn TTIIe Insurancrl Compsny .... .1 • 8. Option. to ...., at OIharwl", _ CIa'"'" Torml_ 0' LIIIIIDty. In cell or a clilm under this Guarantee, the Company ShIn hive the fallawtng iddillOnll optIOns: (I) To p .... a' Tendo, Paym.nt of Il1o Amoun. of UObWty or .. _ Il1o Indebtedness. The COmpany 111'" "" .. tile optlo ... PlY or .. Il10 or CDmp .... 1Se "" or III tho .. me of 111. _ any claim which mUll mua I. loss .. 111. _ wllNn ............ go • f II1Is Gu ......... r .. pay 111. M .m.unt ., 1I1~ Gu.ren", .... ~ 1I1~ Guo ...... Is l .... eIf for tho beoont 01 • holder 0/ a I1I#r1UIgo .r a I~nhalder. 111. COmpany II1II1 hove Il1o .ptIO •• 0 pu""", 111. IncIIbIed .... _ ..., II~ mor1Qlg •• r said II .. I.r .... Im.unt awing ......... together with Iny ...... re ..... 1IIO IIIDrnDyI' ,... and ._'ncu .... ..., Il1o Assured clalmont wIIlch ..... _..., Il1o COmpony up .. Il10 lImo.f pu ....... . Such pu"""'. paymen. or _r ., paym ... 01 .... lull omaunt 01Il10 Guo ...... 111111 ..... , .. 18 In llllIIlity of Il1o OIm_ hon!und". In Il1o eve .. Itter notICe 01 claim hie boon give ... Il1o COmpany ..., 111. """rod .... OImpany off", .. pu""", .. ~ '_ ......... ....., ., ouch ilIabl><l_ ohal Ire"'er and '''IOn 11111 Ind.bledn .... tggOU\er with .ny mlll •• reI lIeurily. II> .... COmpany upan Pi'/RIBnt 01 111. pUrthlll PrICe. upon 111. a .. _ ..., .... COmpany 0/ tho 0_ PI1MdId I.r I. Parogreph (I) Il1o COmpany's abllgillon II> Il1o Assurod under II1Is G ........ , ....... claimed loss or damIQl, other thin to make the payment requlred In that parlQAlph, WU tDnnlnltIt, IncludinG Iny obligation II> CDIIIIn ...... del""" .r PIOIICUIiD •• , Iny Utlgotlo. lar which Il1o COmpany hi. _rased hi options under Parogrlph 4. and Il1o G .. re.to. Ihaa be 'U...-IO II> Il1o com_ far cenCl_ •. (b) T. Ply or Oth.rwtso 5eIIIo WlII1 PartIH Other Then Il1o AslUrod or WlIh th. Assured aatmanL T. PlY ar .tI1orwlSe lOII/I with ...... partIH "" ... ,. Il10 ...... , an _R!d _Int ony daim _ IOIinsI unoer tIllS Guoro ..... togoIIIor willi Iny ...... laomoys' ,... and _ .... I"","", ..., Il1o _ clllmont wIIlch wore ...... rItId ..., Il1o company up .. th. UntO 01 "..,... •• and wIIlch 111. COmpany II obllg ..... II> pay. Upon ....... reill ..., .... COmpany ., ..... pllon provided far III Parogreph (b) III. COmpany' •• ~IO'IIO ••• Il1o Assurod under IIIIs Guo ...... far .... dolmed 10 .. or damage, other than to make the payment requlRld In that paragnlph, shall terminate, Including..., obllg.lIon .. CDnUn .. 111. Clef .... or prusecutlon 01 .ny UagOlla. for wIIich 111. COmpany ""'.-hI.ptIOns under Parellfllph 4. 7. Detarml_ •• ndhl8ntolLlllllllIy. This G ........ Is I CDntroCi ., Indem.tt IOIInSt aCluOI monltary lass .r damogo ..... med .r ,,,,,,",,, ..., Il1o _rod del .... t who "'" ou"ered loss or dllmage ..., .. a .. n 0/ ........ upon Il1o .......... 101 _ In II1Is Guorantao .nd only ...... 0_ h.RIIn d_. .nd SUb,llC\ .. 111. EJoI1IIIonI F .... eoverego 01 Thll Gu.ren .... The U,bllity of Il1o COm_ undar 1I1~ Guora .... 1I> Il1o _ohall .............. ~"'0I: (a) till amount of liabilIty lilted In 5chtcture A or in PIIt 2; (b) .... amount 01II1II unpaid prlnd""llndIIbIId .... _..., thl mortcIogo 01 an _R!d mong.g ... u limited or p!OVICIed undar 5eC11an 6 01 111 ... COnditions and SGpulOllOns or u rod_ undor Sadlon ~., 1lioii COndllfanlend IillPUillIon •• a. 1110 amI Il1o laSS or demega _rod egolnlt ..., tills Guorantao ....... IDOIIIler wah Intarest thereon; or (0)Il10 dillere ... between tile value 01Il10 II1II8 ... inlerlll _ hereby u 1101><1 he .. 1n and .... va"'" of ........ 18 at I ....... eubjeclll> any daIKt, lien .r .... mbronCD Assured 1OI1nSt..., 1I1~ GUire ..... B. Um-.01 .... blllly. (a) II .... COmpany .... _ 111. II1II. or .. _ lila aaaged deled, I~ .r • ncum""' .... or cures Iny Olller malllr _ 101II1II ..., 1I11s G ........ In • ....... bly dIIlg ••• menner ..., .ny mell1od. including litIgatIOn and the comolellOn of any .ppallS IIIorofrom. 1.lI1Ia h ... fully pa~orrned hI.bllgatiMl. with .. ..,... ••• "". matter and ohall no. be IIIblo "" .ny loss or damage caused lI1.re...,. (b) I. Il1o ovent .f ony Iiaolllon ..., 1111 COmpany or wah .... COmpan" ....... ~ 1111 COmpany .... 11_ no n.blllty ,.,. loss ... damogo untl ...... hu bee •• IInOI d.tonmlnatlon by • murl .f mmpel8n. jUrisdICtiOn. and dilPOlltl ••• r III ._" 1IIo .. 1Iorn, .dYe ... II> .... atlll. u 1101><1 heroin. (c) The COmp.ny IhIH ..... be II.~ "" loa or damage II> .ny _ far l~blUty voluntarily __ ..., .... Allured In IIIIIlng .ny dolm or sua wllI10ut .... prior written CDOII ... f II1II COmpany. 9. 1181_ 01 Uablllly.r Tennllllllall 01 Lllblllly. All PI'/II1IIIII unOer 11111 Guero!'iOl ..... __ mad. lor ...,.. laomoys' ,... and __ pursuant II> PeroaroPh 4 ... 1111 reducalllo .mount 01 liability .... llIn ... 10. Payment 01 '-. (.) N. _"n.ohaa be maOo wah.ut produCIng 1I11s a ........ f ... Indorsement .f Il1o payment unless .... Guorentao his been last ... deIIroyod, In wIIlch .... praaf 01 loss or __ be I\unIsIIed II> Il1o lI_n 0/ .... OImpany • (b) WhIII liability .nd tile _. 01 loss or damIgo hoi boon dennlte!y _ In ....1111 ... with ..... COndlIIons and SI1pu1atIIns, Il1o lass or d.mage ..... be payable wItI1In II1Irty (lO) dayI .... reotter. as. IiUb ..... lIIIa. Upon Paymont or 80111.",_ Whenever the COmpany shaD have settled end paid • dllm under this GUBranble, IU Mont 01 oulmlgoll.n .... 11 ... In 1111 COmpany unllllaClDd ..., any .CI .r tile _red cIIImont. The company ohaa be IUbrugated 10 Ind be an_ II> .U nobis and _as wIIIch Il1o _ would Innre hid .galnSt eny penon or _'n mpoCIlI> Il1o claim had II1Is G ........ nol boon Issued. If requested ..., Il1o COmpany. tile _R!d ohal tnnsflt ID Il1o COmpany 1111 nonlS anO remedlM IOIIn11 any penon or property .......ry In .rdIIr ID ".".CI 11111 right 0/ oulKogollOn. The Assured .han perm~ lila COmpIn't ta IUD, compromise or little In the name 01 tho Assured and to UIIt the ..... 01Il10 AIIurod In .ny ...... .u ... r IIIIg.Uon IIMIIvIng 1lioii nohlS or remedies. II • "..,...nt .n ........ or • claim ..... no. fully ......... loss 01 111. _rod Il1o COmpony .... U be IUbIogated II> .n rlghlS and remedies 01 Il1o _ IIII!r .... Assured ... 0l11nnre """"red hi prtndpol.1ntIrast, Ind ...,..f =- 12. AIb_ .. Unless pl'llhlbilld ..., IPPIIcabI. law. ellllor 1110 COmpany or II1a _ may demand arbitration pursUint tD lha TItle Insurance Alblb'ldan Ruin of the Amarlc:lln AroItnllon AlSCdadon. ArbItrable matters may Ind., but are ROt Umltad to, any canb'aversy or dOIm be_n Il1o COm_ .nd Il1o _red a. out 01 ... reiallng ID 1I1~ G_. ony IINIce 0/ Il1o COmpany In m_ with Its IssUInaI or Il1o breech .f I Guora .... pnMIIan .r ..... r abI1gotIon. All ortXtnlllO molll". wilen Il1o Amount .r UOblllty Is 'MIIIO.COO or 1oss .... 11 be _ at Il1o .ptIOn.f .......... COm_ .r Il1o _. All _bill mollll .. ""'" Il1o emaunt 01 b.lIIbty II In ....... 01 ,1.000.000 ohan be BrIIi ... 1><I only ""'" aareed ID ..., both .... COmpany .00 Il1o Allured. The RuIM In ""1eI " 0118 01 Guoren ... 111111 be binding upon thO ""rtIH. The .word moy Indude llIIImoys' lees only ~ 111. laws 0/ .... 1Ia,. In which .... land Is Iocal><l ponnIIIl court ID IWOIII • .......,.. , ... II> • ,...,.a~g party. Judgment upan .... _III _rod ..., .... Arbnro .. r(.) may be ......., In eny mu~ novlng lu_n ....... f. Tho lew .f Il1o .Itus.' the lind .... n .pply .. an ._n under tile nUl Insurance ArbIll'llIOn Rules. A IIIPY 01Il10 Rules m.y be .blalned from l1li COmpany upan _ U. Ulblilly Umlilld to TIdI a ... ranIDII a .... _ entire Qlntract. (a) This Guire .... tDgather wItI1 aU and ........... " any, a_ n ..... ..., Il1o company Is .... entInt G .. re_ and CDntroCi be_n th. _ and Il1o COmpany. I. InIO'1IreUng any prIIVIsIon ., II1Is G ......... II1Is Gu ... _ ohall be construed u. whole. . (b) ~ dOim 01 loss or cIIrnogo. wIIeIhor or net _ an ntgIlQI .... or any _ '1IIrIIng ouch delm, I11III be _Clod .. this G ........ . (e) N. amendment 0/ .r end .... ment ID tills Gu ....... Cln be modI _ by • writing end.1Ied hereon .r allllchelf h ...... Igneo ..., eltl1lt .... PrtIIdonI, a VIce Prelldent., tM seaetary, an AssIstant Seatllary, or validating officer or authorized IIOnltary 01Il10 COmpany. 14. ~W ...... 8otIIo All no_ requlnld III be give. 1111 COmpany and Iny IlllllllUtn.1n wrlilng requlnld II> be fum1II1od 1111 CAlmpony shan IrIdud ..... number 01 tills G ........ and ohaU be .ddressed 1D 111. COInpany at 2 FIrst AmerIcan way. Bldg. 2. sanlll AnI. CA. 92707. _ No. 1182 (Rav •• 1111115) FInt American T1t1s /ns/J/'ilnal Compeny PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: I'\.btltl\\'IG OE'iEI.~~"!iE~bl'I C\ ~ 'oC\ -1 100 RECE\\JEO The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site"· should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 1 D3DD3-D186/LEGAL 14727957.2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan, Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B ("Amended Conceptual Plan"). 2. Name of applicant: The Boeing Company 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jeffrey R. Adelson The Boeing Company Box 3707, MIC 7H-AH Seattle, Washington 96124 4. Date checklist prepared: September, 2006 Note: This checklist accompanies the Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Amended Conceptual Plan prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. in September, 2006 ("2006 Consistency Analysis"). It is for Planned Action consistency purposes only and is not for purposes of triggering a threshold determination under SEPA. 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): See, Table 1-1 of 2006 Consistency Analysis. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The proposal contemplates eventual redevelopment of Boeing's Sub-District 1-B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2 03003·01 as/LEGAL 14727957.2 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 1. Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, October, 2003 ("2003 EIS") 2. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared by Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., May, 2006 ("2006 Consistency Analysis") 3. 2008 Consistency Analysis 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Unknown. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1. Approval of Amended Conceptual Plan 2. Planned Action Ordinance for Sub-District 1-B 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. See, 2008 Consistency Analysis at 4-7. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. General location: SE QUARTER OF SECTION 7, AND SW QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E, W.M., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON See, title reports submitted with Amended Conceptual Plan for full legal description See, Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 of 2008 Consistency Analysis. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003-01 SS/LEGAL 14 727957.2 PAGE 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH The Earth impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. General description of the site (circle one); fiat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ _ See above. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) See above. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See above. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. See above. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. See above. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 4 03003·0188/LEGAL 14727957.2 g, About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? See above, h, Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See above, 2. AIR The Air impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13), a, What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known, See above, b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe, See above, c, Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: See above, 3, WATER The Water impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). e, Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names, If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into, See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 5 03003·01BB/LEGAL 14727957,2 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. See above. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. See above. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. See above. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. See above. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. See above. b, Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. See above. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGES 03003-01881LEGAL 14727957.2 c. Water Runoff (Including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal. if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, if so. describe. See above. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so. generally describe. See above. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water Impacta, If any: See above. 4. PLANTS The impacts on Plants of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: See above. __ deciduous tree: alder, maple. aspen, other __ evergreen tree: fir. cedar, pine, other shrubs __ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup. bullrush, skunk cabbage. other __ . water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? See above. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 03003·01 Be/LEGAL 14727957.2 PAGE 7 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See above. 5. ANIMALS The impacts on Animals of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at 5-1 through 5-13). a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: See above. Birds: haWk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other _______ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfis7h-, o~t::-h-er----- b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See above. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain See above. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: See above. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES The Energy and Natural Resource impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through 5-13). a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE B 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. See above: c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: See above. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH The Environmental Health impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. See above. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. See above. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: See above. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? See above. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 9 03003-0188/LEGAL 14727957.2 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: See above. 8, LAND AND SHORELINE USE The Land and Shoreline Use impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency AnalYSis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? See above. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If 50, describe. See above. c. Describe any structures on the site. See above. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? See above. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? See above. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? See above. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 10 o3oo3·o186/LEGAL 14727957.2 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. See above. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? See above. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? See above. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: See above. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: See above. 9. HOUSING The Housing impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. See above. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate' whether high, middle, or low-income housing. See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 11 03003-0188/LEGAL 14727957.2 10. AE!?THETICS The impacts on Aesthetics of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. See above. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: See above. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE Tha Light and Glare impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? See above. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? See above. c. What existing off-sita sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? See above. d. Proposed measures to reduca or control light and glare impacts, if any: See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 12 03003·01861LEGAL 14727957.2 12. RECREATION The Recreation impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see. generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? See above. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: See above. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION The Historic and Cultural Preservation impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through 5-13). a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. See above. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. See above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: See above. 14. TRANSPORTATION The Transportation impacts of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, 2008 Consistency Analysis, including Appendix B, the Transportation Consistency Analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC, dated August 25, 2008; see also the 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 13 03003·01SS/LEGAL 14727957.2 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? See above. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? See above. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? See above. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. See above. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See above. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See above. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES The impacts on Public Services of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-1 through S-13). a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. See above. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 14 03003·018S/LEGAL 14727957.2 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. See above. 16. UTILITIES The impacts on Utilities of this proposal fall within the range of impacts/mitigation disclosed in the 2003 EIS (see, generally, 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis, Summary Matrix at S-l through S-13). a. Circle utilities currently available at tha site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. See above. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See above. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might iss in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresantatl o· c of f disclosure on my part. -Proponent: Name Printed: Date: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS ~(These sheets,should only be used for"actlons involving decisions on policies. plans and . rograms. You do' not need to fill out these sheets for. roject actions.) . , Because these questions are vary general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate tlian if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in ganeral terms. 1. How would tha proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or relaase of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 15 03003-0186/LEGAL 14727957.2 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s} are: See, 2003 EIS; 2008 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 16 03003·0188/LEGAL 14727957.2 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. See, 2003 EIS; 2006 Consistency Analysis and 2006 Consistency Analysis SIGNATURE I, the undersigned,. state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might' ue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrapresentati 0 ill u aCk\of full disclosura on my part. Proponent: v::; Name Printed: . de son Date: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 17 03003-0188fLEGAL 14727957.2 Submitting Data: DeptJDivlBoard .. Staff Contact ...... d'TY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDk~ILL Development of Community & Economic Development I AI #: For Agenda of: October 6, 2008 Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Agenda Status x7314 1--::--:-:--------------------1 Consent. ........... .. Subject: Public Hearing .. Planned Action for Sub-district I-B of the Boeing Correspondence .. x X Renton Plant property and Boeing Sub-district I-B Ordinance ............ . Amended Conceptual Plan Approval. Resolution .......... .. 1--::--:-::-:-------------------1 Old Business ...... .. Exhibits: New Business ...... . X CONCU~~ -DATE' :~~ Issue Paper Study Sessions .... .. Draft Ordinance Information ........ . Proposed Conceptual Plan Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer Planned Action and Amended Conceptual Plan to Committee of the Whole and set a public hearing for October 20,2008 Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dep!.. .. .. Other ............. .. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required .. . Transfer! Amendmen!.. ... .. Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: x The Boeing, Co. is requesting the adoption of an ordinance designating a Planned Action and the,adoption of the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan for a second phase of redevelopment of surplus property for Sub-District I·B of the Boeing Renton Plant property. Sub·District I·B is 50.7-acro site bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8th Street on the north, and N 6th Street on the south. The 2003 Development Agreement with the Boeing Company requires Council adoption of a Conceptual Plan prior to redevelopment. This Conceptual Plan will serve as the basis for all future land use approvals related to this development. A public hearing to consider the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan and Planned Action Ordnance should be set on October 20, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. • Adopt the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: o Park Avenue be designated as a "Pedestrian·oriented Street;" and, o Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub· District I·B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, o Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I·B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; and, o That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations and parking) be allowed within the "North I·B" area should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). IIDAEDALUSI.~ YS2\sIiARED\J)ivision.sIDevelop,serIDev&plan.ing\PROJECfSI08·112. Vanessn\Agendn Bill 08·1 t 2,doc " JI , \ '---I:ii13RiiiT500-j .-___ 3T/IO :; :A.j::iAm~ -"'3MA, i ----_ .. \' .-' : :"" .~'-'~-. --. . . '---'-' CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board .. Development of Community & Economic Development Staff Contact.. .... Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner x7314 Subject: Planned Action for Sub-district loB of the Boeing Renton Plant property and Boeing Sub-district I-B Amended Conceptual Plan Approval. Exhibits: Issue Paper Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North Draft Ordinance Proposed Conceptual Plan Recommended Action: Refer Planned Action and Amended Conceptual Plan to Committee of the Whole and set a public hearing for October 20,2008 Fiscal Impact: I AI#: For Agenda of: October 6, 2008 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing .. Correspondence .. Ordinance ............. Resolution ............ Old Business ........ New Business ....... Study Sessions ...... Information ......... Approvals: Legal Dept... .... .. Finance Dept... .. . Other ............. .. Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/ Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Total Project Budget Revenue Generated ........ . City ShiITe Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: X X X x The Boeing, Co. is requesting the adoption of an ordinance designating a Planned Action and the adoption of the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan for a second phase of redevelopment of surplus property for Sub-District I-B of the Boeing Renton Plant property. Sub-District I-B is 50.7-acre site bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 8'h Street on the north, and N 6'h Street on the south. The 2003 Development Agreement with the Boeing Company requires Council adoption of a Conceptual Plan prior to redevelopment. This Conceptual Plan will serve as the basis for all future land use approvals related to this development. A public hearing to consider the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan and Planned Action Ordnance should be set on October 20, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. • Adopt the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: o Park Avenue be designated as a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" and, o Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, o Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7'h Street; and, o That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations and parking) be allowed within the "North I-B" area should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). \\DAEDAI.USISVS2ISHARED\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\Og·112. Vanessa\Agenda Bill Og·112.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 29, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Dennis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator (x 6592) ~ FROM: SUBJECT: BOEING SUB-DISTRICT I-B CONCEPTUAL P't,~;&: PLANNED ACTION ISSUE: Should the City of Renton approve an Amended Conceptual Plan, in accordance with the December 2003 Development Agreement between the City and The Boeing Company, for the 50.7-acre portion of the Boeing Renton Plant, known as Sub-District I-B; and adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance prepared by The Boeing Company, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October of20037 RECOMMENDATION; StafTrecommends the City Council approve the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: • Park Avenue be designated as a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" for the purposes of the Urban Center Design Guidelines. • Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, • Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; and, • That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations, parking, etc.) be allowed within "North I-B" should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s) and; Further, stafT recommends adopting the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. h:\division.s\dcvclop.ser\dcv&pian.ing\projects\OS·112.vanessa\issue papper 08· J 12.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 29, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Dennis Law, Mayor FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE: Alex Pietsch, Administrator (x 6592) BOEING SUB-DISTRICT 1-B CONCEPTUAL PLAN & PLANNED ACTION Should the City of Renton approve an Amended Conceptual Plan, in accordance with the December 2003 Development Agreement between the City and The Boeing Company, for the 50.7-acre portion of the Boeing Renton Plant, known as Sub-District loB; and adopt the proposed Planned Action Ordinance prepared by The Boeing Company, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) completed in October of20037 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan with the following conditions: • Park Avenue be designated as a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" for the purposes of the Urban Center Design Guidelines. • Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District loB, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, • Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District loB to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; and, • That transit facilities (e.g., transit stops, stations, parking, etc.) be allowed within "North l-B" should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s) and; Further, staff recommends adopting the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. h:\division,s\deveiop,ser\dev&pian.ing\projects\08.112.vunessa\issue papper OS-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict I·B Amended l ~ptunl Plnn Page 2 ofS September 29. 2008 BACKGROUND SUMMARY; 2003 Boeing Development Agreement and Conceptual Planning In 2003. the City of Renton worked with The Boeing Company to change its land use policies and regulations to bring about the potential surplus and sale of portions of its Renton Plant for redevelopment. In addition to a substantial Comprehensive Plan Amendment, creation of two new zoning designations (Urban Center North I [UCN-I] and Urban Center North 2 [UCN-2]), and expanded design guidelines, Boeing and the City established a Development Agreement determining the public and private responsibilities necessary to bring about successful redevelopment. One of the key provisions of the Development Agreement was Conceptual Planning. In order to give the City some assurance and comfort about when and how properties would be made surplus and redeveloped in the future, the Development Agreement requires that Boeing plan, and the City Council approve, in a conceptual way, three large "subdistricts" that make up the Renton Plant "at the time at which the Owner wishes to subdivide. develop. sell. or othenl'ise alter any property within the subdistricts for uses not related to airplane manufacturing or supporting uses. " The Development Agreement included a Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-A and it was approved by adoption of the Development Agreement. This property was purchased by Harvest Partners. However, while another development group, Center Oak, was considering purchase of the property, it presented and the Council adopted a slight revision to the Sub- District I-A Conceptual Plan in October 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-A in early 2006. Sub-District I-A is now know as "The Landing" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theater uses. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District I-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of 2005 and approved in November of 2005. Thereafter, Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District I-B; which was approved by the City in December of 2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007, a Master Site Plan for Sub-District I-B and a Binding Site Plan (BSP) for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" was approved resulting in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District I-B: Lots SA, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 7A, 7B, and 7C. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District I-B (Lots SA and 7B) of the BSP; formerly described as the "Right of First Offer (ROFO) Area," now referenced as "North I-B," were planned for retail uses complementary to the Harvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to changes in market conditions, the expected retail development of North I-B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North l-B with a greater range of uses (Le., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center- North I zone. Now, The Boeing Company seeks to sell a portion of Sub-district I-B and has presented the attached Amended Conceptual Plan for the Council's consideration. In addition, the Boeing Company is requesting approval of Planned Action legislation, which would be combined with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in October 2003. The approval of Planned H:\Division,s\Develop,ser\Dev&plan,ing\PROJECTS\OS-112, Vnnessa\lssue Papper OS-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict I·B Amended L .• 1!ptunl Plan Page 3 ofS September 29, 200S Action legislation would streamline the permlttmg process by utilizing eXlstmg environmental documentation, as allowed by RCW 43.2IC.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and315. As a result of approving Planned Action legislation, the applicant would be required to submit an environmental consistency analysis with each phase of the project and receive subsequent approvals from the City'S Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The consistency analysis would be required as individual master plans and/or site plans are proposed. In addition, the adoption of Planned Action legislation provides added entitlement and scheduling predictability as the developer begins to prepare for the redevelopment of the 50.7-acre site. Requirements ora Conceptual Plan Per the 2003 Development Agreement, a proposed Conceptual Plan will include: • A narrative describing the conceptual redevelopment proposal and its relationship to the Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North; • The estimated timing and sequencing of property surplus and sale (ifapplicable); • A description of the proposed uses, including the general mix of types, estimated square footage of each building and parking for each structure, heights and residential densities; • The general description of use concentrations (Le., residential neighborhoods, office or retail cores, etc.); • Vehicular and pedestrian circulation that includes a hierarchy and general location of type, including arterials, pedestrian-oriented streets, other local roads and pedestrian pathways; • General location and size of public open space; and • An economic benefit analysis demonstrating the conceptual development's anticipated economic impact to local, regional and state governments. The Development Agreement states "the Council will base its approval on the proposed Conceptual Plan 'sfillflllment of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North. " Once adopted, the City will use the Conceptual Plan to evaluate all subsequent development permit applications within the subdistricts based on consistency. Proposed Sub-district 1-B Conceptual Plan The attached Conceptual Plan proposal outlines Boeing's plans for the redevelopment of the property south ofN. 8th Street and east of Logan Avenue N. It divides the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North I-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment, and the southern portion of the Sub-District currently know as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres of remaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. The area noted as North I-B, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative scenarios: Scenario I, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. H:\Division.s\Develop.scr\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\OS·112. Vanessn\!ssue Papper OS·112.doc Boeing Subdistrict J-B Amended ,eptual Plan Page 4 of8 September 29, 2008 Scenario I (Attachment A) describes redevelopment of the North I-B property as complementary to the urban retail development currently being developed as "The Landing" by Harvest Partners to the north. It includes the possibility of as much as 270,000 square feet of retail, with one large-format (big-box) retailer on the eastern side of the property. Small and medium-sized shops would also be developed on either side of Park Avenue. The plan also shows pedestrian connections between the remaining properties to the south, through the retail development and to Park Avenue N. Scenario 2 (Attachment B) has two components; the "office and employment" component and the "hotel retail" component. Lot 5A (office and employment component) would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include technology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. In addition, small-scale ground floor and/or freestanding retail uses may be included in this development. The build-out of the office and employment component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand, future buildings may include structure parking to achieve maximum density. Lot 7B (hotel retail component) would be developed with a seven to nine story hotel and two separate, small-scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complement and support the hotel use. All uses would be surfaced parked and be oriented toward Park AvenueN. Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios I and 2. Any combination implemented would not exceed the overall development capacities contemplated for North 1- B. Two economic benefit analyses were completed for the subject site, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment scenarios for Sub-district I-B. The economic benefit analysis for Scenario I suggests that redevelopment of the North I-B property would create 1,061 direct and indirect new jobs, predominately retail-oriented, and annual tax revenues to of $856,000 beginning in 2008, and $667,000 in one-time revenue to the City during construction. The supplemental economic benefit analysis completed for Scenario 2 suggests that redevelopment of the North I-B property would create 3,150 jobs, predominately office employment. The report concludes that the current/revised conceptual plan for Sub-District I-B essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic benefits to those anticipated as part of the original conceptual plan. The property south of North I-B known as the "Boeing Remainder" is influenced by the presence of four, I 980s-vintage office buildings that are located throughout. For the purposes of this Conceptual Plan, Boeing has assumed that the existing office buildings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. As indicated within the Conceptual Plan there are four specific sites within the Boeing Remainder that have redevelopment potential termed DPI-DP4 herein. DP I is a 4.9-acre property in the southwest corner of the subdistrict may be available for redevelopment more quickly (20 I 0). The subject Amended Conceptual Plan indicates DP I's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJ ECTS\OB-112. Vunessa\lssue Papper 08-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict I ~B Amendeu ~eptunl Plnn Page 5 of8 September 29. 2008 structures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. DPI could accommodate the parking needs of either use onsite. DP2 and DP4 provided infill opportunities that may exist when parking requirements for the exiting office buildings are reduced. The Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment ofDP2 and DP4 with new buildings containing either lab or office uses, consistent with the current development pattern. The potential redevelopment ofthese parcels would result in approximately 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. To accommodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on DP2, any additional parking requirements could be provided within existing parking structures. DP3 is located in the northwest corner of 6'10 Street and Park Avenue N. The subject Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or office uses, in a single story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. The building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. Overall, redevelopment with all office, all labs, or a mix of office and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. If the property was redeveloped to the full potential outlined in the Plan, the economic benefit analysis shows that more than 2, I 00 direct and indirect new jobs would be created by full redevelopment. One-time revenues to the City would top $6.2 million and new recurring annual tax revenues to Renton would nearly reach $2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter. The Vision and Policies of the Urban Center-North (Attachment C) Renton's Vision for redevelopment of the Urban Center-North, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, is one of dramatic change as existing large scale industrial buildings are reconfigured into a dynamic new retail, flex tech, and office center. This vision would be supported by the proposed plan for the North I-B area. The Vision states, "Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one. creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other. resulting in a more diverse mixed-use. urban scale office. and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. " In addition. Renton's vision for the Urban Center -North includes "a dense employment center;" the concept of combining new structures and re-utilizing high-quality existing structures will meet this vision of job growth which is anticipated to occur in "high-quality, well-designedj1ex-tech development and low-to mid-rise office. lab. and research and development buildings that provide attractive environments for companies o.ffering high-wage careers in information technology, [and] life sciences ... " . Scenario I supports the City's vision and applicable goals for the urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on North I-B that complement existing retail uses located north ofN. 8'10 Street. Scenario 2 similarly supports the City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North I-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios I and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center North and District One. 11:\Division,s\Dcvelop.ser\Dev&plnn.ingWROJECTS\OS-112. Vanessa\Jssue Papper 08-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict I·B Amended .:ptual Pllln Page 6 ors September 29, 200S The Purpose Statement for the Urban Center -North envisions redevelopment at a larger scale than found in Downtown Renton with a wider range of uses, taking advantage of the greater size of available land holdings. These uses are anticipated to include some industrial- type uses as ongoing within the larger context of commercial/retail, office, and residential. The building heights proposed by the conceptual plan would be consistent with both the existing buildings to remain and Policy LU-265: "Support more urban intensity of development (e.g. building height, (etc.]) than with land uses in the suburban areas of the C'ty " I ... The combination of large-format retail development with medium-format retailers and smaller, specialty retail shops along Park Avenue in scenarios I meets the intent of Policy LU-301: "Ensure that big-box {Iarge-format} retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments. " Scenario I of the Amended Conceptual Plan has a pedestrian orientation within the site, with connections to the perimeter along N 6th St. and Park Avenue N. This concept is consistent with Policy LU-303: "Encourage pedestrian-oriented development ... " although Scenario 2 dose not address this Policy. The eventual proposed parking ratio of3.S stalls per 1,000 square feet is consistent with Policy LU-311: "Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunities for irif/l/ development, and provide for efficient use of land by setting maximum parking standards. " Scenario 2 provides for hotel uses in combination with retail/restaurant as supporting uses. This concept is consistent with Policy LU-268: "Allow hospitality uses such as hotels, convent ion and coriference centers. " All three scenarios would add to the City's tax base, provide additional jobs and help to expand the overall mix of uses currently located in District One. This concept is consistent with Policy LU-266 and Policy LU-267: "Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base" and "Support a range and variety of commercial and office uses. " Possible Conditions of Plan Approval While the proposed Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent with the Vision and Policies of the Urban Center-North, staff asks the City Council to consider approving the plan with four conditions. First, given the fact that Boeing proposes pedestrian connections through the property to Park Avenue, making it the main pedestrian access to the retail/entertainment development expected to develop in Sub-District I A to the north, and the large number of office/lab workers that will one day be in the area when the existing office buildings are re-occupied and in-fill development occurs, staff believes that Park Avenue should have a strong pedestrian orientation. The Urban Center Design Guidelines provide enhanced streetscape and urban design requirements on streets specifically designated as "pedestrian oriented." Staff proposes that Park Avenue between N. 6th and N. 8th Streets be designated as a "Pedestrian-Oriented Street" in the Conceptual Plan approval. This is consistent with the 11:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plnn.ing\PROJECTS\OS-1 12. Vanessll\!ssue Papper 08-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict I-B Amended '-_ .:ptual Plan Page 7 or8 September 29, 2008 Vision: "Initial development may be characterized by ... a strong pedestrian-oriented spine along Park Avenue" and Policy LU-288: "Orient buildings to streets to emphasize urban character, maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District. " Second, in order to extend the network of planned pedestrian connections throughout the area, designated pedestrian connections should be provided for in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B. These pedestrian connections would be consistent with Policy LU-283, which "Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans." The pedestrian connections should align with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in sounding areas. Furthermore, in order to provide for the possibility of an interconnected grid street pattern in the area, staff recommends that provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1- B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy CD-59 requiring a street system that provides for a "continuous, efficient, interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the City." The preservation of this corridor would facilitate in further redevelopment of Sub-District I-B at higher densities and intensities over time by providing for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity and access. This is consistent with Policy LU-285 "Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infil/ development at higher densities and intensities over time. " Finally, staff proposes preserving the possibility of siting a transit facility in the North I-B area. As the City Council is aware, the City, the State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Sound Transit have been planning a HOV Direct Access Interchange on Interstate 405 at N. gth Street. Additionally, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is being planned as a high-capacity transit strategy, linking Renton to Bellevue and other locations on the Eastside. Current plans for BRT, have busses exiting the freeway at N. gtlt and landing in the redevelopment area, before traveling south along Logan Avenue to the Downtown Transit Center. I f the City, State, and Sound Transit can outline a plan and funding for development of a transit facility, that may include passenger load/unload areas, structured parking, etc, that is supportive of redevelopment and supported by the property owners, the Conceptual Plan should allow such a facility to be developed. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective NN: "Implement Renton's Urban Center consistent with the 'Urban Centers criteria of the [King County] Countywide Planning Policies to create an area of concentrated employment and housing with direct service by high capacity transit ... " and Policy LU-2II: "Renton's Urban Center should be maintained and redeveloped with supporting land use decisi()ns and projects that ... support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles ... " CONCLUSION: Planned Action: If the proposed Planned Action Ordinance were adopted by Council, the permitting process would be streamlined by utilizing existing environmental documentation. II :\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plun.ing\PROJECTS\08-112. Vunessn\lssue Papper OS-112.doc Boeing Subdistrict 1-B AmendeQ .eptual Plan Page 8 or8 " September 29, 2008 Amended Conceptual Plan: The Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District l-B is generally consistent with the Vision and Policies established in the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Center-North and should be supported with the following conditions: 1) Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street;" and, 2) Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, 3) Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B to allow for the future development and extension of N. 7tb Street; and, 4) Transit facilities would also be an allowed within the "North I-B" area, should funding opportunities arise and development of such facilities is supportive of the surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). Approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan will form the basis for all land use approvals going forward. unless the Plan is amended with City Council approval. Attachments: A: Proposed Conceplulll Pllln, Scenllrio I B: Proposed Conceptual Plan, Scenurio 2 C: Urban Center-North Vision. Objeclives.and Policies cc: Juy Covington -AJLS Chief Administrative Officer Alex PielSch-CED Administrntor Gregg Zimmennan -Public Work Administrator Neil Watts -Development Services Director C, E. Vincent-I'lanning Director Suzanne Dale-Estey -r:!Conomic Development Director Jennifer Henning -I'Janning Manager Vanessa Dolbee -CED Associate Planner 11:\Division.s\Devclop.senDev&pJan.ing\PROJECTS\08-112. Vunessn\lssue Pllpper OB-112.doc FULLER· SEARS ARCHITECTs , , : ... ,;: :ri!f LeG~i'J(:)l .. R L RETAIL LAB o OFFICE P PARKING GARAGE MF --MULTI·FAMILY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ·;~ONCEPTUAL PLAt SUB-DISTRICT 1-8 NOTJ!'-' MAlG.ONE: , , a.aTt;lRv BLOO: IFbFFICE', (120.000 SF) ~AAJ(INO (lA'RAGE_ " "TOTALL., ' '; , SUPPORTED,a" EXIST. PARKING', GARAGE NOTE: MAX. TWO a.smRV BLOGS. IF OFFICE (30D,OOO SF) WITH NEW 2-3 STORY PARKING GARAGe ~.OE'NG Attachment A Conceptual Plan Diagram, Exhibit 2 o L H R P Conceptual Plan Sub-District 1 B .~., " ... . _-L':'" r----'-'-L,.r--~~~ DP·1 330,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE ORLAa -DP·2 260,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB Legend Office Lab Hotel Retail Parking Garage DP-3 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 rt;-8DE'ND Attachment B I I . I , Conceptual Plan Diagram, Exhibit 2 o L H R P Dp·1 330,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB Conceptual Plan SUb-District 1 B North 8th fi-II."ND H , , . , DP-4 .---~--<-o. .r-.2!.!!!!!'l~Street .. Dp·2 .DP-3 r--~'""i.'··'I·'·:·:··:·::·":·:'C;'I:~' 260,000 SF 120,000 SF DP-4· ::·;:, .. 1o.,1if:·. TOTAL TOTAL 125,000 SF ....... 'd': :'J., .:. J. OFFICE OR OFFICE OR TOTAL ' .. -...... ;:.. ..._. LAB LAB OFFICE OR LAB Legend Office Lal:> Hotel Retail Parking Garage AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003 .. 0 I OSILEGALI4S0S979.7 Attachment B 9111/08 Amended 12110/07 Objective LU-WW: Improve the visual and physical appearance of'buildings to create a more positive image for downtown. Policy LU-258. Site and building designs, (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; and parking, should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Policy LU-259. Incentives should be developed to encourage rehabilitation (e.g. facade restoration) of older downtown buildings. Objective LU-XX: Maintain and expand the available amenities to make the Urban Center -Downtown more appealing to existing and potential customers, residents, and employees. Policy LU-260. Design guidelines should assist developers in creating attractive projects that add value to the downtown community, attract new residents, employees, and visitors, and foster a unique downtown identity. Policy LU-261. Design guidelines may vary by zone within the downtown area to recognize and foster unique identities for the different land use areas (i.e. South Renton's Burnett Park Subarea). Policy LU-262. New downtown parks should complement existing park facilities and be compatible with planned trails. Trails should be integrated with the existing trail system. Policy LU-263. Urban Center -Downtown development should be designed to take advantage of existing unique downtown amenities such as the Cedar River, City parks and trails, the downtown Transit Center, TKEA Perfornling Arts Center, and Renton High School. Policy LU-264. Public amenities such as art, fountains, or similar features should be incorporated into the design of public areas, major streets and gateways of the Urban Center -Downtown. URBAN CENTER NORTH LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban-scale, mixed- use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant Attachment C lX·43 Amended 12/10/07 tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district. Policy LU-265. Support more urban intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking standards) than with land uses in the suburban areas of the City outside the Urban Center. Policy LU-266. Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base. Policy LU-267. Support a range and variety of commercial and office uses. Policy LU-268. Allow hospitality uses such as hotels, convention and conference centers. Policy LU-269. Co-locate uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style, mixed-use development. Policy LU-270. Support incorporation of public facilities such as schools, museums, medical offices, and government offices into redevelopment efforts by developing a public/private partnership with developers and other Renton stakeholders such as the school district, technical college, and hospital district. Policy LU-271. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center. Policy LU-272. Support uses that serve the region, a sub-regional, or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-273. Support integration of community-scale office and service uses including restaurants, theaters, day care, art museums and studios. Policy LU-274. Support transit stations and transit usage connecting to a system of park and ride lots outside the Urban Center-North. Support park and ride facilities within the Urban Center only when they are included in structured parking as a stand-alone use or are developed as part of a mixed-use project. Policy LU-275. Support an expanded and extended public right-of-way in the vicinity of the present Logan Avenue to provide new arterial access within the Urban Center. Additionally, this will provide a physical buffer between redevelopment and continuing airplane manufacturing operations. Policy LU-276. Support extension of Park Ave. to Lake Washington. 1X-44 A.nended 12/10/07 Policy LV-277. Recognize the need for secure limited access within large manufacturing facilities by retaining private drives and roads in areas where airplane manufacturing operations continue. Policy LV;278. Support creation of a significant gateway feature within gateway nodes in the Urban Center-North. Policy LV-279. Support private/public partnerships to plan and finance infrastructure development, public uses and amenities. Policy LV-280. Use a hierarchy of conceptual plan, master plan and site plan review and approval to encourage the cohesive development of large land areas within the Urban Center-North. Incorporate integrated design regulations into this review process. Policy LV-281. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of gateway features, signs, circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing through master plan and site plan review process. Policy LV-282. Fully integrate signage, building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping, and parking considerations in structures and site plans across the various components of each proposed development. Policy LV-283. Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans. Policy LV-284. Allow phasing plans for mixed-use projects. Policy LU-285. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities over time. Policy LU-286. Support structured parking to facilitate full redevelopment of the Urban Center over the 3D-year planning horizon. Where structured parking is infeasible for early phases of development, parking should be located in the rear or the side of the primary structure. Policy LU-287. Discourage parking lots between structures and street right-of-way. Policy LV-288. Orient buildings to streets to emphasize urban character, maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use within the District. Policy LV-289. Vse design regulations to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments. and parking and circulation. IX·4S Amended 12/10/07 Policy LU-290. Support a combination of internal and external site design features such as: 1) Plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Significant natural features; 4) Distinctive focal features; and 5) Gateways. IX·46 Amended J 211 0/07 Urban Center Map --City Limits ---Urban Centor Boundary IX-47 Amended 1211 0/07 Policies for Surrounding Residential Area (North Renton Neighborhood, south of N 6th St) Policy LU-291. Provide a transition in land use with respect to intensity of development where areas mapped Residential Single Family and Residential Options border Urban Center -North designations. Policy LU-292. Create boulevard standards for arterial streets connecting or running through adjacent residential neighborhoods that address noise, pedestrian sidewalks, planting areas between vehicular lanes and pedestrian areas, traffic calming techniques, lighting standards, a landscape planting plan for street trees and other vegetation, and street furniture. Policy LU-293. Support a mix of activities within the Urban Center -North designation that supports populations in adjacent residential areas as well as new development within the re-development area. Examples of uses that serve the needs of existing populations include neighborhood-scale retail that addresses the day-to-day needs of residents, restaurants and coffee houses, public facilities, and places of assembly such as parks and plazas. Policies for Public Facilities Policy LU-294. Evaluate public facility needs for projected new populations within the Urban Center -North to accommodate a wide range of future users. Policy LU-29S. Support a partnership with community stakeholders such as the Renton School District to provide a transition for public properties adjacent to the Urban Center- North such as the Sartori School and Renton Stadium facilities. Transition of these facilities could range from accommodating a new clientele as the area transitions to mixed-use activities, or physical redevelopment of properties addressing the needs of employees or residents of the Urban Center. Policy LU-296. Recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as an Essential Public Facility. (See section on Airport Compatible Land Use policies). Urban Center North Districts The proposed Urban Center-North is divided into two districts for planning purposes. Each district has a different emphasis in terms of range, intensity, and mix of uses. These are District One, east of Logan Avenue, and District Two, west of Logan Avenue. The implementation of planning concepts for District Two will be dependent on decisions by The Boeing Company regarding continued airplane assembly operations at the Renton Plant. For this reason, initiation of redevelopment in District Two will likely occur after transition of the area east of Logan Avenue, District One, has begun. Consolidation of Boeing operations may cause certain property located within District One to be deemed surplus. making it available for redevelopment within the near future. 1X-48 Amended 12/10/07 District One is envisioned to include a variety of uses. The intensity of these uses would require substantial infrastructure improvements. More extensive development, ultimately anticipated with the future development of District Two, will likely require even more significant infrastructure upgrades. Redevelopment in both districts of the Urban Center -North will be responsive and protective of the North Renton residential neighborhood to the south. While the North Renton neighborhood is not a part of the Urban Center, its residents will benefit from the significant amenities provided by development of a new urban community. Redevelopment within both districts will occur in a manner that is not incompatible with the operations at the Renton Municipal Airport, recognizing that the airport is an Essential Public Facility located within an urban area. Redevelopment within both districts will be consistent with the City'S Airport Compatible Land Use Program. The program responds to State requirements to consider how land use in the surrounding areas affects the Renton airport. The current supply of un de rut iii zed land north ofN. 8'h Street creates an immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area-Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to ftchieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures with large parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and property values increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two. The following "visions" have been developed for each District. Vision -District One The changes'in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large- scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial· development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian-oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially 1X·49 Asnended 12/10107 may be handled in surface lots, their configuration, juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas. unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large-format ("big- box") retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers. Cafes with outdoor seating, tree-lined boulevards and small gathering places invite shoppers to linger after making their initial purchases. Retail development takes an urban form with high-quality design considering a human scale and pedestrian orientation. While retail development will add to the City's tax base and create a modest increase in employment, the vision for the Urban Center-North is that of a dense employment center. Within the initial phases of redevelopment, job growth will also occur in high-quality, well-designed flex/tech development and low-to mid-rise office, lab and research and development buildings that provide attractive environments for companies offering high- wage careers in infonnation technology, life sciences and light ("clean") manufacturing and assembly industries. Redevelopment in this area will also include residential opportunities in low-to mid-rise buildings with upper-story office and/or ground-related retail. Additional supporting retail will also be constructed. Logan Avenue is extended and redeveloped for public use as a major, tree-lined parkway. During the second generation of redevelopment in District One, changing property values and further investment will allow for higher density development in the form of offices and residences mixed with other uses. As this area is transformed into a mature mixed- use district, community gathering spaces and recreation facilities to support the City's neighborhoods and business districts become viable. Cultural facilities, as well as convention and conference centers may be located within the District and could be incorporated into mixed-use development with retail, office and hotels. Small parks, open space, and community gathering places will be incorporated into site design. Facilities such as multiple-screen theaters and other cultural facilities may add to the amenity value of the District. . District One Policies Objective LU-YY: Create a major commercial/retail district developed with uses that add significantly to Renton's retail tax base, provide additional employment opportunities within the City, attract businesses that serve a broad market area and act as a gathering place within the community. Policy LU-297. Support office and technology-based uses with retail uses and services along portions of the ground floors to facilitate the creation of an urban and pedestrian environment. IX-50 Amended 12110/07 Policy LU-29B. Support uses supporting high-technology industries such as biotechnology, life sciences, and infonnation technology by providing retail amenities and serviCes in the area. Policy LU-299. Allow for the development of destination retail centers that are consistent with a district-wide conceptual plan. Policy LU-300. Encourage the placement of buildings for retail tenants along pedestrian- oriented streets to create urban configurations. Policy LU-301. Ensure that big-box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban-scale retail developments. Policy LU-302. Encourage a variety of architectural treatments and styles to create an urban environment. Ob,iective LU·ZZ: Create an urban district initially characterized by high-quality, compact, low-rise development that can accommodate a range of independent retail, office. research. or professional companies. Support the continuing investment in and transition of low-rise development into more intensive, urban fonns of development to support a vital mixed-use district over time. Policy LU-303. Encourage pedestrian-oriented development through master planning. building location. and design guidelines. Policy LU-304. Support urban fonns of setback and buffering treatment such as: a) Street trees with sidewalk grates. b) Paving and sidewalk extensions or plazas. and c) Planters and street furniture. Policy LU-305. Allow phasing plans for developments as part of the master plan and site plan review that: a) Provide a strategy for future infill or redevelopment with mixed-use bUildings. b) Preserve opportunities for future structured parking and more intense employment-generating development. Policy LU-306. Support parking at-grade in surface parking lots only when structured or under-building parking is not ·viable. Policy LU-307. Support development of parking structures using private/public partnerships when the market will not support structural parking without subsidy. Polley LU-30B. Support surface parking lots behind buildings, and in the center of blocks. screened from the street by structures with landscape buffers. IX-51 Amended 12/10/07 Policy LU-309. Consider public/private participation in provision of structured parking. to stimulate additional private investment and produce a more urban environment. Policy LU-310. Support shared parking by averaging parking ratios for co-located and mixed-uses. Policy LU-311. Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunities for infill development, and provide for efficient use of land by setting maximum parking standards. Policy LU-312. Support the co-location of uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style mixed-use (commerciallretailloffice/residential) development. Policy LU-313. Discourage ancillary retail pads. Vision -District Two Ongoing Boeing airplane manufacturing is supported by the City and expected to continue across District Two for the foreseeable future. This important industrial base will continue to provide high-wage jobs within the Urban Center -North as redevelopment occurs in District One. Should Boeing surplus property west of Logan A venue, redevelopment that follows will take on more urban characteristics, incorporating mixed-use (residential, office, and retail) development types. Planning for the redevelopment of District Two will take into consideration the unique issues involved in the transition of a site historically used for heavy industry adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport. Redevelopment will be consistent with the Renton Municipal Airport Compatible Land Use Program. Eventually, redevelopment will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to the region. The South Lake Washington neighborhood will be a center of activity in the Puget Sound region-a premiere address for residents, a hub of economic activity providing capacity for high-wage jobs, and a world-class destination for shopping, dining, recreation, and entertainment Mixed-use projects will be high in design and coristruction quality, and offer landmark living, shopping, and working environments planned to take advantage of a regionally centralized location, efficient access, mass transit, potential passenger ferry connections, stellar views of lake and mountains, and restored natural environments along the Cedar River and Lake Washington shorelines. Development within District Two will be organized into neighborhoods with housing, shopping, employment, and recreation opportunities located within walking distance. Low-to mid-rise buildings will be located to the south while development to the north will be primarily mid-to-high-rise in order to maximize views. While some on-street or surface parking may occur, the majority of parking will be provided in the lower levels of IX-52 Amended 12/10107 mixed-use buildings or in stand-alone structures designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This environment attracts a residential population living in up-scale neighborhoods featuring higher-density condominium and apartment forms of housing north of N. 8th St. Townhouse developments south of N. 8th St. provide a transition to the adjacent North Renton neighborhood in terms of scale and use of buildings. Residents of both neighborhoods will find ample shopping and employment opportunities in the immediate vicinity. Residents, employees and visitors will enjoy new public open space. These range from public access to the lakefront through small parks, overviews, and trails, to large public plazas and central greens that provide gathering places, recreational opportunities, and a celebration of views of the Seattle skyline, the Olympic Mountains, and Mount Rainier. District Two Policies Objective LU-AAA: Support ongoing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses. Policy LU-314. Support existing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses while allowing for the graduallransition to other uses should The Boeing Company surplus property within District Two. Policy LU-31S. Allow airplane manufacturing and related accessory uses such as airplane sales and repair, laboratories for research, development and testing, medical institutions, and light industrial uses including small scale or less intensive production and manufacturing, and fabricating with accessory office and support services. Ohjective LU-BBB: If Boeing elects to surplus property in District Two, land uses should transition into an urban area characterized by high-quality development offering landmark living, shopping and work environments planned to take advantage of access and views to the adjacent river and lake shorelines. Policy LU-316. Should The Boeing Company elect to surplus properties in District Two support the redevelopment with a range and variety of commercial, office, research, and residential uses. I) Support a mid-to high-rise scale and intensity of development. 2) Support retail and service activities as ancillary uses that are synergistic with commercial, office, biotech, research, technology, and residential activities. Traditional retail (Main Street), general business and professional services, and general offices are examples of the types of uses that are supported in combination with other activities. 3) Support urban scale residential development in District Two. North of N. 8th Street structured parking should be required. IX·53 Amended 12/10/07 4) Allow a limited range of service uses, such as churches, government offices and facilities, commercial parking garages, and day care centers through the conditional use process. 5) Allow eating and drinking establishments and cultural facilities as part of office or mixed-use development. 6) Prohibit new warehousing, storage including self-storage, vehicle sales, repair and display (including boats, cars, trucks and motorcycles), assembly and packaging operations, heavy and medium manufacturing and fabrication unrelated to production of new commercial airplanes. 7) Support development of public amenities such as public open space, schools, recreational and cultural facilities, and museums. 8) Allow commercial uses such as retail and services provided that they support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. CENTER VILLAGE LAND VSE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close-in urban mixed-use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian-oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub-regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LV-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provide a pedestrian scale environment. . Policy LV-317. Apply the Center Village designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto-oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed-use type of development. Policy LV-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 14 (R-14), Center Village (CV), and the Residential Multi-family zones (RMF, RM-U, RM-T). Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re-zone with the vision for a Center Village designation Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub-area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the IX·54 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT October 20, 2008 Sub-District 1-B Planned Action Ordinance and Amended Conceptual Plan Referred October 6, 2008 The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Planned Action Ordinance and adopt the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed by the Boeing Co. for the redevelopment of 50.7-acres of surplus Boeing property identified as "Sub-District I-B". The project site is bounded by Logan Avenue N on the west, Garden Avenue N on the east, N 81h Street on the north, and N 61h Street on the south. The Amended Conceptual Plan divides the property into two distinct parts: the northerly 21.2 acres that is currently know as North I-B and has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations and is available for near-term redevelopment, and the southern portion of the Sub-district currently know as the Boeing Remainder, which contains 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings with re-use potential and 12.85 acres of remaining land available for in-fill redevelopment. The Amended Conceptual Plan contains several alternative scenarios: Scenario I, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the BSP) and hotel uses (Lot 7B of the BSP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios I and 2. To enhance the Plan and its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the Committee recommends the following conditions be imposed on the Amended Conceptual Plan: I) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian-oriented Street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the sub-district and the planned retaiVentertainment center developing to the north; and, 2) Pedestrian connections shall be provided for and shown in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B, aligning with existing/proposed pedestrian connections in surrounding areas; and, 3) Provisions be made in the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B to allow for the future development and extension ofN. 7th Street; and, . 4) That a transit facility be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail, office andlor employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Amended Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. In addition, the adoption of the proposed Planned Action Ordinance would streamline the permitting process by utilizing existing environmental documentation. The Committee further recommends that the Planned Action ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first and second reading. Marcie Palmer, Council President CC: Jay Covington -AJLS Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch-CED Administrator Gregg Zimmermlltl-Public Work Administrator C. E. Vincent. Plnnning Director Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning. Planning Manager Vanessa Dalbec, Associate Phmner H:\Division.s\J)ovelop.ser\Dev&plnn.ingIPROJECTS\08-112.Vanessn\COMMITfEE OF THE WHOLE Subdist Ib 08-112.doc ,.,' .. '.' ",. CIT-·T. OF RENTON Denis Law, Mayor Department of CommUnity and . ' Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator. September 23, 2008 Attn: lohnLefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-97\0 SUBJECT: Ainended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub~D1strlct I-B· LUA08-112,PA, cP . . . Dear Sirs: Enclosed is' Ii copy of the Boei~~ .Re~ton .Sub-t>istrict FB. Environmental Consistency Analysis for the subject land :~se apriliciition .. along:with a:copy of the Amended. ConceptualPlan~ . -' . -. . , Ifyouhav~'add!tiQnalqorrltri~rits~:or'cbnce~~iy~~,thay-~iiherse~d :theni vi~mail or~m~jJ : them,to me at vdolbee@cLi"entoti.waius :'.' .:. '" ":" '. . . -.. . '., ': ' •• ;' f ;. ':" '. ." '. ' • I would appreciate your comments·.'prior' to' the City-Council.:Hearing, preferably by October 6, 2008, if possible. , :', " Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner " cc: . Project File .... . . Jan IIIian, City of Renton ~ PI~ii Review' ,\. .... -. " , ', . < '" .'.-, -...... ~ --"Vi"', (j>'RR:t"lOJ~e,,"C"'1 SO\t\()nt:B.111 1t1C2,:Vv a,",li",cu .. gulttlltnr tn-o O"'()"T~6nt:8.rl1·llt1c2,lttdo"'c----'~----'-------R··E N'" TO"· 'N . '1 055'South Grady Way -Rentori, Washington 98057' * This ~per ~taln. 50%'~cyded materlnl, 30% poll ~Iumer AHEAD O'fl TilE eURV'1\ CIT .... 'T OF 'RENTON . Denis 'Law, Mayor Department of Conuminityand . . Economic Development Alex'Pletsch, Administrator September23; 2008 Jeffrey Adelsan The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, M/C 7H-AH Seattle, WA 98124 Subject: Amended C~ni:eptual Redevelopment for Sub-District I-D·. LUA08-U2,PA; CP' . . . . Dear. Mr. Adelson: The Planning Division of the City of Re~tan.hiisdetermined 'that the suoject application .. iscompleteaccordihgto,submittahecjuir~inerits and; therefore, isaccepted:for review ... , . ; , .' You will be.notifiedifany:additional:i~i6~a'tionjsrequired to continue processing. your.· . application. In addition, thismattef is terii/ltiv~ly.s6heduledf()r a Public Hearing iD'.front . of the City Councii on October 20j.2'OOs':at 7:00, PM, Counci1.Chambers; Seventh Floor, .... Renton CiryHall, 1055'~outh qrady Way;:. Renlbn. w~ recbmniendthatthe applicant or' representative(s) onhe applicant;oe present .anhe pUbli6he'anng. . '. ',' :" .' -, <:. ' ',. ' ''', '" ' , ", '.' ': ";.' , Please contact me at.( 425) 430~ 7314 if Yc:iu'.haveariy:questions .. ",' '. .' -. ',' •• -''''-r: :, ," , " .', " '-. '. Sincerely, ~ .. -DJ~ .~ .. , .. , Vanessa Dalbee Associate Planner ,>: , ~ 1 ,.' " , .', .-.\ ,'., , . '.' ;, -', ...... ~ ------~10-5..:..5-S0-u-th-i:;-r-ad-Y-W-a-Y---R-en-to-n--', W-aS-h-in-gt-on-'-· -98-0,--57------R EN TO·N . . ~ AIIRAD ~F THE ct;RVlt' \:Z:I This paper contairis50% recycled materiol, 30% post'consumer NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Mastor Application has boen filed and acceptod with tho Dopartmont of Community & Economic Developmont (CEO) -Planning Olvl.lon of the City of Renton. The following brlofly describe. the application and tho nocossary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Pian for Sub-District 1-8 LUA08-112. PA. CP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District 1-8 property. The subject site is 50.7 acres and is located immediately south of N 8th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N. The subject site is zone UC-N1 and Is within Design District C. The Amend Conceptual Redevelopment Plan would aHow fOf a greater range of uses for the northern 21.2 acres of Sub·Dlstrlct 1·8 including; hotel, office, employment, research/development. business and related uses In addition to retail. The proposed Plan Action reflects the broader scope of the potential uses for the northern portion of 1·8 .• An Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the Amended Conceptual Plan. The remainder of Sub·Dlstricl 1·8 is approximately 29.5 acres and is currently improved with office buildings and would continue to be utilized as part of oniloing airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office·bulldings are approximately 12.85 acres that have been identified as potential development parcels. PROJECT LOCATION: South of N sth Street between Logan Avenue N & Garden Avenue N PUBLIC APPROVALS: Planned Action Ordnance, Conceptual Plan APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Jeffrey Addelson. The Boeing Company. Tel: (206) 650·5960 Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Vanessa Dol bee, Associate Planner, Dopartment of Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on Octobor 7, 2008, If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7314. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 22, 2008 Septem ber 23, 2008 If you would like to be made 8 party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project. complete this form and ,alum 10: Cily of Ranlan, CEO. Planning Division. 1055 Soulh Grady Way. Renlan, WA 98057. File Name I No.: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1~8/ LUAQ8-112, PA, CP NAME: ______________________________________________________________ __ MAILING ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: _____________________ _ City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT ,SE~ l11QQ& RECE\\JEO MASTER APPLICATION , -. ---.. ---'----_._.-.--. .. PROPERTY OWNER(S) -.... , -, -. PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: The Boeing Company PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plen for Box 3707, M/C 7H-AH Subdlstrlct 1-8 ADDRESS: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Seattfe ZIP: 98124 Approximately 50.7 ecres of land just Bouth of 8th Street, between Logan Ave. N. and Garden Ave. N . • TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 650-5960 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0888610010; 0888610020; D886810030; 0888610040; APPLICANT ,If other than owner) 0888610050;0888610060;08B6610070;088661008~ 0823059209;0823059019;7223000116;7664600065 NAME: EXISTING LAND USE(S): office, retail, laboratOfY end multi-family COMPANY (If applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): office, retail, laboratory end hotsl ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Urban Centar North CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (If appUcsble): NlA TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: UC-N1 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING Of applicable): N/A NAME: Jeffrey R. Adelson SITE AREA (In squara teet): Approx. 2,208,492 (60.7 aerea) SQ. FT. OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: N/A COMPANY Of applicable): The Boeing Company SQ. FT. OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NlA ADDRESS: Same as above PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE CITY: ZIP: (It applicable): NlA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (If applicable): NlA TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: (206) 650-5960; Jeffrey.r.adelson@boeln9.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS Of applicable): N/A C:1DocumaI1I and Scttillp\c36612611.ooa1 SdtinplTcmpomry Intome! FileslOLKCIl\mastmppcovcr (J),DOC 03003-0 I 861LEOAL 146804 74 ,I -1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS Of applicable): NlA PROJECT VALUE: NlA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY Of applicable): NlA CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE Of SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS applicable): TO REMAIN (K applicable): N1A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSEO NON-RESIDENTIAL Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE NlA BUILDINGS (K applicable): NlA Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO NlA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXiSTING NON·RESIDENTIAL Q FLOOO HAZARD AREA NlA sq. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (If applicable): 880,000 (nat Includln9 garltln~ stNctUre8 on the vanous prolllirtlBa)' Q GEOLOGIC HAZARD ALL NET FLOOR AREA OF NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (K Q HABITAT CONSERVATION N/A sq. It. applicable): N1A Q SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES N/A sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW Q WETLANDS NlA sq. ft. PROJECT (K applicable): N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY .. _. .... (Attach legal deacrlDtlon on seD8rate sheet with the followlna Information Included) SITUATE IN THE SE 114 QUARTER OF SECTION 1, AND SW 1/4 QUARTER OF SECTION~, TOWNSHIP ~, RANGE §!;, llll,M .. IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, . . -.-. --~ . . ,,-.-.,.. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for. 1. Amended Conceptual Plan 2. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $_No fees associated AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP ~-.. '-.-... ... I, (P~nt Name/I) ==:-:-:---.,::o:-::c==.,...,.,.==:=~ elect ..... that I am (plea ... check ona) _ the cur ... nt owner of the property Involved In this application or the uthortzed ... p ..... nt.Uve to act for a corporation (plen. attach proof 01 .uthorlzatlon) and that the foragolng statomenta and a tal and th. Infonnatlon herewith alliin .11 llllpacll till. and corractlo the bast of my knowledg. and b.nef. I certify that I know or have latlsfactory avldance th~a:t"====-:-::;:=~~-::. algnad thla IMlnlmant and acknowledg.d ft to be hi ,M.G tnle and voluntary act for tha (Slgnatura 01 OwnarlRepllllantatlve) Alan E. DeFrancla Authollzed Signatory (Signatu ... of OwnorlRepraaentatlVe) u.aa and purpoa .. mantJonad In tho IMlnlmenl Notary Public In and for the Notary (Prtnt)_+ ________ _ C:lDoc:umcnlJ and Scttinplc366U61Locai ScttInplTcmporory Internet FilcslOLKCBlmastcn>ppcovcr (l).DOC 03003.0 1 &6ILEOAL 14680474.1 ·1· ALLPURPOSEACKNO~EDOEMENT State ol\.. ___ CloJal1ltlfpll!lllrnUllaL-___ -!) ) sa County of Lpg Angples ) On _.liSII!9DllItlllgmUlbeillL[ '11910.. Q2Q08~ __ before me, ___ ..iIS:l/JulWtl!!ll1!lN .... , JImW!l:algz:& • .J:NIIoOwTA~Bll.y.c:pullla!!..L!Il<C _ __' peIIonaUy appeared Alan Dgfrancla who proved to me DO the basis of aaU8factory evidence to be the paraon(8) whosp name(s) la/_ subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me thai halBhallllay executed the sarna In hlalherllhelr euthortzad capacityOP8), and thai by hl~prAAalr slgnature(s) on the Instrument the person(.), or the PoUty upon behalf 01 which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument. I certify under PENAL TV OF PERJURY under the lawa of the Slate of California that the foregoing pamgmph 18 true end correct. WlTNESSmyh (Seal) PROJECT DESCRIPTION, CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED ACTION FOR SUO-DISTRICT 1-0 The Boeing Company proposes to amend the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and the SEPA Planned Action applicable to Boeing's Sub-District IB property. Sub-District I-B is located in the City of Renton immediately to the south of The Landing urban retail center and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District I-B was approved in November of2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of2006 under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District I-B and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" (the "BSP"). The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District I-B: Lots SA, 5B, 5C, SO, 5E, 7 A, 7B, and 7C. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District I-B (Lots SA and 7B of the BSP; formerly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as "North I-B") were planned for retail uses complementary to The Landing to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North I-B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North I-B for a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center -North, District One zone ("UC-N I" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District loB contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the "Boeing Remainder." Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.85 acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("DP I" through "DP4"). Boeing's proposed amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District I-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the reta\l alternative proposed for North loB in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes office and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots SA and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the UC-N 1 zone. The proposed Planned Action likewise reflects a broader scope of potential uses for North I-B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB·DlSTRICT 1·1l OlOOJ-O 186/LEGALl468100S.1 9/18/08 . pLANNING DE\}rt~~~WENTON ,SEP 22 200S RECEl'JED PAGE I ·< . • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. __ _ DRAFT 09/17/080il nn/nonn/nOI AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DESIGNATING A PLANNED ACTION FOR SUB-DISTRICT \-B OF THE BOEING RENTON PLANT PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATELY 5\ ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY LOGAN AVENUE N., GARDEN AVENUE N., NORTH 8TH STREET, AND 6TH STREET. WHEREAS, RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, -168, and -172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; and WH EREAS, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled the "Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS" has been prepared to study the impacts of redeveloping a portion of Boeing's Renton Plant property; and WUEREAS, the E1S analyzed the potential environmental impacts of mixed-use development on that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant known as Sub-District I-B (see Exhibit A); and WUEREAS, by Ordinance No. 5026, the City has amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Employment Area -Industrial (EA-I), Employment Area -Transition (EA-T) and Employment Area Office (EA-O) to Urban Center North (UC-N); and WUEREAS, by Ordinance. No. 5027, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Boeing Renton Plant from Center Office Residential (COR) and Commercial Office (CO), to Urban Center North 1 (UC-NI); and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Boeing entered into a Development Agreement based on the analysis in the EIS, which is recorded under King County recording number 20031210001637 ("Boeing Development Agreement"); and ()3003·() I 86/LEGALI4l2l442.2 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/08091 nn/nDnn/noi WHEREAS, on November 7,2005, the City approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub- District I-B ; and WHEREAS, on ______ the City approved an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B ("Amended 1B Conceptual Plan"), attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub- District I B, which compares the Amended I B Conceptual Plan to the range of development alternatives analyzed in the EIS; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance designates certain land uses and activities within Sub- District I-B as "Planned Actions" that are consistent with the Urban Center North I (UC-NI) designation and zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Purpose. The City of Renton declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Sub-District 1- B as "Planned Actions" consistent with state law, RCW 43.21 C.031; and B. Provide the public with an understanding as to what constitutes a Planned Action and how land use applications which qualify as Planned Actions within Sub-District I-B will be processed by the City; and C. Streamline and expedite future land use permit review processes for development in the Sub-District I-B area that is consistent with the Amended I B Conceptual Plan by relying on existing detailed environmental analysis for this area. CITY OF RENTON. WASHINGTON. ORDINANCE NO. _ I'AGE2 03003·0 I 86fLEGAL 14525442.2 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION n. Findings. The City Council finds that: DRAFT 09/17/08091 nn/nonn/nOI A. The £IS addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the scenarios described in the EIS for Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced therein, and the Amended IB Conceptual Plan is encompassed by and consistent with those Alternatives; and B. The mitigation measures contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, together with the City's development standards, and standard mitigation fees (Parks, Fire and Traffic), are adequate to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts of development pursuant to the Amended I B Conceptual Plan; and C. The expedited permit review procedure set forth in this Ordinance is and will be a benefit to the public, will protect the environment, and will enhance economic development; and D. Opportunities for public involvement have been provided as part of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation, the Boeing Plant rezone, the EIS, and the Conceptual Plan review and approval process for Sub-District I-B. SECTION m. Designation of Planned Action; Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Establishing Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Designated. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the Sub-District I-B site, as shown on Exhibit A, and associated off-site improvements. Uses and activities described in the Amended IB Conceptual Plan, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives I, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the £IS, and subject to the mitigation measures required by City Codes or contained in the Boeing Development Agreement, are designated Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21.C.031. Additionally, the CITY or RENTON, WASHINGTON, ORDINANCE NO. __ PAGE 3 ()Jorn·" I 86/LEGALI4l2l442.2 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/08091 . nn,nonn/nOI Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site improvements necessitated by the proposed development on Sub-District 1 B, where the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the EIS. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific permit application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the EIS. The Development Agreement, together with existing City codes, ordinances, standard mitigation fees, and standards, shall provide the framework for a decision by the City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental documents incorporated by reference in the EIS may also be utilized to assist in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures. C. Planned Action Review Criteria. J. The Director of Development Services, or the Director's designee, is hereby authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.2 J C.03l (2)(a), if the project application meets WAC J 97-11-J 72 and all of the following conditions: (a) The project is located on Sub-District 1-B, or is an off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development on Sub-District 1-B; and (b) The project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan adopted under RCW 36.70A; and (c) The Director has determined that the project's significant environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the EIS by reviewing the environmental checklist or other project review form as specified in WAC 190-11-3 I 5; and CITY OF RENTON, WASIIINGTON, ORDINANCE NO. _ PAGE 4 03003..0 186/LEGAL 14525442.2 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/08091 nn/nonn/no, (d) The project complies with the Planned Action threshold described in this Ordinance; and (e) The Director has determined that the project's significant impacts have been mitigated through the application of the Boeing Development Agreement, as well as other City requirements, standard mitigation fees, and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for any significant environmental impacts associated with Sub-District I -B development; and (I) The proposed project complies with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate, needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been requested; and (g) The proposed project is not an essential public facility. D. Effect of Planned Action. I. Upon designation by the Director that the project qualifies as a Planned ·Action, the project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an environmental impact statement (ElS), or any additional review under SEPA. 2. Designation as a Planned Action means that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters and environmental analysis included in the EIS. 3. Planned Actions will not be subject to further procedural review under SEP A. However, projects will be subject to conditions designed to mitigate any environmental impacts which may result from the project proposal, and projects will be subject to whatever permit requirements are deemed appropriate by the City under State and City laws and ordinances. CITY OF RENTON, WASmNGTON, ORDINANCE NO. _ OJOOJ.() I 86/LEGAL 14525442.2 PAGE S ORDlNANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/08091 nn/nOnn/ftO I 4. Amendments of the approved Amended Sub-District IB Conceptual Plan may be approved administratively, so long as such amendments remain consistent with the spirit and intent of the adopted Plan. For development of Sub-District IB qualifying as a planned action pursuant to this Ordinance, a proposed amendment of the Amended Sub- District IB Conceptual Plan is consistent with the adopted Plan's spirit and intent if such amendment does not exceed the maximum development parameters analyzed in the EIS. If amendments of the Amended Sub-District IB Conceptual Plan exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed in the E1S, supplemental environmental review may be required under the SEPA rules. E. Planned Action Permit Process. The Director shall establish a procedure to review projects and to determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under State laws and City codes and ordinances. The procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the following: I. Development applications shall meet the requirements ofRMC Chapters 4-8 and 4-9. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include a SEPA checklist or revised SEPA checklist [where approved through WAC 197-11-315(2)) or such other environmental review forms provided by the PlanninglBuildinglPublic Work Department. The checklist Il)ay be incorporated into the form of an application; 2. The Director shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC Chapter 4-8. CITY OF RENTON, WASIIINGTON, ORDINANCE NO._ PAGEG 03003-01 K6ILEGAI.14121442.2 ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 09/17/080-91 nn/nonn/nOI 3. If the project application is within Sub-District I-B, the application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications specified in section III of this Ordinance. 4. Upon review of a complete application by the City, the Director shall determine whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify, the Director shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA review, threshold determination, or EIS shall be required. 5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no notice is required. 6. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, the Director shall notify the applicant and prescribe an appropriate SEPA review procedure consistent with City SEPA procedures and state laws. The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application that result in disqualification as a Planned Action. 7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use. or incorporate relevant elements of the EIS, as well as other environmental documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the EIS. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ORDINANCE NO._ PAGE 7 03003-0 186/LEOAL14l2l442.2 ORDINANCE NO, DRAFT 09/17/08091 nn/nonnlno, SECTION IV. Validity Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than December 31,2018, by the Development Services Director to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the subject site and vicinity and applicability of Planned Action requirements, Based upon this review, the Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another validity period may be specified, SECTION V. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between the Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any other ordinance, or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, EXCEPT that provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede, SECTION VI. Severability. Sbould any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or situation, SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this __ day of December, 2008, Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk , CITY OF RENTON, WASlllNGTON, ORDINANCE NO, _ PAGES 03003·0 I 861LEOAI. 14121442,2 " ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ___ of December, 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Dec. 2008 (summarx) CITY OF RENTON, WASIIINOTON, ORDINANCE NO. _ 0300].0 I 86/LEGAL 14525442.2 DRAFT 09/17/08091 nn/nonn/nOI PAGE 9 .. Background CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Sub-District I-B December 2008 Amendment Renton, Washington The Boeing Company ("Boeing") has been working with the City of Renton (the "City") since early 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with its 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the "Renton Plant Site"). In October of2003, Boeing prepared an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the Renton Plant Site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (the "EIS"). In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement for Renton Plant Redevelopment (the "Development Agreement") that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant Site, including: • Renton commitments to fund and construct certain public infrastructure improvements; • Boeing commitments to fund certain private aspects of redevelopment; and • Boeing commitments to complete Conceptual Plans when it elects to subdivide, develop, sell, or otherwise alter any property for uses not related to airplane manufacturing. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, Conceptual Planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the Site, known as Sub-Districts I-A and 1-B, and District 2 (see Exhibit 1). City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-A in early 2006. Sub-District I-A is now known as "The Landing" and is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant, and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-8 Sub-District 1-B is located immediately to the south of The Landing, as illustrated on Exhibit 1, and totals approximately 50.7 acres. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub- District 1-B was submitted to the City of Renton in October of2005 and approved in November of 2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined that the uses proposed for Sub-District I-B in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.0 I 051LEGAL14505979. 7 9111108 PAOE 1 impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District I-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the EIS. A Planned Action was approved by the City in December of 2006 under Ordinance No. S242. In September 2007 the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub-District I-B and a Binding Site Plan for the same area under the name "Lakeshore Landing 2" (the "SSP"). The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub-District I-B: Lots SA, SB, SC, 5D, 5E, 7 A, 7B, and 7C. The Original Conceptual Plan addressed infrastructure improvements imposed as conditions of development pursuant to the Development Agreement to support redevelopment of Sub- Districts I-A and I-B. In particular, a portion of Sub-District I-B was reserved for a four-lane extension of 8th Avenue between Logan and Park Avenues (the "Extension"). The Extension and related improvements have been completed. Pursuant to the Original Conceptual Plan, the northern 21.2 acres of Sub-District l-B (Lots SA and 7B of the BSP; formerly described as the "ROFO Area," now referenced as "North 1- B") were planned for retail uses complementary to the Harvest Partners urban retail center to the north. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected retail development of North 1- B did not proceed. Boeing now desires to market North I-B with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying Urban Center -North, District One zone ("UC-N I" or "District One"). The remainder of Sub-District l-B contains approximately 29.5 acres and is described herein as the "Boeing Remainder." The Boeing Remainder is illustrated on Exhibit I. Portions of the Boeing Remainder are currently improved with office buildings that Boeing owns and will continue to utilize as part of on-going airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these existing office buildings are approximately 12.8S acres of the Boeing Remainder that have been identified as potential development parcels ("DPI" through "DP4"). . This amendment of the Original Conceptual Plan (the "Amended Conceptual Plan") describes the current redevelopment plan for Sub-District I-B. The Amended Conceptual Plan retains the retail alternative proposed for North I-B in the Original Conceptual Plan and also includes office and employment and hotel alternatives for Lots SA and 7B, respectively, based upon new market conditions and feedback from the City regarding its redevelopment goals for the UC-NI zone. Boeing seeks the City'S approval of this Amended Conceptual Plan so that it can market North I-B to potential developers under a greater range of uses. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·010SILEGALI4S0S979.7 9111108 PAGE 2 Submittal Included within this submittal is a narrative description of Boeing's proposal for Sub-District I-B, a Conceptual Plan Diagram (see Exhibit 2), and a benefit analysis demonstrating a range of potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the North 1- B portion of the Sub-District (beginning in 2009/20 10 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development illustrated within the Conceptual Plan Diagram on the Boeing Remainder (beginning in 2010 for DP I and 2016 for DP 2 -DP 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.0 1 05fl.EGAL 14505979.7 PAGE3 9/11/08 ,--------------- • Aerial, t:Xhibil J AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 0511.EGAL 145059797 9111108 • PAGE 4 • ('oncepluai Plan Diagram, Exhibit 2 Conceptual Plan Sub-District 1 B North 8th Street OIL o\LIR P o\L P Bl € 0 existing P z .. Garage " Ii ~ OIL DP-1 DP-2 330.000 SF 260,000 SF TOTAL TOTAL OFFICE OFFICE OR OR LAB LAB Legend o Office L Lab H Hotel R Retail P Parking Garage o\L DP ·2 DP-3 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB AMI-NDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVFLOPMENT PLAN 03OO3~1I05/UGALl4505979 7 9111/0R z OIL ! c ~ « DP-3 i! • 0.. DP-4 125,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB • rt;-BDEIND R R H Existing Glrlge OIL DP-4 10-18 Existing .... Garage .... 0 .... I'AGE 5 Conceptual Development Plan This Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-13 is comprised of two somewhat distinct parts. The North 1-13 area makes up the northern portion of the property along 8th Avenue, has been identified as surplus by Boeing operations, and is available for near-term redevelopment. The Boeing Remainder makes up the southern portion of the Sub-District, and contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space with re-use potential and approximately 12.85 acres of land with future redevelopment potential. North 1-13 Boeing recognizes that high-quality development is essential to the successful transition of the area from its industrial roots to the City's vision for the Urban Center-North. Potential developers of lots within Sub-District 1-13 must join with the City to ensure that such development is well-designed and is of a quality and at a scale that is consistent with the City'S long-term vision for the area. As planning for Sub-Districts I-A and 1-13 has progressed, the land south of 8th has been identified as an important component ofthe overall project. The area, now known as North 1-13, is addressed within this Amended Conceptual Plan as developing under several alternative scenarios: Scenario 1, a retail complement to The Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2, a combination of office and employment uses (Lot SA of the 8SP) and hotel uses (Lot 78 of the 8SP) undertaken as separate development by potential developers; or Scenario 3, some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. Each scenario is described below. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of North 1-13 containing a data hub for the Renton Plant Site (Lot 5E of the 8SP), will be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. 1. Scenario 1 Under this scenario, North 1-13 is envisioned to contain a large format "destination" retailer located along Logan Avenue, with supporting retail shops space concentrated along both sides of Park Avenue. Generally, the large format retail development (users with footprints of 50,000 square feet or larger, and building heights up to 45 feet) is planned to occur along 8th and Logan, facing eastward toward Park Avenue. The supporting retail shops space would include a mixture of medium format retailers (ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet in area, with building heights up to 40 feet) and some component of smaller, specialty retail shops overlooking Park A venue. Scenario I anticipates pedestrian connections to occur internally within the site both east toward Park Avenue and south toward 6th Avenue. Vehicle access would occur off of Park Avenue, with loading and delivery functions relying upon Garden Avenue and an internal service road running along the southern edge of the North 1-13 property line. At a maximum lot coverage ratio of 30%, the North 1-8 site could accommodate up to 270,000 square feet of retail space. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 05ILEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 6 2. Scenario 2 a. Office and Employment Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 5A would be developed to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office and employment uses, which may include technology-related laboratory uses for research, development, testing and general and professional office uses. Smaller-scale ground-Ooor and/or freestanding retail uses may also be included in this development scenario. At this maximum density, the majority of accessory parking would be provided in an above-grade structure, and impervious surface coverage would be up to 95%. Buildings would be three to six stories in height, with floorplates of up to approximately 40,000 square feet. The build-out of the Office and Employment Component would be phased, with initial buildings being surface-parked. Depending upon market conditions and demand, future buildings may include structured parking to achieve density of up to 600,000 square feet on- site, or build-out may be limited to a fully surface-parked option, in which overall density would be approximately 300,000 square feet. Development within this range of densities is also possible. b. Hotel/Retail Component Under Scenario 2, Lot 7B would contain a seven to nine story hotel and two separate, small- scale retail uses, such as restaurants, to complement and support the hotel use. The hotel would consist of a maximum of 130,000 square feet; the supporting retail uses would total a maximum of 13,000 square feet (consisting of two buildings, one approximately 5,000 square feet and one approximately 8,000 square feet). All uses would be surfaced parked. The hotel and retail uses would be oriented toward Park Avenue. 3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 represents some combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. In particular, this Scenario anticipates that either Lot 5A or Lot 78 is not redeveloped according to Scenario 2 and is instead redeveloped with retail uses. Any combination implemented would not exceed the overall development capacities contemplated for North I-B. Summary Redevelopment of the North 1-B parcel as contemplated by this Amended Conceptual Plan is consistent with the City'S overarching goal for the Urban Center North: creation of a large- scale, mixed-use development including uses such as retail, research and development, labs, office, employment, residential and commercial. See, e.g., City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Urban Center North Land Use Designation ("Comp. Plan, LU- UCN"), Purpose Statement. This Plan is consistent with applicable goals for the Urban Center North that encourage "a mix of uses to improve the City's tax and employment base" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-266), "support a range and variety of commercial and office uses" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-267) and "allow hospitality uses such as hotels" (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Policy LU-268). The City's vision for District One AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0300)·0 1 OS~.EGALl4S0S979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 7 anticipates similar new development including retail, office, employment, lab, research and development, and hotel uses that ultimately result in a cohesive mixed-use district (Comp. Plan, LU-UCN, Vision-District One). In particular, proposed Scenario I supports the City's vision and applicable goals for the Urban Center North and District One with new retail uses on North 1-13 that complement existing retail uses located north of 8th Avenue. Scenario 2 similarly supports the City's goals and vision for the area with a mix of office, employment and hotel uses on North I-B. Because Scenario 3 consists of some combination of uses from Scenarios I and 2, it is also consistent with the City's vision and goals for the Urban Center North and District One. All three scenarios would add to the City's tax base, provide additional jobs and help to expand the overall mix of uses currently located in District One. Boeing Remainder This portion of the Amended Conceptual Plan is significantly influenced by the presence of four, 19ROs-vintage office buildings that are located throughout the Boeing Remainder (the 10-13,10-16,10-18 and 10-20 buildings). Each structure is five to six stories in height, ranging between 160,000 and 170,000 square feet in area, with a total area for all four buildings of 660,000 square feet. Parking is accommodated in separate, structured garages and in surrounding surface lots, at an overall ratio of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Boeing currently utilizes these four buildings and anticipates no near-term changes that would result in significant rehabilitation, lease or sale of the structures. At the time of the Original Conceptual Plan, a I 960s-vintage lab building, known as the 10-71 building, was located along Logan Avenue. The 10-71 building was demolished in 2008, creating a 4.9-acre development parcel between Logan Avenue and the 10-20 building ("DP I"; Lot 513 of the BSP). For purposes of this Amended Conceptual Plan, we have assumed that the existing office buildings remain and that Boeing will continue to occupy such buildings until at least 2015. If the existing buildings are occupied by other users at some point in the future, such buildings could be supported by parking at a market-driven ratio of 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, rather than at Boeing's more conservative rate. As a result, surplus parking stalls exist within the three existing parking garages, and three additional development parcels are created: a 3.9-acre site between the 10-IB and 10-20 buildings ("DP2"; Lot 5D of the BSP); a I.B-acre site on the west side of Park Avenue north of 6th ("DP3"; the property constituting DP3 was not included in the BSP); and, a 2.2-acre site on the west side of Garden Avenue north of 6th ("DP4"; the property constituting DP4 was not included in the BSP). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 051LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 8 1. DPI This 4.9-acre parcel is located along Logan Avenue, immediately south of the North 1-B property. Fronting on 6th Avenue, it is also adjacent to the 10-20 office building and associated parking structure. Given its location and near-term (20 10) redevelopment potential, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions DPI 's redevelopment as either a new office or laboratory facility consisting of one or more structures and containing approximately 330,000 square feet of new space. Given its size, DP-I could accommodate the parking needs of whichever use was ultimately implemented on the site, such that the site would be self-parked. 2. DP2 and DP4 These two parcels are both infill opportunities that exist when parking requirements for the existing office buildings are reduced. Currently underutilized and serving for the most part as overflow parking areas for Boeing employees, this Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the redevelopment of DP2 and DP4 with new buildings containing either lab or offices uses, consistent with the current development pattern. In some instances where new lab uses could be developed, surplus parking within existing garages could fully support new development, and allow for the creation of new, private open spaces or campus greens within the neighborhood. In order to create this surplus parking opportunity, this Amended Conceptual Plan assumes either that the four existing Boeing office buildings are sold or leased to other users with market-based parking requirements or that Boeing provides new parking areas on the Renton Plant Site to accommodate its employees. The Amended Conceptual Plan contemplates the potential redevelopment of these parcels with approximately 385,000 square feet of new space in multiple structures. Both DP2 and DP4 could accommodate structures containing as much as 260,000 square feet on DP2 and 125,000 square feet on DP4. To accommodate parking, a new multi-storied parking garage could be constructed on DP2, and any additional parking needs would be provided by ear-marking a portion of the stalls within the 10-20 parking garage. On DP4, sufficient surplus parking exists within the existing 10-18 parking garage that no new parking would need to be constructed in this location. 3. DP3 This parcel is located just south of the 10-18 office building, at the corner of 6th and Park Avenues. This Amended Conceptual Plan envisions the development of this parcel with new lab or offIce uses, in both cases housed within a single six-story structure containing 120,000 square feet of new space. If developed as lab space, the building could be supported by dedicated parking stalls within a new, multi-user garage constructed on DP2. If developed as offIce space, parking could either be provided in a new garage on DP3 or accommodated by providing additional parking levels within a DP2 garage. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I OSILEGALl4S0S979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 9 Summary The redevelopment of the Boeing Remainder proposed by this Amended Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the City's vision for the Urban Center North and long-range planning policies, creating a vibrant, commercial corridor south of The Landing between Logan and Garden Avenues, with mid-rise offIce or lab buildings along street frontages and structured parking behind. Whether redeveloped with all office, all lab, or a mix of office and lab uses, the Boeing Remainder could contain up to 835,000 square feet of new space at full build-out. This new mix of uses would be at a scale consistent with the 660,000 square feet of existing office space already located in the Boeing Remainder. Economic Benefit Analysis Summary Boeing's Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District I-B seeks to both allow for the near-term redevelopment of Boeing's underutilized assets while advocating for a mix of uses that significantly improves the City's tax and employment base. Two economic benefit analyses, one completed in 2005 to support the Original Conceptual Plan (Exhibit 3) and a supplement addressing the non-retail redevelopment Scenarios for North I-B (Exhibit 4), have been completed to support this submittal, demonstrating the potential one-time and recurring revenues generated by: (I) Development on the North I-B portion of the Sub-District for either retail use or a combination of hotel and office/employment uses (beginning in 2009/2010 for Lots SA and 7B of the BSP); and (2) Development on the Boeing Remainder for office and/or laboratory uses (beginning in 2010 for DPI and 2016 for DJ> 2 -DJ> 4). AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMEN'I' PLAN 03003·0 I 05iLEGAL 14505979. 7 PAGE 10 9/11108 EXHIBIT 3 2005 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY SUB DISTRICT I-B BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping four parcels in Boeing Sub District I-B at its Renton, Washington facility into a new mix of lab and multi-family land uses. The land area of these redevelopment parcels comprises 12.85 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres comprising Boeing's Sub District I-B Renton property. The proposed new land use mix for these four Boeing redevelopment parcels resulted from an evaluation of the holding capacity of these excess properties and from market potential considerations. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton economic benefits derived from redeveloping these four targeted Boeing Renton parcels if fully developed as follows: Lab Multi-Family Total 900,000 535.500 1,435,500 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if the targeted Renton Boeing parcels are entirely redeveloped and absorbed between 2008 and 2013 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring) in terms of: ~ Jobs ~ Income ~ Property values ~ Public revenues AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVEI.OPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I 051LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE II State of Washington King County City of Renton II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping the four Boeing Renton parcels comprising 12.85 net acres into modern lab and multi-family space are only as valid as underlying assumptions. I These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions and is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the four Boeing Renton parcels into the proposed uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2013 between "redevelopment" of the four Boeing parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary of key findings follow: ~ By 2013 (project stabilization), an estimated 3,300 jobs would be created if the target 12.85 acres comprising four Boeing parcels in Sub District I-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into lab and multi-family uses.2 ~ Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped lab buildings and 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by 2013. I Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to reflect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary figures are expressed In 2005 dollars. 2 Thisjob total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003.() I 05/LEGAL14505979. 7 9111/08 PAGE 12 ~ These lab jobs would generate an additional $ 158 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2013. ~ Of this income total, over $88 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District 1-13 parcels and over $70 million in indirect income would be created in 20 J3 and thereafter. ~ The corresponding increase in property values for the four target Renton redevelopment parcels is forecast at over $550 million by 2013. ~ The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2013 to the State of Washington is estimated at over $3.6 million. This is in addition to over $33.5 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of new lab and multi- family space on the four Boeing parcels at the Renton Sub District 1-13 site. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of redeveloping Boeing's four parcels of excess property in Sub District 1-13 are now summarized. ~ By 2013, it is estimated that over 2,100 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these four Boeing parcels in Sub District I-B. Of this job total, an estimated 1,700 direct jobs would be created in the new lab buildings and 400 indirect jobs in the City would be created by 2013. ~ The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time tax revenues of over $6.2 million during redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-13 parcels. ~ The City is also forecast to receive an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of over $2.3 million in 2013 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new lab and multi-family space. , AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 I 051LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE 13 Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2008 through 2012 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $40,000 during land development and over $6,168,000 during construction of lab buildings and multi-family structures. Sources for these one-time municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. Once the lab and multi-family buildings are completed and absorbed (2013 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at over $2,343,000. Nearly $1,953,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. The City'S employee head tax is forecast to generate over $115,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $275,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING SUB DISTRICT 1-B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS One-time Building Recurring Redevelo ment Scenario Develo ment 2008-2012 In 2013 CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 25 381 1,700 Indirect lohs 9 159 400 Total Jobs 34 540 2,100 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 S 123, 146,400 Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ 17,596,700 Total Income $ 1,696,873 S 84,923,434 $ 140,743,100 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax $ 1,952,593 Sales Tax S 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ 115,496 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ 275,071 Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ 2,343,160 Chart I shows that 2,100 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 1.700 would be direct on-site lab jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 400 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the four Boeing Sub District 1-B parcels. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003'{) I 05/LEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 14 Chart 1 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2013 3,000 2,100 2,000 1,000 With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $141 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2013 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Job AnnualIncome in 2013 SI50 ~ $100 ~ -• S50 s· With Projeci AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I OslLEGAL 14505979.7 911 1/08 Without Project PAGElS Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the four Boeing parcels in Sub-District l-J3. After redevelopment completion in 2013, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from under $74 million to nearly $624 million-an increase of $550 million. Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2013 BOEING SUBDISTRICT 1·B DEVELOPMENT PARCELS WIthout Project WIth Project $0 $200 Dollars In millions AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I 051LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 , $623.8 $400 $600 PAGE 16 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of over $6,208,000 during the estimated 2008 through 2012 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the four Sub District 1-B parcels starting in 2009. This will increase each year until 2013 where it peaks at over $2,343,000 million as an annual flow into the City. 53,000,000 ~ :I III 52,000,000 ~ ~ 01 ,.. $\,000,000 .E u $- Chart 4 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03OO3·010S/LEGALI4S0S979.7 9/1 1108 • Recuning o Onetime PAGE 17 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY (2005) HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON I. PURPOSE Boeing Realty Corporation (BRC) is seeking to estimate the community economic benefits of redeveloping certain Sub District l-B property under option by Harvest Partners at its Renton, Washington facility into additional retail land uses. This "right of first option" (ROFO) property is the Phase II expansion of Harvest Partners' development underway on Boeing's Renton Sub District I B property The ROFO Phase II land area being considered for redevelopment as retail space by Harvest Partners is comprised of 21.20 net acres. It is only a portion of the 50.70 gross acres that comprises Boeing's entire Sub District 1-B Renton property. The specific purpose of this document is to show City of Renton the economic benefits derived from Harvest Partners redeveloping this target ROFO property if fully developed as follows: Retail-Shop Space Retail-Big Box Total 91,000 135,000 226,000 Sq. Ft. The analysis presents an estimate of economic benefits if Harvest Partners excises their option to purchase the targeted Renton Boeing parcels. The benefits are measured by comparing the full redevelopment of this property as retail uses between 2006 and 2008 versus no action. Economic impacts have been measured (one-time and recurring) in terms of: AMENDED CONCEP1UAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003'() I 05/LEGAL14505979.7 9111/08 PAGE 18 ~ Jobs ~ Income ~ Property values ~ Public revenues State of Washington King County City of Renton AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 051LEGAL 14505979. 7 9111108 PAGE 19 II. LIMITATIONS The economic benefit findings of redeveloping Harvest Partners ROFO parcels into retail space are only as valid as the underlying assumptions.3 These assumptions reflect reasonable approximations of actual economic experience in the marketplace. The economic benefit model developed for this assignment reflects these assumptions. It is the culmination of a series of computer-based sensitivity analyses. III. OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS Redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of the Boeing Renton Sub District I B property into retail uses will result in positive economic impacts for the City of Renton, King County and the State of Washington. The text, charts and tables that follow summarize economic findings by comparing job, income and property value differences by year 2008 between "redevelopment" of the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels versus "no use" scenarios. A summary ofkey findings follow: ~ By 2008 (project stabilization), an estimated 1,667 jobs would be created if the target 21.20 acres comprising Harvests Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District I-B are fully redeveloped and absorbed into shop space and big box retail uses.4 ~ Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 808 indirect jobs would be created by 2008. ~ These jobs would generate an additional $ 80 million in recurring annual income at full occupancy in 2008. , Although not guaranteed, the economic benefit estimates expressed in this document are intended to rellect information from sources deemed to be authoritative and reliable. All monetary flgures are expressed In 2005 dollars. 4 Thisjob total includes both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect jobs is the measure of secondary job creation resulting (induced) from expenditures associated with direct job creation. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OS/LEGAL 14505979.7 9/11108 PAGE20 » Of this income total, nearly $45 million in direct income would be created on the redeveloped Sub District I-B ROFO parcels and over $35 million in indirect income would be created in 2008 and thereafter. » The corresponding increase in property values for the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels is forecast at nearly $53 million by 2008. » The increase in recurring annual tax revenues by 2008 to the State of Washington is estimated at nearly $5.1 million. This is in addition to nearly $3.8 million in one-time state revenues collected during redevelopment and absorption of the additional retail space on the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels. IV. RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFIT FINDINGS The economic benefits to the City of Renton of Harvest Partners redeveloping this excess Boeing property in Sub District I-B are now summarized: » By 2008, it is estimated that over 1,061 jobs would be created in the City of Renton alone from redeveloping these Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub District I-B. Of this job total, an estimated 859 direct jobs would be created in the redeveloped buildings and 202 indirect City jobs would be created by 2008. » The City of Renton is estimated to gain one-time revenues of nearly $667,000 during redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO Sub District loB parcels. » The City is also forecast to recei ve an increase in recurring annual tax revenues of nearly $856,000 in 2008 and thereafter upon full build-out and absorption of the new retail space. Table I summarizes these estimated benefits to the City in terms of new jobs, income and municipal revenues. These data reflect one-time benefits during development as well as estimates of annually recurring economic benefits. For example, during the assumed 2006 through 2008 development period, accrued City tax revenues are estimated to generate over $66,000 during land development and over $60 1,000 during construction of the retail shop and big box space. Sources for these municipal revenues are sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05ILEGAL 14505979. 7 9111/08 l'AGE21 Once the retail space is completed and absorbed (2008 estimate), annually recurring tax revenues are projected at nearly $856,000. Nearly $187,000 of this total will result from the City of Renton's share of property taxes. Annual sales taxes generated from the retail space is estimated to exceed $584,000. The City's employee head tax is forecast to generate over $58,000 each year and real estate transfer taxes are estimated at over $26,000 annually. Table 1 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS HARVEST PARTNERS SUB DISTRICT 1-B Redevelo ment Scenario CITY JOBS Direct Jobs 42 92 Indirect Johs 16 39 Total Jobs 58 \31 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 Indirect Income $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 Total Income $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 CITY TAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ 66,379 $ 295,201 Employee Head Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 306,257 Totul Tax Revenues $ 601,458 Recurring In 2008 859 202 1,061 $ 44,657,600 $ 8,889,439 $ 53,547,039 $ 186,873 $ 584,225 $ 58,346 $ 26,325 $ 855,769 Chart I shows that 1,061 permanent jobs are estimated to be created within the City of Renton. Of these, 859 would be direct on-site jobs in the City of Renton, resulting in an estimated 202 additional indirect off-site jobs in the City. This assumes that one quarter of the indirect jobs created occur within the City of Renton. This compares to no such jobs without the redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO property in Boeing's Renton Sub District I-B area. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I 051LEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 Chart 1 PAGE 22 City of Renton Permanent Jobs Created In 2008 1,200 1;061 800 400 . With Project Without Project Chart 2 illustrates that these jobs will generate new annual income within the City of Renton estimated at nearly $54 million. This corresponding income reflects both indirect off-site as well as direct on-site income creation in 2008 and thereafter. Chart 2 New Joh Annual Income in 2008 560 ,-------------------------- : 540 ·\----\·":l;'·" :l! ,§i ... o w • . S: $10 1----1 ~ $. Wllh I)roject Without Project Chart 3 shows the increases in City of Renton property values of redeveloping the Harvest Partners ROFO parcels in Sub-District I-B. After redevelopment completion in 2008, the assessed value of these parcels is estimated to increase from $8.6 million to nearly $61.3 million-an increase of $52.7 million. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0)00)·01 05n.EGAL 14 505979. 7 9/11108 PAGE 2) Chart 3 PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY 2008 REDEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PROPERTY Without Project With Project $0 $25 Dollars in millions $50 $61.3 $75 Chart 4 shows that the City of Renton will accrue one-time tax revenues from sales and real estate transfer taxes of nearly $668,000 during the estimated 2006 through 2007 development period. In addition, the City is forecast to increasingly receive annually recurring tax revenues from redevelopment of the Harvest Partners ROFO portion of Boeing's Renton Sub District 1-B property starting in 2007. This will increase until 2008 where it peaks at nearly $856,000 as an ongoing annual cash flow to the City. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0)00)·01 osn.EGAL 14505979. 7 9111108 Chart 4 PAGE 24 New City Of Renton Tax Revenues $1,000,000 ., $800,000 .. " " .. .. $600,000 .. ~ .. $400,000 .. .... . f' $200,000 u $- 2008 2009 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I 051LEGAL 14505979. 7 9/11/08 2010 2011 2012 2013 o Recurring III Onetime PAGE 25 Table I CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOUR BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY One-time Land One-time Building Redevelopment Scenario Development Development 2008·2012 CfrY.IOIIS Direct Jobs 25 381 Indirect Jobs 9 159 Total Jobs 34 540 ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ 1,285,625 $ 49,960,680 $ Indirect Income $ 411,248 $ 34,962,754 $ Total Income $ 1,696,873 $ 84,923,434 $ CITYTAXREYENUES Property Tax $ Sales Tax $ 40,234 $ 3,049,318 $ Employee Head Tax $ Real Estate Trans fer Tax $ 3,118,965 $ Total Tax Revenues $ 40,234 $ 6,168,283 $ HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT I-B PROPERTY Redevelo ment Scenario CITY.IOBS Direct Jobs Indirect Jobs Total Jobs ANNlJAL INCOME Direct Income $ Indirect Income $ Total Income $ CITYTAX REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax $ Employee Head Tax Real Estate Tmnsfer Tax Total Tax Revenues $ AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I OI/LEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 42 92 16 39 58 131 2,121,030 $ 9,432,720 $ 678,445 $ 3,384,707 $ 2,799,475 $ 12,817,427 $ $ 66,379 $ 295,201 $ $ $ 306,257 $ 66,379 $ 601,458 $ Recurring In 2013 1,700 400 2,100 123,146,400 17,596,700 140,743,100 1,952,593 115,496 275,071 2,343,160 Recurring In 2008 859 202 1,061 44,657,600 8,889,439 53,547,039 186,873 584,225 58,346 26,325 855,769 PAGE 26 COMBINED ECONOMIC BENEFITS HARVEST PARTNERS ROFO PARCELS & BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS BOEING RENTON SUB DISTRICT I-B I'ROPERTY Redevelopment Scenario CrrYJ08S Direct Jobs Indirect Jobs Total Jobs ANNUAL INCOME Direct Income $ Indirect Income $ Tota/lncome $ CITYTAXREVENlIE'l Property Tax Sales Tax $ Employee I-lead Tax Real Estate Tmnsfer Tax Total Tax Revenues $ AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·0 I 05n.EGAL 14505979. 7 9/11108 67 25 92 3,406,655 1,089,693 4,496,348 106,613 106,613 One-time Building Recurring Development 2006-2012 In 2013 473 2,559 198 602 671 3,161 $ 59,393,400 $ 167,804,000 $ 38,347,461 $ 26,486,139 $ 97,740,861 $ 194,290,139 $ 2,139,466 $ 3,344,519 $ 584,225 $ 173,842 $ 3,425,222 $ 301,3% $ 6,769,741 $ 3,198,929 PAGE 27 TOTAL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS BOEING & HARVEST PARTNERS PARCELS COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IN SUB DISTRICT I-B City of Renton Pennanent ,Jobs Created In 2013 4,000 3,161 3,000 2,000 1,000 j----I With Project Without Project New Job Annual Income in 2013 $200 5194 C 51S0 :! '.} ! OS 5100 S ~ 5S0 $- With Project Without ProJeCi New City Of Renton Tax Revenues 54,000,000 il " Sl,OOO,OOO " .. > &! .. .. 52,000,000 o Recurring • Onetime ... g 51,000,000 5- 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20 II 20 II 2013 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 OSn-1lGAL 14S0S979. 7 9/11/0R PAGE 28 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT I-B, NORTH IB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON This Economic Benefit Study (Exhibit 4) was prepared to help align, support and provide context for recent land use amendments applicable to Sub-District J-B as reflected in the attached Conceptual Redevelopment Plan. The analysis included in this Exhibit 4 was developed by CB Richard Ellis in an effort to conform to prior analyses performed for the Lakeshore Sub District J-B. CB Richard Ellis obtained the information contained herein from sources we believe to be reliable. However, we have not verified its accuracy and make no guarantee, warranty or representation about it. It is submitted subject to the possibility of errors, omissions, and change of conditions. Any projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates used are for example only and do not represent the current or future performance ofthe property. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 05iLEOAL 14505979.7 9111108 PAOE 29 EXHIBIT 4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT STUDY, 2008 SUPPLEMENT SUB DISTRICT I-B, NORTH IB COMPONENT BOEING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS RENTON, WASHINGTON I. HISTORY The original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District l-B ("SDI B"), approved by the City of Renton, included a mix of multi-family and retail development. Over the past two years, however, the Puget Sound real estate market has changed. Highest and best use for the north 21.2 acres of SD IB (referenced by the original Plan as the "ROFO" area; now referenced as "North 1 B"), has shifted away from retail and multifamily to office/commercial and hotel uses. The redevelopment now anticipated for North 1 B includes a hotel and restaurants on Lot 7B and officelbusinesslR&D uses on Lot 5A. This analysis supplements the Economic Benefit Analysis performed in 2005 to support the original Conceptual Plan for SDIB by generally assessing the economic benefit associated with redevelopment of North 1 B for office and hotel uses. As discussed in greater detail below, we conclude that the anticipated hotel and office redevelopment of SD 1 B will benefit the City, County and State at a rate equal to or greater than the retail redevelopment program assumed by the original Conceptual Plan. U. SCOPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HOTELIRESTAURANT Lot 7B is approximately 5.07 acres. On the south side of N 8th Street, the property is bordered by Park and Garden Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with a regional hotel management and development company with more than 20 years of experience in the Pacific Northwest.. A hotel and commercial development is planned according to the following program: ~ Residence Inn by Marriott; "Extended Stay" ~ 170 rooms ~ 130,000 sq. ft ~ Total employees -approximately 45 to 50 AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-0 t 051LEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/0R PAGE30 » Average Daily Rate (ADR) -approximately $165 » Annual beginning revenue of approximately $8,500,000 » Completion is projected in early 2010 » 2 restaurant pads » 2 "sit down" style restaurants; one approximately 5,000 sq. ft., the second approximately g,OOO sq. ft. » Total employees for both restaurants -approximately 1 00 » Annual beginning revenue of approximately $3,500,000 (for both restaurants) » Completion is projected in early 2010 The combined value of the hotel and restaurant development is projected to exceed $42 million (land + construction). OFFICE Lot 5A is approximately 14.21 acres. On the south side of N gth Street, the property is bordered by Logan and Park Avenues North. The parcel is currently subject to a purchase and sale agreement with one of the largest publicly traded office and industrial property developers in the United States. An officelbusinessfR&D development is planned according to the following program: » Class "An office project for general office use » 4 buildings @ +/-150,000 sq. ft each; total office of 300k to 600k sq. ft. » Project to be 1 00% built out by 2014 » 2,000 to 3,000 employees/jobs » Parking is planned to be a combination of structural and surface, based on the ultimate size of the office buildings » Construction is projected to start in 2009 with completion of the initial phase in 2010 The combined value of the office development is projected to exceed $165 million (land + construction). III. ANALYSIS The 2005 Economic Benefit Study addressed and quantified the original Conceptual Plan's positive effect on jobs, annual income and city tax revenues. That analysis continues to be relevant to Scenarios 1 and 3 of the Amended Conceptual Plan now proposed. With respect to Scenario 2, which assumes redevelopment of the North 1B portion of Sub-District 1 B for officelbusiness/R&Dlhotellcommercial uses as described above, we conclude the following: AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003·01 05/LEGAL 14505979.7 9/11/08 PAGE 31 • Proposed sit-down restaurants and hospitality components complement the current retail development at The Landing. Proposed additional hotel lodging near the downtown core encourages revenue generating traffic and a tourism multiplier that will be beneficial to the City. • Washington state sales tax on the improvements and excise tax on the sale of the land should exceed $15 million. Using an industry standard of 200 square feet for each employee, the office portion should directly bring 3,000 jobs to Renton in additions to the 150 jobs created by the hotel and restaurants. • While there are many variables, we conclude that the current/revised conceptual plan for SDlB essentially substitutes some hotel and restaurant development for retail and multi-family uses and continues to provide similar economic benefits to those anticipated as part of the original conceptual plan. Proposed changes to the original Conceptual Plan provide for an increasingly diverse redevelopment of downtown Renton. A new hotel, restaurants, retail space and additional class A office space will continue to draw people to the downtown area. The city, county and state will continue to benefit via additional jobs, increased property values and public revenues. AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 03003-01 05/LEGALl4505979. 7 9/11/08 PAGE J2 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS For the Amended Conceptual Plan City of Renton, Washington September 2008 BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1-B ENVIROMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC FOR THE CITY OF RENTON SEPTEMBER 2008 In Compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21 C) And the City of Renton SEPA Policies and Procedures BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1-B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the City of Renton (the City) have been working together since 2003 to evaluate potential redevelopment strategies associated with Boeing's 737 facility in Renton, Washington (the Renton Plant site). The City issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement in October 2003 (2003 EIS). The 2003 EIS evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Renton Plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a depiction of the EIS site area). Sub- District 1-B comprises a portion of this overall site area. In December 2003, Boeing and the City entered into a Development Agreement that established certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant site. Per the terms of the Development Agreement, conceptual planning was anticipated to occur incrementally, and would be completed for three discrete areas of the site, known as Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B and District 2 (see Exhibit 1 in the 2008 Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City of Renton, and Figure 1-2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a depiction of these districts). The Renton City Council approved Boeing's Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in December 2003 and amended it in October 2004. Boeing subsequently sold this portion of the site to Harvest Partners in December 2004. Harvest Partners again amended the Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-A in early 2006. Sub- District 1-A is now known as "the Landing" project which is currently under construction as an urban retail center, including retail, residential, restaurant and theatre uses. Sub-District 1-B is located immediately south of the Landing and totals approximately 50.7 acres (see Figure 1-1). A Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B was submitted to the City in October 2005 and approved in November 2005 (called the Original Conceptual Plan herein). Thereafter, Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-B from the City (per the State Environmental Policy Act rules, WAC 197-11-164 and RCW 43-21 C.031). Under SEPA, a "Planned Action" deSignation indicates that the significant environmental impacts of a project have been adequately addressed in an EIS prepared at the plan level (in this case the 2003 EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning stage), and that the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan .. As a next step in the request for a Planned Action deSignation, the Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis (2006 Consistency Analysis) was prepared in May 2006. The 2006 Consistency Analysis included environmental analysis of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan and compared it to the assumptions and environmental analysis included in the 2003 EIS. The Consistency Analysis also evaluated the request for designation of proposed uses in Sub-District 1-B as Planned Actions under SEPA. The Consistency Analysis concluded that the environmental impacts of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-District 1-B (and the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment plans for both Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-B) were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 1 • Source: Boeing '· ... BlUMEN ~CONSULTING ~,GROUP , INC Boeing Renton Sub·District 1·B Consistency Analysis • Figure 1·1 Boeing Renton Plant Site Districts A Planned Action was approved for Sub·District 1·B in December 2006 by the Renton City Council, under Ordinance No. 5242. In September 2007, the City approved a Master Site Plan for Sub·District 1·B and a Binding Site Plan (BSP) for the same area under the name of "Lakeshore Landing 2". The BSP resulted in the creation of eight additional lots within Sub· District 1·B: Lots 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 7A, 7B and 7C. Due to a change in market conditions, redevelopment of the northern part of Sub·District 1·B did not proceed. Based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City, and the provisions of the Urban Center -North (UC·N1) or District One zone, Boeing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub· District 1 ·B. The Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels for Sub·District 1·B that are within those evaluated for this district in the 2003 EIS and the 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see the following description of the Amended Conceptual Plan for details). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub·District 1·B's UC·N1 or District One zoning classification. Boeing is now seeking approval of their Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub·District 1·B and a Planned Action designation by the City. Goal of this Analvsls. This environmental analysis is intended to determine whether the range of redevelopment and associated impacts under the Sub-District 1·B Amended Conceptual Plan are within the range addressed in the 2003 EIS. If determined to be within this range, Sub· District 1·B would be eligible for designation as a Planned Action. 1.2 COMPARISON OF REDEVELOPMENT RANGES 2003 EIS The 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive P/en Amendment E/S evaluated a site area that included approximately 275 acres of Boeing property and 15 acres of contiguous property owned by others. Sub·Districts 1·A and 1·B are portions of this overall site area. Sub·District 1· B is generally equivalent to Subarea C in the 2003 EIS (see Figures 1·1 and 1·2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). Four redevelopment scenarios were analyzed in the 2003 EIS (Alternatives 1 -4). These scenarios encompassed a broad range of land uses that the Boeing Renton Plant site could potentially accommodate in the future, given existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies and designations (note: the UC·N1 or District One Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification were adopted for the site area in November 2003). The redevelopment assumed in Sub·District 1·B by 2015 in the EIS ranged from approximately 880,000 to 1,830,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The assumed redevelopment by 2030 ranged from approximately 880,000 to 2,570,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab, multifamily and existing office uses. The Sub· District 1·B redevelopment ranges included 480,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 660,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 3 and 4 within the overall totals (see Tables 1·1 and 1·2 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis). Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1·B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 3 2006 Consistency Analysis The Original Conceptual Plan for redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed a range of land uses and potential redevelopment levels for Sub-District 1-B by 2015 and 2030. These land uses and potential redevelopment levels were within the ranges addressed in the 2003 EIS. In the 2006 Consistency Analysis, it was assumed that redevelopment of Sub-District 1-B by 2015 would range from approximately 1,265,000 to 1,808,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. By 2030, the 2006 Consistency Analysis assumed that redevelopment would range from approximately 1,535,000 to 2,258,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily uses, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. All of Sub-District 1-B was assumed to be fully built out by 2030 (see Table 1-3 in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for a summary of the redevelopment proposed under the Original Conceptual Plan in the 2006 Consistency Analysis; see Figure 1-3 in Appendix A for the Sub-District 1-B Original Conceptual Plan). Sub·Dlstrlct 1·B Amended Conceptual Plan As indicated above, based on new market conditions, ongoing feedback from the City and provisions of the UC-N1 or District One zone, Boeing is currently proposing an Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-B (the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan is on file at the City of Renton). As reflected in the Amended Conceptual Plan, Sub-District 1-B is comprised of two areas: the North 1-B and Boeing Remainder areas (see Figure 1-1). The approximately 21.2-acre North 1-B area is located in the northern portion of the district, immediately south of N. 8th Street. The North 1-B area has been identified for surplus by Boeing, and is available for near-term development. The approximately 29.5-acre Boeing Remainder area is located in the southern portion of the district, immediately north of N. 6th Street. The Boeing Remainder area contains 660,000 square feet of existing office space in several buildings that are owned and currently used by Boeing as part of ongoing airplane manufacturing plant operations. Interspersed between these buildings and associated parking structures are approximately 12.9 acres of land with future redevelopment potential,. Figure 1-2 shows the general locations of the assumed future uses for Sub-District 1-B redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan (the oval shapes labeled 0 -Office, L - Lab, H -Hotel, R -Retail, and P -Parking Garage). Existing garages and office buildings (the rectangular shapes labeled 10-13, 10-16, 10-18 and 10-20) are also depicted on Figure 1-2. Table 1·1 provides breakdowns of the assumed redevelopment levels for the various areas in Sub-District 1-B by 2015 and 2030 under the Amended Conceptual Plan. In total, it is assumed that Sub-District 1 B would feature between 852,500 and 1,325,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015 and between 1,765,000 and 2,238,000 square feet of redevelopment by 2030. It is also assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub-District 1-B until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 4 J:. 1:: o Z North 8th Street G) O\L p Existing Garage P p O\L\R 8 10-18 L--'~ z R R H Existing Garage O\L j @ °YOP ... I oCt O\L . O\L ~ / 10-20/ __ ~L DP~~ ____ /. NO~P-2 Street ; DP-1 DP 2 DP-3 I 330,000 SF -. TOTAL ~OT~ SF OFFICE OFFICE OR I OR LAB LAB Legend o Office L Lab H Hotel R Retail P Parking Garage Source: Boeing '· ... BUJMlEN ·~CONSULTING 5:GROUP, INC 120,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB DP-4 126,000 SF TOTAL OFFICE OR LAB Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Consistency Analysis I 10-16 I r-- Existing M Garage ~ ..... '-- Figure 1-2 Sub-District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan Table 1·1 SUB·DISTRICT 1·B AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS· 2016 & 2030 Redevelopment Areas Land Percent Total Building Percent Area Bulldout Area· Square Feet Buildout Acres (2015) (2016) (2030) I (approx.1 North 1·B Options Lots SA & 7B 21.2 100% 100% Retail and/or Office, 270,000 -743,000 Employment Hotel Relail SUB·TOTAL 21.2 270,000 -743.000 Boeing Remainder DP·1 Options 4.9 100%· 100% Office or Lab 330,000 Dp·2 Options 3.9 50% 100% Office or Lab 130,000 Total Building Area· Square Feet (2030) 270,000 -743,000 270,000 -743,000 330,000 260,000 DP-3 Options"" 1.8 50% 100% " Office or Lab 60,000 120,000 DP-4 Options 2.2 50% 100% Office or Lab 62,500 125,000 Existing OffIce Uses 16:7 100% . 100% 660,000 SUB·TOTAL 29.5 582,500 1,495.000 TOTAL 50.7 852.500 -1.325,500 1,765.000·2,238,000 Source: Boeing, 2008. Note: For purposes of analysis. it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015. In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses. Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1·B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 6 that the 660,000 square feet of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses (see Table 1·1). North 1-B For the North 1-B area, the Amended Conceptual Plan identifies three possible redevelopment scenarios: Scenario 1 features retail uses that would complement the Landing's urban retail center to the north; Scenario 2 features a combination of office and employment uses (on Lot 5A of the BSP) and hotel and retail/restaurant uses (on Lot 7B of the BSP); or Scenario 3 which features some combination of those uses of Scenarios 1 and 2, within the overall redevelopment levels assumed for North 1·B. Under all three scenarios, a small portion of the site containing a data hub for the Boeing Renton Plant (Lot 5E of the BSP) would be retained by Boeing for the foreseeable future. Under Scenario 1, the North 1·B area could feature up to 270,000 square feet of retail uses, under Scenarios 2 and 3, the North 1·B area could feature up to 743,000 square feet of office, employment, hotel and/or retail uses. The North 1·B area is assumed to be fully built out by 2015 (see Table 1·1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Boeing Remainder All of the available redevelopment parcels that comprise the Boeing Remainder area (DP-1, DP· 2, Dp·3 and DP·4) are assumed to be redeveloped as either office and/or lab uses under the Amended Conceptual Plan. By 2015, it is assumed that Dp·1 would be fully built out and Dp·2, DP-3 and DP-4 would be 50 percent built out. It is assumed that the overall Boeing Remainder area could feature up to 582,500 square feet of new redevelopment by 2015. By 2030, it is assumed that all of the development parcels in the Boeing Remainder area would be fully built out and that this area could feature up to 1,495,000 square feet of redevelopment; this includes assumed reuse of the existing office space by others by 2030 (see Table 1·1 and the 2008 Amended Conceptual Redevelopment Plan on file at the City for details). Comparison Table 1·2 provides a comparison of the Sub·District 1-B redevelopment levels assumed under the EIS Alternatives (evaluated in the 2003 EIS), the Original Conceptual Plan (evaluated in the 2006 Consistency Analysis) and the Amended Conceptual Plan (evaluated in this Consistency Analysis). As shown in Table 1·1 and 1·2 and described in this section, the proposed Sub· District 1-B Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The mix and development levels of specific uses have been modified under the Amended Conceptual Plan (see Figure 1-2 and Table 1-1). The range of uses called for in the Amended Conceptual Plan are all permitted uses in Sub-District 1-B's UC-N1 or District One zone. Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1·B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 7 Table 1·2 SUB·DISTRICT 1·B REDEVELOPMENT LEVELS COMPARISON- 2016 & 2030 2016 2030 Total Building Area -Total Building Area - Square Feet Square Feet 2003 EIS 880,000 -1,830,000 880,000 -2,570,000 2006 Consistency 1,265,000 -1,808,000' 1,535,000 -2,258,000' Analysis 2008 Amended 852,500 -1,325,5003 1,765,000.2,238,0003 Conceptual Plan Source: Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS, 2003, Boeing 2006, Boeing 2008, 1 Includes the assumed reuse of 480,000 -660,000 SF of existing office space, depending on the EIS Alternative, 'Includes the assumed reuse of 660,000 SF of existing office space, 3 For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that Boeing would continue to occupy the 660,000 square feet (SF) of existing office space until at least 2015; therefore, this existing space is not included as part of the total square footage of new development in 2015, In 2030 it is assumed that the 660,000 SF of existing office space would become surplus and could be reused by other uses, Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1·B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 8 1.3 COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SUB·DISTRICT 1·B AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN As described in the previous section, the proposed Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan calls for an overall range of uses and development levels that are consistent with those assumed for this district in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. As a result, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-8 under the Amended Conceptual Plan are expected to be within the range of potential impacts identified for redevelopment under the EIS Alternatives and the Original Conceptual Plan (see Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for the 2006 Consistency Analysis on the Original Conceptual Plan). No new analysis of environmental impacts was determined to be necessary for the Amended Conceptual Plan. However, an analysis of the potential total vehicle trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan is included in this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. The 2006 Consistency Analysis compared the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-8 Original Conceptual Plan (and Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8 plans cumulatively) to the potential impacts from redevelopment disclosed in the 2003 EIS for the EIS Alternatives. Stormwater Drainage, Transportation, Land Use Patterns, and Relationship to Plans and Policies were the key environmental elements analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. As such, more expanded analyses of these elements were provided. A comparison of potential impacts on all other elements of the environment was presented in matrix form. The 2006 Consistency Analysis determined that the potential impacts from redevelopment under the Original Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8, and for Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8 plans cumulatively, were within the range of impacts adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, the potential impacts from redevelopment of Sub-District 1-8 under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be within the range of potential impacts identified in the 2006 Consistency Analysis and adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS for all environmental elements. Transportation As indicated above, an analysis of the potential trip generation that would result from redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan was conducted for this Consistency Analysis in order to confirm that potential transportation impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2003 EIS and 2006 Consistency Analysis. Trip generation assumptions for redevelopment under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan were compared to the assumptions that were used to evaluate transportation impacts in the EIS. 8elow is a brief summary of the results of this analysis; see Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for the complete transportation analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest). A potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-District 1-8 were analyzed from a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpOint in the transportation analysis for this Consistency Analysis (see Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for details on these worst-case assumptions). Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the 2003 EIS were used to estimate AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the mix and level of uses under the Sub-District 1-8 Amended Conceptual Plan (see Table 1 in Appendix B for a comparison of the estimated 2015 and 2030 AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation from redevelopment Boeing Renton S ub-Dlstrlct 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis September, 2008 9 under the Amended Conceptual Plan compared to trip generation under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS -the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the EIS). Attachment A to Appendix B also contains detailed trip generation estimates for both Sub-District 1-A and 1-8 and compares them in a cumulative manner to those estimates included in the 2003 EIS for all EIS Alternatives. Total off-site vehicle trip generation under the Amended Conceptual Plan would be significantly less than the trip generation estimated under Alternative 4 in the 2003 EIS for both SUb-District 1-8 independently, and for Sub-Districts 1-8 and 1-A cumulatively. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-District 1-8 relative to Alternative 4 would range from approximately 203 AM peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 PM peak hour trips in 2015. Trip generation levels during the AM and PM peak hours at both the 2015 and 2030 periods would be less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and identify mitigation in the 2003 EIS. Therefore, based on the estimated trip generation, there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation with redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8, as compared to those disclosed in the 2003 EIS. Similarly, these conclusions regarding trip generation, transportation impacts and mitigation reached in the transportation analysis are consistent with those reached in the 2006 Consistency Analysis (see Appendix A). Further, based upon the review of potential trip generation from redevelopment in Sub-District 1- 8 and evaluation of transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the 2003 EIS, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-District 1-8 or cumulative redevelopment of Sub-Districts 1-A and 1-8, as compared to those infrastructure improvements outlined in the 2003 EIS. 1.4 CONCLUSION Redevelopment and associated environmental impacts/mitigation under the Amended Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-District 1-8 are considered to be within the range of redevelopment and associated impacts/mitigation under the EIS Alternatives analyzed in the 2003 EIS, as well as the range of redevelopment and impacts/mitigation under the Original Conceptual Plan analyzed in the 2006 Consistency Analysis. Sub-District 1-8 is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation by the City of Renton without undergoing any additional SEPA review (per RCW43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315). Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmentel Consistency Analysis September, 2008 10 APPENDIX A Boeing Renton Sub-District 1-B Environmental Consistency Analysis -2006 APPENDIX A Provided Separately APPENDIX B Boeing Amended Conceptual Plan (Sub-District 1-B) Transportation Consistency Analysis -2008 DATE: TO: cc: FROM: RE: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC August 25, 2008 Memorandum Neil Watts, Director, Development Services Department, City of Renton Mike Blumen, President, Blumen Consulting G roup, Inc. Michael J. Read, P.E., Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Boeing Conceptual Plan (Sub-district 1 B) -Transportation Consistency Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment under the Amended Conceptual Plan with the 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment E1S DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The memorandum summarizes a detailed comparative trip generation analysis of the Boeing Conceptllal Redevelopment Plan -Sub-di.rtrid 113, a proposed amended conceptual redevelopment plan calling for mixed use development within Sub-district 113 of the overall Boeing Renton Plant site. Redevelopment of the 290-acre Boeing Renton Plant site was evaluated in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment (BRCPA) EIS (2003). Sub-district 113 is noted as Subarea C in the 2003 EIS. This analysis addresses consistency with the transportation clement of the EIS, and specifically with the land use and trip generation assumptions that were used to evaluate the transportation impacts of redevelopment. A Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for Sub-District 1-13 was submitted to the City of Renton in October of 2005 and approved in November of 2005 (the "Original Conceptual Plan"). Thereafter Boeing sought a Planned Action designation for Sub-District 1-13 and an Environmental Consistency Analysis was prepared (the "Consistency Analysis"). The Consistency Analysis determined. that the uses proposed for Sub-District 1-13 in the Original Conceptual Plan, together with the cumulative impacts of the uses approved for Sub-District 1-A, were within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts addressed in the EIS. As part of the Original Consistency Analysis, 'rENW completed a detailed evaluation of trip generation and transportation infrastructure assumptions and compared them to the 2003 EIS, and found that the range and mix of land uses would not generated additional impacts beyond those levels originally evaluated. Due to a change in market conditions, the expected development of North 1-13 did not proceed as evaluated in the Original Consistency Analysis. Boeing now desires to market North 1-13 with a greater range of uses (i.e., hotel, office, employment, research/ development, business and related uses, in addition to retail) that are permitted within the underlying UC-N1 zone. The timing of a land surplus decision by Boeing or redevelopment associated with the majority of the Boeing Remainder is currently envisioned to occur between 2 and 20 years in the future. This analysis evaluates the Amended Conceptual Plan to ensure the range and mix of land uses remain within those parameters evaluated in the 2003 E1S and the Original Consistency Analysis. www.lenw.com PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 96155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Fr.e (888) 220·7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub-district 1 B of the BRCPA EIS August 25, 2006 Page 2 For traffic analysis purposes, proposed uses under the /loeing Conceptual Plan -Sub-districtt /l were assumed to comprise approximately 1,578,000 square-feet of new development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings at build-out in 2030. The Amended Plan assumes approximately 1,182,500 square-feet in new office/lab space, a 176-room extended stay hotel facility, and 13,000 square feet of restaurant uses developed by 2015. By 2030, an additional 252,500 square feet of new office/lab uses were assumed to be constructed. Under the 2015 horizon year, the existing 660,000 square-feet of Boeing- occupied office space within Sub-district 113 was assumed to continue to be used by Boeing. By 2030, this space was assumed to be sold or leased to non-Boeing owners/tenants. Existing Boeing employees within these buildings were assumed to be consolidated within Boeing operations located in facilities west of Logan Avenue N., consistent with the BRCPA EIS assumptions. This traffic assumption (related to relocation of Boeing employees) provides a worst-case analysis of transportation impacts from redevelopment (Refer to the Consistency Analysis Memo by Blumen Consulting Group for more information on rhe assumed breakdown of uses under the amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-districtt B). This memorandum analyzes a potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-district 113 from a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpoint. Therefore, within individual Development Parcels (DP) noted within the Amended /loeil(g Conceptual Plan -Sub-districtt /l office uses were primarily assumed; it should be noted that retail uses in the northern portion of the Sub-district and laboratory/technology uses in the southern portion could be developed in lieu of office space. Retail and lab uses have different trip generating charocteristics than traditional office use. For trip generation comparisons however, new commercial buildings were all assumed to contain traditional office uses (with the exception of the hotel and restaurant uses noted above) in order to evaluate a worst-case scenario. Trip Generation Comparison Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRCPA E1S were used to estimate a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by redevelopment under the Amended /loeing Conceptual Plall-Sub-districttB. Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated 2015 and 2030 a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation of redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan compared with those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportation impacts and outline mitigation measures for Alternative 4 in the BRCPA EIS (i.e., the maximum redevelopment scenario analyzed in the EIS). Detailed trip generation comparisons to all EIS alternatives are provided as Attachment A. In addition, trip generation comparisons of cumulative impacts of both development of Sub-district 1 B together with development of Sub-district 11\ (fhe Landing) is also provided herein. The Landing project was approved and is under construction. As shown in Table 1, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels of redevelopment under the /loeillg Conceptual Pion are significantly less than those estimated under Alternative 4 in the BRCPA EIS. Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-district 113 would range from approximately 203 a.m. peak hour trips in 2030 to nearly 599 p.m. peak bour trips in 2015. These trip generation levels would all be less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and develop mitigation for the 2003 E1S. Transpgrtation Engineering Northwest Ll C PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 96155 Office/Fax (206) 361·7333 • Toll Free (666) 220·7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub·district 1 B of the BRCPA EIS August 25. 2008 Page 3 Table 1 -Sub·distric! 1 B 2015/2030 Trip Generation Comparison ~n4~ Development Scenario Enter Exit Total AMP_kH~IJ' RnAinn I PIAn (Alln ?nnRI 1 1Rn ?nR 1 ,,,g ~, HiA d BRCPAEIS 1,"Of "" 'I,tO" .frnm . t=1~ .'?7 .RO .'OR PM p""" Hn .. , R""inn I Olon fA"" ?MAI ?"n 0"" 1 ?n" ~ 'A I d BRCPA EIS .>:, .. I ..... ~ 'I.OU~ f. "'" .1nA -"A" ."00 ~n'n Development Scenario Enter Exit Total AM p""" Hn .. , Rn .. inn I PIAn (All" ?nnRI ? n,n '?7 ? '''7 ~"h.rli.trid 1 R A". .. ; d ?1Q!l 'R1 ?'''Rn BRCPA EIS ni • f.,,~ "'" .1RO . ,,, .?M DM D",," Un", R" .. inn Olon fA"" ?nnAI '00 1 RA' ? nA? ~"h.nj.tri,t 1 R A 'd dno ? nd7 ? ""R BRCPA EIS • fr"~ o""nA ",e:: .1n .'R" .'7" Nu!c: These comnari~(Jns do nut consider additio I mod, ",Ii, ,di", len" m,d, in "" in ,'eneratlon .. " , estImates c\aluatcd In the BRCI A US, and therefore, should be conSIdered collScnaU\e. Trip generation estimates from the BRCPA IUS can be found in Allachment B of Appendix E in Volume II of the Draft moS. Therefore, based upon this comparative analysis maximum redevelopment according to the Amended Boeing ConteplllalPlan for SlIb·dislrid 1 B would result in less peak hour vehicle trip generation as compared to the trip generation reported and evaluated in the 2003 EIS for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site; there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment under the proposed Plan as compared to those disclosed in the 13RCPA EIS. Redevelopment of approximately 1 ,57R,000 square· feet of new mixed use development and reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space in Sub·district 113, as assumed under the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan, is within Ihe range of development alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the 2003 ElS. Similarly, the conclusions regarding transportation impacts and mitigation reached in this consistency analysis are consistent with those reached in the 2006 Original Consistency Analysis. j\s noted previously, the potential range of uses proposed within the Amended Boeing Conceptual Plan -Sub·district 113 could result in a different mix or total square footage of redevelopment than evaluated in this report 0ess office use and more lab and/or retail use). However, to evaluate a worst-case trip generation scenario, office uses at certain levels of development in the individual Development Parcels CDP) within Sub·district 113, that were estimated to generate the highest number of vehicle trips, were used in this consistency analysis of transportation impacts (refer to the Consistency Analysis Memo prepared by TranSPOrtation Engineering Northwest LLC PO Box 65254 • Seatlle. WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361·7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Transportation Consistency Analysis of Sub·district 1 B of the BRCPA EIS August 25, 2008 Page 4 B1umen Consulting Group for more information on assumed uses and development scenarios). Attachment A contains detailed trip generation tables of both Sub-districts 1A and 113 and compares these in a cumulative manner to those assumptions from the 2003 BRCPA EIS, On a cumulative basis, trip reductions of between 1,119 p,m, peak hour trips in 2015 to over 3,000 a,m, peak hour trips by 2030 are estimated versus those land use assumptions tested and evaluated in the BRCP A EIS. Infrastructure Comparison Based upon the review of potential trip generation from development in Sub-district 113 and evaluation of key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the BRCPA E1S, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support development under the Amended Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B or cumulative development under the Sub-district 1A and 113 plans, as compared to those levels of infrastructure improvements assumed within the EIS. Transportation Engineering Nprthwest L! C PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Attachment A Detailed Project Trip Generation Estimates Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation BRCPAEIS Peak Period AltelWlUve 1 -No Action MPeak Hour 7 4 PM Peak Hour AltelWltive 2 -Partial Redevelopment MPeakHour I 4 PM Peak Hour AIteIWltive 3 -Full Redeve#ooment (Low-to Mid-Rise) AM Peak Hour 750 4 PM Peak Hour AltelWltive 4 -Full Redeve#ooment (MId-to High-Rise) AM Peak Hour .4 750 4 PM Peak Hour Difference from Subarea A & B (BRCPA EIS) 244 52 I -i~B -;;~ I 527 1S~ or: I -410 -~~ I 297 -1. 733 I -fri' I -",?jl -527 Nore.: These comparisons do not consider additional mode ~'Plit adjul(tments made in ,he trip generation estimates e,"'alw.tcd in the BRCP.\ EIS. and therefore, should be considcTed consen-auvc. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/1912008 Page 1 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Difference from Subarea C BRCPAEIS Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) (BRCPA ElS) Peak Period ala alai Alternative 1 -No Action AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 7 Alternative 2 -Partial Redelll!/opment AM Peak Hour 3 PM Peak Hour 725 Alternative 3 -Full Redelll!/o ment (Low-to Mid-Rise) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour -479 Alternative 4 -Full Redeve/o ment (Mid-to High-Rise) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ' 4 7, 5 -4 -599 Note: These comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjustments madr in the trip generation cstirna[t~ C\'aluated in the BRCP;\ F.IS. and thtfefore, should be considered consen"am·c. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/19/2008 Page 2 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant· Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Peak Period lAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour lAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour BRCPAEIS The Landing and Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) Alternative 3 -Full Redeve/oDment (Low-to Mid-R;se) Altiiiilative 4 -Full RedeveloDment (Mid-to High-Rise) 5 AM Peak Hour 2 I 1.488 357 1.845 PM Peak Hour Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) -181 -1.119 Note: These comparisom do not considcr additional mode split adjustmeflrs made in the trip generation estimates enlu:ucd in the BRep A EL"" :md therefore. should be considered consen. ... ti"e. Transportation Engineering Northwest 811912008 Page 3 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The Landing (212006) Peak Period Enter Exit Total lAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ,AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour M Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour NOIc: These comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation estimates enluated in the BRCP.\ EL<.;, and therefore. should be considered consetVall\,C_ Difference from Subarea A & B (BRCPA EIS) otal '4 97 380 1 -916 1 -2.067 By 2030, no increa.o:t: in additional dt:\'dDP~t i.~ assUIntd ",,-ith Subarea la. HO'\:I;exer, other rede"'e1opment assumptions in Sub~ IS increase between 1015 and 2030 and rherefore. ~inlemalil'.e" more vchide trips within the Boeing Renton Plant area as a whole. As ~llch. a slight reduction in total olT-site trip generation by Subarea 12 is opected by lu3U over those levels estimated in 2015. lbis characteristic IS consistent ,1"ith the trip gt.:neration mcthodologiel' and assumptions applied in the BRCPA F.lS. Transportation Engineertng Northwest 811912008 Page 4 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Boeing Concept Plan (8/2008) Peak Period Enter EXit Total lAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Allemative 4 -Full Redevelopment (Mid-to High-Rise) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ,...,'4 Note: These comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation estimates c,"2.Iuated in the BRCP A ElS, and therdore, shoulJ be considered conscn'atlyc. Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/1912008 L, Difference from Subarea C (BRCPAEIS) 879 1,003 525 -1 4 -374 Page 5 Attachment A Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The landing and Boeing Concept Plan (812008) Peak Period Enter Exit Total nter xit ata Alternative 1 -No Action AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Alternative 2 -Partial Redevelopment lAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Alternative 3 -Full Redevelopment (Low-to Mid-Rise) lAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Note: These comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjusuncntS made in the trip generation estimates eniuated in the BRCP ,\ £IS, and therefore. should be conside:red conseryativt. Transportation Engineering Northwest 811912008 Difference from Subarea A. B & C (BRCPA EIS) nter xit ota 976 1. 1.383 -391 -2.441 '> Page 6 NTP~\NG OE'l~~ RENTON ,SEP 12 2008 RECE\VED BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS • City of Renton, Washington May 2006 BOEING RENTON SUB·DISTRICT 1 B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS PREPARED BY BLUM EN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In Compliance With The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C) and City of Renton SEPA Policies and Procedures BOEING RENTON SUB-DISTRICT 1B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. E-1 CHAPTER 1 DESCRIPTION OF EIS ALTERNATIVES AND SUB-DISTRICT 1B CONCEPTUAL PLAN Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 Site Area & Range of Alternatives in 2003 EIS .................................................. 1-2 Current Sub-District 1 B Conceptual Plan .......................................................... 1-7 Current Sub-District 1 A Master Plan .................................................................. 1-7 Current Sub-Districts 1A & 1 B CumUlative Redevelopment Plans .................. 1-11 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 Comparison of EIS Alternatives & Current Sub-District 1A Master Plan & 1 B Conceptual Plan ................................................................................................ 2-1 Stormwater Drainage ......................................................................................... 2-2 Transportation ................................................................................................... 2-4 Land Use Patterns ............................................................................................. 2-6 Relationship to Plans & Policies ...................................................................... 2-1 0 Summary Matrix .............................................................................................. 2-17 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 2-17 SUMMARY MATRIX ......................................................................................... S-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................... 1-3 1-2 EIS Site Area Map ............................................................................. 1-4 1-3 Sub-District 1 B Conceptual Plan ....................................................... 1-8 1-4 Sub-District 1 A Master Plan ............................................................ 1-10 Boeing Renton Sub-District 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis Table of Contents May, 2006 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Redevelopment that the 2003 EIS Assumes for Sub-Districts 1 A & 1 B -2015 .................................................................................. 1-6 1-2 Redevelopment that the 2003 EIS Assumes for Sub-Districts 1A & 1 B -2030 .................................................................................. 1-6 1-3 Sub-District 1 B Potential Redevelopment Capacities -2015 & 2030 ................................................................. 1-9 1-4 Sub-District 1 A Potential Redevelopment Capacities -2015 & 2030 ............................................................... 1-11 2-1 Comparison of EIS Alternatives & Current Sub-District 1 A & 1 B Redevelopment Plans -2015 & 2030 ............................................... 2-1 APPENDICES Appendix A -Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-District 1 B Appendix B -Transportation Consistency Analysis for Sub·Dlstrlct 1 B Boeing Renton Sub-District 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis /I Table of Contents May,2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement ("2003 FEIS") in October 2003. The 2003 EIS evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping the 290-acre Boeing Renton Plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses. In 2004, Boeing conveyed to Harvest Partners that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site known as Sub-district 1 A. Boeing continues to hold title to Sub-district 1 B, which is that portion of the site immediately south of Sub-district 1A. Harvest Partners and Boeing are now proceeding with plans for future redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B. In November 2005, the Renton City Council approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B. Boeing now seeks a Planned Action designation for the approved SUb-district 1 B Conceptual Plan, pursuant to an ordinance that would be adopted by the City (per the State Environmental Policy Act rules, WAC 197-11-164 and RCW 43-21C.031). Under SEPA, a "Planned Action" designation indicates that the significant environmental impacts of a project have been adequately addressed in an EIS prepared at the plan level (in this case the EIS completed at the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning stage), and that the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following report contains the Environmental Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1 B, prepared at the City's request to determine whether the Conceptual Plan for this sub-district is eligible for Planned Action designation. In addition, this report addresses the cumulative consistency of the combined Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan and a proposed Master Plan for Sub-district 1A. A separate Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared for the proposed Sub-district 1A Master Plan and is on file at the City of Renton. Goal of this Analvsls. The goal of the Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis is to determine whether the environmental impacts of the redevelopment currently proposed for Sub-district 1 B, and the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment plans for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, are within the range of development alternatives and associated environmental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. If determined to be within this range, the Sub-district 1 B project is eligible for a Planned Action designation. Development Levels and Types. The Sub-district 1 B Consistency Analysis compares the levels and types of development called for in the proposed Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B (and for Sub-districts 1A and 1B cumulatively) to the levels and types of development assumed in the 2003 EIS. The analysis herein determines that the maximum potential development level proposed for Sub-district 1 B is within the maximum development level assumed in the 2003 EIS for this sub-district (2,258,000 square feet of mixed uses versus 2.570,000 square feet of mixed uses, respectively). In addition. the maximum potential cumUlative development level proposed for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B is also within the maximum cumUlative development level assumed in the EIS for these sub-districts (3,780,500 square feet versus 5,270,000 square feet, respectively). The Sub-district 1 B Consistency Analysis also concludes that the types of uses that are proposed for SUb-district 1 B (retail, office, lab, and multifamily residential) and for Sub-districts 80e/ng Renton Sub-district 18 Environmental ConsIstency Analysis May, 2006 E-1 1 A and 18 cumulatively (retail, commercial, office, lab and multifamily residential) are consistent with the range of uses assumed in the EIS for these sub·districts. Potential Impacts. The Sub·district 18 Consistency Analysis then compares the potential environmental impacts from the redevelopment proposed for Sub·district 18, and for Sub· districts 1A and 18 cumulatively, to the potential impacts that would result from implementation of the EIS alternatives, as identified in the 2003 EIS. The following elements of the environment are addressed in the 2003 EIS and are evaluated herein: Earth; Water Resources; Fish and Wildlife Habitat; Hazardous Materials; Land Use Patterns; Relationship to Plans and Policies; Population, Employment and Housing; Parks and Recreation; Aesthetics/Light and Glare; Transportation; Noise; Public Services; Utilities; and Air Quality. Detailed analyses are provided in this report for the Transportation, Land Use and Water elements. The Sub·district 18 Consistency Analysis determines that the potential impacts from redevelopment under the proposed Conceptual Plan for Sub·district 18, and for Sub·districts 1 A and 18 cumulatively, are within the range of potential impacts adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. Conclusion. The proposed plan for Sub-district 18 is eligible for a Planned Action designation (per RCW43.21C.031 and WAC 197·11·164, 168 and 315). BoeIng Renton Sub·dlstrlct 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2008 E·2 Chapter 1 Description of EIS Alternatives and Sub·District 1 B Conceptual Plan , Introduction CHAPTER 1 DESCRIPTION OF EIS ALTERNATIVES & SUB·DISTRICT 1 B REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement ("2003 EIS") in October 2003, The 2003 EIS evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with redeveloping Boeing's Renton Plant site with a mix of residential and commercial uses, In 2004, Boeing conveyed to Harvest Partners that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site known as SUb-district 1 A. Boeing continues to hold title to SUb-district 1 B, which is that portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site immediately south of Sub-district 1A. Harvest Partners and Boeing are now proceeding with plans for future redevelopment of SUb-districts 1 A and 1 B, As discussed in greater detail below, Sub-district 1A is subject to a Planned Action ordinance designation adopted by the City via Ordinance No, 5107 in November 2004, Harvest is currently seeking Master Plan approval for redevelopment of Sub-district 1A and a determination by the City that its proposed Master Plan is consistent with the previously granted Sub-district 1 A Planned Action designation. Sub-district 1 B is not encompassed by the previous Sub-district 1A Planned Action ordinance, Boeing received approval of a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B redevelopment in November 2005. Boeing now seeks a Planned Action designation for Sub-district 1 B, pursuant to an ordinance that would be adopted by the City, Overview of SEPA Planned Action Designation Per the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a "Planned Action" is a designation for a project that shifts environmental review from the time a permit application is made to an earlier phase in the planning process, The intent of the designation is to provide a more streamlined environmental process at the project stage by using an existing environmental impact statement prepared at the planning stage for SEPA compliance, as allowed by RCW 43,21 C,031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315, Request for Planned Action Consistency Determination for Sub·district 1A In November 2004, the Renton City Council passed ordinance No, 5107, which designated Sub- district 1A as a Planned Action site and designated "[u)ses and activities described in the EIS, subject to the thresholds described in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 analyzed in the EIS, and subject to the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A [to the ordinance]" as Planned Actions, The Sub-district 1A ordinance allows streamlining of the permitting process by using the 2003 EIS as the environmental documentation for future projects that fit within certain thresholds. The City determines whether an individual project fits within those thresholds and is consistent with the previous Planned Action designation. Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May,2006 1-1 Accordingly, Harvest has submitted a Master Plan application for Sub-district 1 A to the City and the City has prepared the Boeing Renton Sub-District 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis, which compares the proposed 1A Master Plan to the range of alternatives and potential for significant environmental impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Request for Planned Action Status for SUb-district 1 B In November 2005, the Renton City Council approved a Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B. Boeing has requested that the City enact an ordinance designating those uses and activities described in the Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan as Planned Actions, based on the range of development alternatives and associated impacts for SUb-district 1 B analyzed in the 2003 EIS. This Sub-district 1 B Planned Action Environmental Consistency Analysis addresses the potential for significant impacts associated with the Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan in comparison to the range of environmental impacts of Sub-district 1 B redevelopment disclosed in the 2003 EIS. The Sub-district 1 B Analysis also includes an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the Sub-district 1A Master Plan and the Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan. The cumulative impacts analysis addresses whether the combined impacts of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B redevelopment are within the range of development alternatives and associated impacts. analyzed in the 2003 EIS. These analyses highlight any differences in potential significant impacts to the environment under the current proposals, and indicate whether these impacts were adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS, per WAC 197-11-172. Site Area & Range of Alternatives In 2003 EIS The 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS evaluates a site area that includes approximately 275 acres of Boeing property and approximately 15 acres of contiguous property owned by others. The site area is situated adjacent to the south shore of Lake Washington, between Renton Municipal Airport and the Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, and includes the existing Boeing Renton Plant (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). Sub-districts 1A and 1 B are portions of this overall site area. Sub-district 1 A is generally equivalent to Subareas A and B in the 2003 EIS, and Sub-district 1 B is generally equivalent to Subarea C in the 2003 EIS. One part of Subarea A, the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) property in the northern portion of the subarea, is not part of the area currently proposed for redevelopment, and is not considered part of Sub-district 1 A herein. Four redevelopment scenarios are analyzed in the 2003 EIS (Alternatives 1 through 4). These scenarios encompass a broad range of land uses that the site could potentially accommodate in the future, given eXisting and proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies and designations (note: an Urban Center -North (UC-N) Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification were adopted for the site area in November 2003). The Alternatives that the 2003 EIS analyzes include: • Alternative 1: No Action/Exjsting Zoning (2015 Buildoutl. Alternative 1 is a partial redevelopment scenario under existing zoning at that time (Industrial -Heavy [IH] and Commercial Office [CO]) and is assumed to be built out by the year 2015. Some Boeing operations are assumed to continue within the site area, generally west of Logan Avenue N. Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May. 2006 1-2 '''~BLUMEN ~CONSUlTING ~,GROUP, INC • • Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1 B Consistency Analysis Figure 1·1 Vicinity Map Co -0 o " ... N o soo I I SOLf IN HU '· ... BLUMEN ·~CONSULTING ~GROUP,INC • BOI!ING • I f Su 1A (EIS Subareas and B) I ~------ I~ Sub·district (EIS Subarea Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1 B Consistency Analysis Not. Part Source: Heartland ll(, 2003 Figure 1·2 EIS Site Area Map • Alternative 2: Partial Redevelopment (2015 Buildoutl. Alternative 2 is a partial redevelopment scenario under the proposed UC-N Comprehensive Plan designation and is assumed to be built out by the year 2015. Again, some Boeing operations are assumed to continue within the site area. The partial redevelopment to higher intensity land uses would include new mixed-use retail, office and residential uses. • Alternative 3: Full Redevelopment. Low to Mid-Rise (2030 Buildout). Alternative 3 is a full mixed use redevelopment scenario under the proposed UC-N Comprehensive Plan designation at a low to mid-rise level, and is assumed to be built out by the year 2030. Some continued Boeing operations are assumed to continue within the site area at year 2015; however, no continued operations are assumed for year 2030. A portion of the overall build out is assumed to occur by 2015. Alternative 4: Full Redevelopment. Mid to High-Rise (2030 Buildoull. Alternative 4 is a full mixed use redevelopment scenario under the proposed UC-N Comprehensive Plan designation at a mid to high-rise level, and is assumed to be built out by the year 2030. As with Alternative 3, no continued Boeing operations are assumed for year 2030. A portion of the overall build out is assumed to occur by 2015. Tables 1-1 and 1-2 present the redevelopment that the 2003 EIS assumes for the subareas equivalent to Sub-district 1A (EIS Subareas A and B) and Sub-district 1 B (EIS Subarea C) by years 2015 and 2030, respectively. As shown in Table 1-1, the redevelopment that the 2003 EIS assumes in Sub-district 1A by year 2015 would range from approximately 680,000 to 1,660,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, multifamily and lab uses. The 2003 EIS assumes that by year 2015 Sub-district 1 B redevelopment would range from approximately 880,000 to 1,830,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, multifamily, lab and existing office uses. Thus, the cumulative redevelopment that the EIS assumes in Sub-districts 1A and 1B by year 2015 would range from approximately 1,560,000 to 3,490,000 square feet. As shown in Table 1-2, the redevelopment that the EIS assumes in Sub-district 1A by year 2030 would range from approximately 680,000 to 2,700,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, lab and multifamily uses (1,112 multifamily units). The 2003 EIS assumes that by year 2030 Sub-district 1 B redevelopment would range from approximately 880,000 to 2,570,000 square feet of retail/commercial, light industrial, office, existing office and multifamily uses (373 multifamily units). Thus, the cumulative redevelopment in Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B that the EIS assumes by year 2030 would range from approximately 1,560,000 to 5,270,000 square feet (including up to 1,485 multifamily units). As noted beneath Tables 1-1 and 1-2, the Sub-district 1B figures include 480,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 660,000 square feet of existing office uses for Alternatives 3 and 4. This difference in existing office use area is due to the fact that under Alternatives 1 and 2 the existing buildings directly east of Logan Avenue N. are assumed to be part of Boeing's consolidated operations, whereas under Alternatives 3 and 4 these buildings are assumed to be part of the proposed redevelopment (the buildings would remain and would be occupied by new, non-Boeing tenants). Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 1-5 Table 1·1 REDEVELOPMENT THAT THE 2003 EIS ASSUMES FOR SUB·DISTRICTS 1A & 1B· 2016 2003 Sub·dlstrlct 1A Sub-dlstrlct 1 B EIS Squsre FeetiLand Uses Square FeetiLand Uses Alts, All. 830,000 SF/ 1,050,000 SF/ 1 Retail/Commercial, Light Light Industrialj Existing Industrial Office All. 680,000 SF/ 880,000 SF/ 2 Retail/Commercial, Office Retail/Commercial, Office, Existing Office' All. 1,275,000 SF/ 1,500,000 SF/ 3 Retail/Commercial. Office, Office, Lab, Existing Office' Multifamily All. 1,660,000 SF/ 1,830,000 SF/ 4 Retail/Commercial, Office, Office, Multifamily, Existing Lab Office' Source: Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment E/S, 2003, , Includes 480,000 SF of existing office uses. 'Includes 660,000 SF of existing office uses. Table 1·2 Sub-dlstrlcta 1A & 1B Square FeetiLand Uses 1,880,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Light Industrial, Existing Office' 1,560,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Office, Existing Office' 2,775,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Office, Lab, Multifamily, Existing Office' 3,490,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Office, Lab, Multifamily, Existing Office' REDEVELOPMENT THAT THE 2003 EIS ASSUMES FOR SUB·DISTRICTS 1A & 1 B • 2030 2003 Sub-dlstrlct 1A Sub·dlstrlct 1 B EIS Square FeetiLand Uses Square FeetiLand Uses Alta, All. 830,000 SF/ 1,050,000 SF/ 1 Retail/Commercial, Light Light Industrial, Existing Office' Industrial Alt, 680,000 SF/ 8BO,OOO SF/ 2 Retail/Commercial, Office Retail/Commercial, EXiBting Office ' All. 2,450,000 SF/ 1,500,000 SF/ 3 Retail/Commercial. Office, Office, Lab, Existing Office' Multifamily (1,112 units)' All. 2,700,000 SF/ 2,570,000 SF/ 4 Retail/Commercial, Office, Office, Multifamily, Existing Lab' Office (1,485 units)' Source, Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment E/S, 2003, , Includes 480,000 SF of existing office uses. Sub-dlstrlcta 1A & 1B Square FeetiLand Uses 1,880,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Light Industrial, Existing Office' 1,560,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Office, ExiBting Office' 3,950,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Office, Lab, Multifamily, Existin~ Office (1,112 units)" 5,270,000 SF/ Retail/Commercial, Office, Lab, Multifamily, EXistin~ Office (1,485 unitB) .' , Includes 660,000 SF of existing office uses. , Does not include redevelopment on the PSE property that the 2003 EIS assumes, because this property is not included in the current Sub·district 1A ansa, and there are currentty no plans for redevelopment of this parcel (therefore, the development area shown for Sub-district 1 A under Alternatives 3 and 4 does not include 310,000 SF of office uses that the EIS assumes; and the development shown for Sub·district 1A under Alternative 4 does not include 620,000 SF of office uses that the EIS assumes). Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrlct 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 1·6 Current Sub·dlstrict 1 B Redevelopment Plan Boeing received Conceptual Plan approval from the City for the proposed SUb-district 1B redevelopment plan in November 2005. Boeing now seeks a Planned Action designation for their approved Conceptual Plan, pursuant to an ordinance that would be adopted by the City. Figure 1·3 shows the general locations of the assumed future uses for Sub-district 1B redevelopment (the irregular parcels labeled R -retail, L -lab, 0 -office, P -parking, and MF - multifamily). It also shows the existing office buildings that are proposed to remain (the rectangular shapes) and the general location of the "Right of First Offer" ("ROFO") area, the approximately 21-acre area in the northern portion of Sub-district 1B. , Table 1·3 provides breakdowns of the potential redevelopment capacities for the various areas in Sub-district 1B by years 2015 and 2030. For the ROFO area, there is currently only one assumed development option (retail). For Development Parcel 1 ("DP-1') through Development Parcel 4 ("DP-4") there are two development options assumed for each area, because the specific timetable for sale of these parcels to developers/users, and construction and occupancy of the parcels by tenants, is not known. As shown in Table 1·3, it is assumed that by year 2015 redevelopment of DP-1 would feature either approximately 65,000 square feet of retail uses or approximately 428,000 square feet of multifamily uses (535 multifamily units); DP-2 through DP-4 would feature either approximately 450,000 square feet of lab uses or approximately 270,000 square feet of office uses; and the ROFO area would feature approximately 270,000 square feet of retail uses. Approximately 660,000 square feet of existing office uses are assumed to be present in the SUb-district 1B area in year 2015. In total, redevelopment of Sub-district 1B by year 2015 would range from approximately 1,265,000 to 1,808,000 square feet of development, including the reuse of the 660,000 square feet of existing office space. Redevelopment of the DP-1 and ROFO areas is assumed to be fully built out by year 2015; redevelopment of the DP-2 through DP-4 areas is assumed to be at 50 percent build out in year 2015. By year 2030, redevelopment of DP-1 would feature either approximately 65,000 square feet of retail uses or approximately 428,000 square feet of multifamily uses (535 units); DP-2 through DP-4 would feature either approximately 900,000 square feet of lab uses or approximately 540,000 square feet of office uses; and, the ROFO area would feature approximately 270,000 square feet of retail uses. Again, approximately 660,000 square feet of existing office uses are assumed to remain in SUb-district 1B in year 2030. In total, redevelopment of Sub-district 1B by year 2030 would range from approximately 1,535,000 to 2,258,000 square feet of development, including the reuse of 660,000 square feet of existing office space. All of the redevelopment parcels are assumed to be fully built out by 2030. Current Sub·Dlstrlct 1A Redevelopment Plan Subsequent to issuance of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment FEIS in 2003, the City of Renton and Boeing executed a Development Agreement to guide long-term redevelopment of the Renton Plant site (in December 2003). As part of the Development Agreement, a Conceptual Plan for SUb-district 1 A was approved. In October 2004, an amendment to the Conceptual Plan was approved by the City to allow a broader range of future Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrlct 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 1·7 ~I ~~I.L..--I _ NORTH 8TH STREET ".!. --.. - /R" ROFO ~ , R -------'-(5 EXIST DATA I HUB---Jl .o. : I E~: C[)I ,',. _:' ",'1 o.' L I EXISTING . I GARAGE ; DP-2 I " .';, DP-1 I ' "." CDI . . . I '.".-" ,. o., o.' I (MF~: G;J @: ?..~ I n.flFrf'i LEGEND: R RETAIL L LAB ObFFICE P PARKING GARAGE MF MULTI-FAMILV _ _ PEDESTRIAN CCNNECTIONS ROFO RIGHT OF FIRST OFFER Source: Fuller-Sears Architects ~ 0 .... ---- DP-3 (J§, ' ...... BLUMEN '~CONSULTING 5:GROUP, INC Boeing Renton Sub·District 1 B Consistency Analysis .0:) , . . EXISTiNG: ~GARAGE> ~ i I'-t-;::===~ ~ <.,'--"1\ ~ -___ .1 ~' NOT 'A . PAR I: 10-16 1 .-," r EXISTING GARAGE. .. , .. '" .... NOT .:, A .... ~ PART .... i North Figure 1·3 Sub·Dlstrlct 1 B Conceptual Plan Table 1·3 SUB·DISTRICT 1B POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES -2016 & 2030 Redevelopment Land Percent Total Building Percent Total Building Areas Area -Bulldout Area -Square Bulldout Area -Square Acres (2016) Feet (2015) (2030) Feet (2030) OP.1 Options 4,9 100% 100% A) Relail 65 000 65,000 B) Multifamily (535 428,000 428,000 units) OP·2 Ootions 3.9 50% 100% A) Lab 180000 360 000 B) Office 60000 120000 OP·3 OptlOl18 1.8 50% 100% A) Lab 90000 180,000 B) Office 60000 120,000 · DP-4 Options 2.2 60% 100% A) Lab 180000 360000 B) Office 150000 300000 ROFO 21.2 100% 100% A) Retail 270 000 270000 Exlstln" Office US8S 16.7 100% 100% . 660000 660,000 TOTAL 50.7 1,265,000-1,535,000 - 1,808,000 2,258,000 Source: Boeing, 2006. retail development in the sub·district. In November 2004, the Renton City Council passed ordinance No. 5107, which designated Sub·district 1A as a Planned Action site and designated uses and activities described in the EIS (subject to the thresholds described for the EIS alternatives and mitigation measures described in Exhibit A to the ordinance) as Planned Actions. In March 2006, a second amendment to the Sub·district 1A Conceptual Plan was approved by the City to reaffirm the overall vision for the sub·district, allowing a broad mix of uses. Harvest Partners, the potential developer of the Sub·district 1A property, submitted a specific Master Plan application to the City for Sub-district 1A redevelopment in October 2005. Modifications to the plan were subsequently submitted to the City. Harvest now seeks Master Plan approval from the City and a determination as to whether the current plan is consistent with the previously granted Planned Action designation. Figure 1-4 is the Master Plan currently proposed for Sub·district 1 A. Table 1-4 outlines the potential redevelopment capacities for the various parcels in Sub·district 1A by years 2015 and 2030. As shown in Table 1·4, redevelopment of Sub·district 1 A would feature: • A minimum of approximately 125,000 square feet and a maximum of approximately 171,500 square feet of retail uses in Quadrant A: • A minimum of approximately 218,000 square feet and a maximum of approximately 336,500 square feet of retail and office uses in Quadrant B: Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrict 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 1·9 Quadrant A .. , rn~[ss '" , .. ... ~ ..... •• Quadrant B Source: C allison Arch itects JP·'OIBlUMfN ~CONSUlTING :<Ia',GROUP, INC Boeing Renton Sub·Dlstrict 1 B Consistency Analysis Fairfield """ 1£I~TNlI Quadrant C i , .... n:rlSINlI North li:lgure 1·4 fRY'S Pli "''" Sub·Dlstrlct 1A Master Plan • A minimum of approximately 181,000 square feet and a maximum of approximately 189,500 square feet of retail uses in Quadrant C; and, • Approximately 810,000 square feet of retail and multifamily uses on the Fairfield property (900 units). Overall, redevelopment of SUb-district 1A would result in a minimum total of approximately 1,349,000 square feet of mixed use development and a maximum total of approximately 1,522,500 square feet of mixed use development. It is anticipated that buildout of the entire Sub-district 1A area would occur by year 2015 (see the Environmental Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1A on file at the City of Renton for additional information on the Master Plan currently proposed for Sub-district 1A). Table 1-4 SUB-DISTRICT 1A POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES -2016 & 2030 Redevelopment Areas Land Area -Acres Total Building Area -Square Feet (2015 & 2030)' Minimum Maximum QUlldrantA 6.9 A) Retail 125 000 171,500 Quadrant B 18.3 A) Retail 218 000 279500 B) Office a 57,000 QUlldrantC 13.2 A) Retail 181 000 189500 . Fairfield 7.8 A) Retail 15 000 15 000 B) Multifamily (900 810.000 810,000 units) TOTAL 46.2 1,349 000 1,522500 Source: Harvest Partners, 2006. 1 Assumes 100 percent build out of all redevelopment areas by 2015. Current Sub·Dlstrlct 1A & 1B Cumulative Redevelopment Plans Based on Harvest Partners' current Master Plan and Boeing's current Conceptual Plan, the cumulative redevelopment of SUb-districts 1A and 1 B would result in approximately 2,614,000 to 3,330,500 square feet of total development by year 2015, and approximately 2,884,000 to 3,780,500 square feet of total development by year 2030. A total of 1,435 multifamily units would be assumed to be included in the cumulative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B by 2030. Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrict 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 1-11 Chapter 2 Environmental Consistency Analysis Introduction CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS This chapter compares the potential impacts from the redevelopment proposed under the Sub- district 18 Conceptual Plan (and the redevelopment proposed for Sub-districts 1 A and 18 cumulatively) to the potential impacts from the EIS development alternatives identified in the Boeing Renton Plan Comprehensive Amendment EIS (2003) (see Chapter 1 for a description of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 18 and the EIS Alternatives). Stormwater Drainage, Transportation, Land Use Patterns, and Relationship to Plans and Policies are the key environmental elements analyzed in this Consistency Analysis. As such, more expanded analyses of these elements are provided in this chapter. A comparison of potential impacts on other elements of the environment from the redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 18 (and Sub-districts 1 A and 18 cumulatively) to impacts from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives is contained in the Summary Matrix at the end of this chapter. Comparison of EIS Alternatives & Current Sub·Dlstrlct 1A & 18 Redevelopment Plans Table 2-1 compares the range of development assumed under the 2003 EIS alternatives to the proposed range of development planned for Sub-districts 1 A and 18 in years 2015 and 2030. Table 2·1 COMPARISON OF EIS ALTERNATIVES & CURRENT SUB-DISTRICT 1A & 1B REDEVELOPMENT PLANS -2016 & 2030 Sub-district -Bulldout EIS Alternatives Current Redevelopment Year Total Development-Plans Square Feet Total Development- Square Feet Sub-district 1A -2015 680,000 -1,660,000 1,349,000 -1,522,500 Sub-dlstrlct 1A -2030 680,000 -2,700,000 1,349,000 -1 ,522,500 Sub-dlstrlct 1 B -2015 880,000 -1,830,000 1,265,000 -1,808,000 Sub-district 1 B -2030 880,000 -2,570,000 1,535,000 -2,258,000 Sub-districts 1A & 1B -1,560,000 -3,490,000 2,614,000 -3,330,500 2015 Sub-dlstrlcts 1A & 1B -1,560,000 -5,270,000 2,884,000 -3,780,500 2030 Source: Blumen Consulting Group, 2006. As is evident in Table 2-1, the maximum development level proposed for Sub-district 18 is within the maximum development level assumed for this area in the 2003 EIS (2,258,000 square feet of mixed uses versus 2,570,000 square feet of mixed uses, respectively). The maximum potential cumulative development level proposed for Sub-districts 1A and 18 together Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-1 by the years 2015 and 2030 is within the maximum cumulative development levels assumed in the EIS for these sUb-districts as well (3,780,500 square feet versus 5,270,000 square feet, respectively). The number of multifamily units proposed for Sub-district 1 A by year 2030 is slightly lower than the number of multifamily units assumed in the EIS (900 units versus 1,112 units), whereas, the number of multifamily units proposed for Sub-district 18 by 2030 is slightly higher than the number of multifamily units assumed in the EIS (535 units versus 373 units). However, the total number of multifamily units proposed in Sub-districts 1A and 18 together by year 2030 is within the range of multifamily units assumed for those two areas together in the EIS (1,435 units versus 1,485 units). The 2003 EIS assumes the following uses for Sub-district 1A in 2015 and 2030: retail/commercial, light industrial, office, multifamily, and lab uses; the EIS assumes the same uses for Sub-district 18 in 2015 and 2030, in addition to the existing office uses. Under the current Master Plan for SUb-district 1A the following uses are proposed: retail, office and multifamily; under the current Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 18 the following uses are assumed: retail, office, lab, and multifamily. Therefore, the types of uses that are currently proposed for Sub-districts 1A and 18 are similar to the range of uses assumed in the EIS. As shown by the above, the development currently proposed for Sub-districts 1A and 18, and for these two areas cumulatively, is considered to be within the range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS. Stormwater Drainage The following section is based on the Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1 B prepared by KPFF (see Appendix A to this document), the Water Resources section of the Boeing Renton Plan Comprehensive Amendment Dreft EIS (2003) (pages 3.2.1 through 3.2.27), and Appendix 8 to the Draft EIS. Background The analysis methods and calculation assumptions used in Appendix A were identical to those used in the EIS surface and stormwater analysis (see Appendix 8 to the Draft EIS for further explanation). In its existing condition, stormwater runoff from Sub-District 18 (and Sub-district 1A) is collected and conveyed through a stormwater drainage system that discharges through outfalls located on the Cedar River, John's Creek and Lake Washington. These outfalls are identified in the EIS as Outfall #15 (Cedar River), Outfalls #13 and #14 (John's Creek) and Outfall #1 (Lake Washington). Some outfalls serving the site area and the John's Creek Channel are currently over capacity during certain storm events (i.e., Outfalls #13 and #14), while some have excess capacity (i.e., Outfall #1). As assumed in the EIS, conveyance system components could be designed to divert water away from existing overcapacity outfalls within the EIS study area to the extent possible. Two cases were considered in Appendix A, consistent with the EIS analysis for Sub-district 18 (and for Sub-districts 1A and 18 together): one in which the areas drained by each of the existing outfalls are generally maintained in size and configuration (Case 1); and one in which areas drained by the outfalls are mOdified to direct stormwater from overcapacity outfalls to outfalls with excess capacity (Case 2). A separate stormwater Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-2 consistency analysis has been prepared for the Sub-district 1 A Master Plan (see the Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1A on file at the City of Renton). Sub·dlstrict 1 B Peak stormwater flows are very closely linked to the amount of impervious surface area. The current Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan would result in impervious surface coverage between 88 and 93 percent. This impervious surface coverage would be within the range of impervious surface coverage estimated under the EIS alternatives (at 38 to 100 percent), and would be lower than the existing baseline condition (at 100 percent). Total peak flows with redevelopment under the Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan would be within the range of total peak flows for that area with redevelopment under the EIS alternatives, and lower than the present day, baseline peak stormwater flows. The stormwater consistency analysis concluded that specific conditions and calculated impacts associated with the SUb-district 1 B Conceptual Plan would be consistent with the conditions and calculated impacts associated with the range of redevelopment alternatives analyzed in the EIS. Peak runoff flows from the study area to the applicable outfalls would generally be reduced in comparison to the baseline condition, except for Outfall #1. The peak flow at Outfall #1 would increase in comparison to the baseline condition. However, the increase would result in peak flow that is well below the capacity of the outfall; therefore no significant impacts would result. The peak flows at Outfalls #13 and #14 would increase relative to the EIS alternatives, but would be less than the baseline condition. These increases in flows are attributable to the fact that the EIS alternatives include, at a minimum, redevelopment of Subareas A, Band C, while the Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan reflects only redevelopment of Subarea C. Since Outfalls #13 and #14 receive the majority of their flow from Subareas A and B (Sub-district 1A), the lower flows at these outfalls (reflected under the EIS alternatives) would not occur until Subareas A and B (Sub-district 1A) are redeveloped in the future. The peak flow at Outfall #15 would decrease in comparison to the baseline condition, and would result in flows that would be within the calculated range for the EIS alternatives. Similar to the conclusion of the EIS, there would be no significant impacts to the surface or stormwater environment as a result of the proposed Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan. Cumulative Redevelopment of Sub·dlstrlcts 1 A & 1 B The consistency analysis of cumulative impacts to surface and stormwater conditions with redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B accounted for the total area to be redeveloped, including the redevelopment of these areas with buildings and parking, as well as the development and improvement of certain arterials in the area (see Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis for further explanation). The total area of redevelopment under the current plans for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B is approximately 8 percent smaller than the area assumed for redevelopment in the EIS. This difference is primarily due to the difference in the extent of planned roadway development. With redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, the cumulative impervious surface coverage and peak storm event flows would be within the ranges under the EIS alternatives. Since the current proposals and the EIS alternatives do not contain precisely the same total acreage, peak storm event flows were also calculated on a per acre basis. The peak storm event flows from each acre to be redeveloped under the current plans for Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B would Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrict 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2·3 • also be within the range of peak stormwater flows calculated for the EIS alternatives. Appendix A determined that there would be a significant reduction in stormwater runoff from the arterials that would serve Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B, in comparison to the runoff from the arterials assumed to serve the EIS alternatives. This is due to the fact that the arterials that would Sub-districts 1A and 1 B would cover a smaller area than assumed in the EIS (i.e. smaller road sections), and the impervious surface area represented by the arterials would be reduced accordingly. Appendix A concluded that cumulative stormwater conditions and calculated impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment of Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B, and the arterial improvements planned by the City of Renton, would be consistent with the stormwater conditions and calculated impacts associated with the range of EIS alternatives. Peak runoff flows from SUb-districts 1A and 1 B and the arterials would generally be reduced in comparison to the existing baseline condition, and would be within the range of peak runoff flows calculated for the EIS alternatives for these areas. Except for Outfall #1, the outfalls affected by the proposed redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B and the arterials would receive reduced peak flows in comparison to the existing baseline condition, and the peak flows received at the outfalls from the affected area would be within or below the range of peak flows calculated for the EIS alternatives for this area. The peak flow at Outfall #1 would be increased in comparison to the baseline condition; however, the increase would be within the range calculated for the EIS alternatives and would result in peak flow well below the capacity of the outfall. Consistent with the conclusion in the EIS, no significant impacts to surface or stormwater conditions would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed redevelopment of Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B and the arterials. TransportatIon The following section is based on the Transportation Consistency Analysis for Sub-district 1 B prepared by Transportation Engineering NW (see Appendix B to this document), the Transportation section of the Boeing Renton Comprahensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (2003) (pages 3.10.1 through 3.10.36), and Appendix E to the 2003 Draft EIS. Background Trip generation methodologies and assumptions used in the 2003 EIS were used to estimate a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by redevelopment currently proposed for Sub-district 1 B. For traffic purposes, Sub-district 1 B was assumed to comprise approximately 1,478,000 square-feet of new development at build-out. While the potential range of uses assumed for Sub-district 1 B could result in a higher total square footage of development than evaluated in the transportation consistency analysis, the analysis provided a worst-case trip generation scenario by assuming land uses and levels of development on individual development parcels that would generate the highest number of trips (see Appendix B for further explanation). Additionally, trip generation comparisons for the transportation consistency analysis did not consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation estimates evaluated in the EIS, and, therefore, should be considered conservative. A separate transportation consistency analysis has been prepared for the proposed Master Plan for Sub-district 1A (see the Boeing Renton SUb-district 1A Environmental Consistency Analysis on file at the City of Renton). Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-4 Sub-district 1 B Total off-site vehicle trip generation of the redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1 B would be substantially less than that estimated for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site under EIS Alternative 4 (the EIS alternative with the highest vehicle trip generation). In 2015, estimated vehicle trip generation from Sub-district 1 B would total approximately 648 fewer trips than identified under EIS Alternative 4 during the a.m. peak hour, and approximately 272 fewer trips in the p.m. peak hour. In 2030, estimated vehicle trip generation from Sub-district 1 B would total approximately 1,129 fewer trips than identified under EIS Alternative 4 during the a.m. peak hour, and approximately 799 fewer trips in the p.m. peak hour. The lower overall trip generation for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site would result in improved intersection levels of service as compared to those reported in the EIS. There would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment proposed under Sub-district 1 B, beyond those disclosed in the EIS; redevelopment of approximately 1,478,000 square feet of new mixed use development in Sub-district 1 B, as proposed under the Conceptual Plan, would be within the range of development alternatives and associated impacts presented in the EIS. Cumulative Redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A & 18 Total cumulative off-site vehicle trip generation with redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B would be substantially less than that estimated for these portions of the Boeing Renton Plant site under EIS Alternative 4. In 2015, estimated vehicle trip generation from Sub-districts 1A and 1 B would total approximately 1,897 fewer trips than identified under EIS Alternative 4 during the a.m. peak hour, and approximately 720 fewer trips in the p.m. peak hour. In 2030, estimated vehicle trip generation from Sub-districts 1A and 1 B would total approximately 3,935 fewer trips than identified under Alternative 4 in the EIS during the a. m. peak hour, and approximately 2,692 fewer trips in the p.m. peak hour. The lower overall trip generation for these portions of the Boeing Renton Plant site would result in improved intersection levels of service as compared to those reported in the EIS. There would be no probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment of Sub- districts 1A and 1 B, beyond those disclosed in the EIS for Alternative 4; cumulative redevelopment in Sub-districts 1A and 1 B would be within the range of EIS alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the EIS. Consistency with Infrastructure Needs Identlned in the EIS In addition to the trip generation analysis, key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the EIS were reviewed to identify whether any significant changes have occurred since the Final EIS was issued in October 2003. Subsequent to issuance of the EIS and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Boeing Company and the City of Renton entered into a Development Agreement in December 2003. Based on this agreement, the City is completing design engineering and will be constructing improvements to the local roadway system that will serve the Sub-district 1A and 1 B redevelopment area and provide a basic through-street grid system within the sub-districts. This includes improvements to Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, North 8th Street and North 10th Street to be implemented by the City (see Appendix B for more information on the specific Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-5 improvements), as well as certain on-site access and circulation improvements to be constructed by the applicants. The planned improvements to the local road system will provide capacity at a level that is higher than required to serve only Sub-district 1A and 1 B redevelopment in 2015 or 2030 (higher than assumed necessary for redevelopment of these sub-districts in the EIS). Per the EIS, this through-street system was not required to support redevelopment levels evaluated in the EIS for Sub-districts 1A and 1B by 2015 or 2030; instead, this system was required to support the redevelopment of a portion of the EIS study area west of Logan Avenue N., defined as District 2. Based on the traffic consistency analysis for redevelopment of both Sub-district 1A and 1 B, all infrastructure needs identified in the EIS would either be mitigated through expected trip generation reductions (as compared to trip generation evaluated in the EIS) or as part of the planned transportation improvements to be implemented by the City of Renton or the applicants. No additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support cumulative redevelopment under Sub-districts 1A and 1 B. Additionally, if redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B is considered as a standalone project, in comparison to the cumulative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, there would be no changes in conclusions regarding transportation impacts or infrastructure needs. See Appendix B for further discussion of the specific intersection, arterial and freeway access infrastructure needs identified in the EIS for the cumulative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, and the relationship of the current redevelopment plans to these infrastructure needs. Land Use Patterns The following section draws from the Land Use section of the Boeing Renton Plant Comprehensive Plan Amendment Draft EIS (pages 3.5.1 through 3.5.17). Background As described in the 2003 EIS, Sub-districts 1A and 1 B are considered part of the existing Boeing Renton Plant site (defined as Subareas A, Band C in the EIS). The alternative redevelopment scenarios analyzed in the 2003 EIS are evaluated against a "baseline condition" which included certain land use assumptions for the existing site area (see Draft EIS page 3.5.3 and 3.5.6 for detailS). Since 2003, the baseline land use condition has changed in certain respects. In particular, below are two key land use assumptions from the EIS, followed by an update on the status of the assumptions in bold italic. • Continuation of existing utility operations on the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) property (under EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 only). The PSE property was Included In Subarea A (a part of Sub-district 1A) in the EIS, but Is not Included In the current Sub·dlstrlct 1 A Master Plan. Future redevelopment of this property Is not anticipated to occur by 2015, and is not considered a part of Sub·dlstrlct 1 A for purposes of this analysis. • Continuation of certain existing office, lab, and commercial uses at the south end of Sub- district 1 B. BoeIng Renton Sub-dIstrIct 1 B EnvIronmental ConsIstency AnalysIs May, 2006 2-6 Approximately 660,000 square feet of existing office uses are assumed to be present in Sub-district 18 in years 2015 and 2030. Land uses that are currently located adjacent to Sub-district 1 B are generally the same as those described in the 2003 Draft EIS (see Draft EIS page 3.5.6 and 3.5.7). Sub-district 1 B is surrounded by: Sub-district 1A with Boeing-related uses and parking areas to the north; single and multifamily uses in the north Renton neighborhood to the south; industrial uses (PACCAR truck manufacturing) to the east and southeast; and parking lots associated with Boeing industrial and office uses to the west. At the time that the 2003 EIS was prepared, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan designations for Sub-district 1 B were Employment Area -Industrial and Employment Area - Office, and the zoning classifications were Industrial -Heavy (IH) and Commercial Office (CO). Subsequent to the Final EIS issuance, the City adopted new Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the Boeing Renton Plant site area. The current Comprehensive Plan designation for Sub-district 1 B is Urban Center -North (UC-N). The current zoning classification for Sub-district 1B is Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1). The 2003 EIS analyzes the potential impacts of re-designating and reclassifying the Sub-district 1 B property to its current land use designation and zoning classification. Sub-district 1 B The current Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B assumes a total of approximately 1,265,000 to 1,808,000 square feet of retail, lab, office and multifamily development, including the continuation of 660,000 square feet of existing office uses, by 2015. A total of approximately 1,535,000 to 2,258,000 square feet of the same types of uses are assumed in this area by 2030 (see Chapter 1 of this Consistency Analysis for details). Retail uses are assumed to be located in the north portion of the property; multifamily or retail uses are assumed to be located in the southwest portion of the property; and lab or office uses are assumed to be located in the south and southeast portions of the property (see Figure 1-3). As noted above, redesignation of the Boeing Renton Plant site from EA to UC-N in the Comprehensive Plan and reclassification of the site to the UC-N1 zoning occurred subsequent to issuance of the Final EIS. The 2003 EIS analyzes the impacts of these land use changes, and indicates that the changes would facilitate an eventual transition in the north Renton area from primarily employment based land uses to a broader and more urban mix of employment, retail, residential and open space land uses. The EIS also evaluates the potential land use impacts of four redevelopment scenarios (Alternatives 1 through 4) that encompass a range of land uses that the site could potentially accommodate in the future (see Chapter 1 of this Consistency Analysis for further description of these alternatives). The principle conclusions that are reached in the EIS with respect to potential land use impacts are summarized below, followed by an analysis of how the Sub-district 18 Conceptual Plan compares to each. • EIS Land Use Conclusion 1: Sub-district 18 would be converted to a mixed use. urban district. Implementation of EIS Alternative 2 would result in the conversion of the north portion of Sub-district 1 B (defined as Subarea C in the EIS) to low-rise office and retail uses; the consolidation of Boeing operations in the southwest portion of the property; and, the continuation of existing office uses in the southeast portion of the 80e/ng Renton Sub-district 18 Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-7 property. Implementation of EIS Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in the conversion of the entire Sub·district 1 B property to an urban district, characterized by retail shopping, a commercial business district, multifamily residences, and public amenities. Under the Sub·district 1B Conceptual Plan, redevelopment is proposed to include retail/commercial, lab, office and multifamily uses. This redevelopment would contribute to the creation of an urban district in the Boeing Renton Plant site area, similar to under EIS Alternatives 3 and 4, and would, therefore, be consistent with the analysis of impacts in the EIS. • EIS Land Use Conclusion 2: The mixed use, urban character proposed for Sub· district 1B would be compatible with surrounding uses. The land uses assumed under the EIS alternatives would largely be compatible with the existing uses surrounding the Sub·district 1 B. EIS Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would include office, retail and lab uses in the north portion of Sub·district 1 B. These new office, retail and lab uses would be compatible with ongoing Boeing operations, as well as existing commercial and industrial uses to the east, including PACCAR. Under Alternative 4, multifamily uses would be located in the north portion of Sub·district 1 B. These uses could be somewhat less compatible with PACCAR and other industrial uses to the east and southeast. Under the SUb-district 1B Conceptual Plan, future uses are generally proposed to be located in similar areas of the property as was analyzed under the range of alternatives In the EIS (see Figure 1-3 In this Consistency Analysis). However, under the current plan, multifamily uses are not proposed to be located In the east portion of SUb-district 1B (In the ROFO and DP-4 areas). Low-rise retail uses are proposed to be located In the northeast portion of the property (In the ROFO area), and mid-rise lab or office uses are proposed to be located in the southeast portion of the property (In the DP-4 area). These uses would be compatible with the existing retail and Industrial uses to the east and southeast of the property. Multifamily uses or low-rise retail uses are proposed to be located In the southwest portion of the Sub-district 1 B property (in the DP-1 area) under the Conceptual Plan. Logan Avenue N., which adjoins the Sub-district 1B property to the west, would serve to separate the multifamily or retail uses from existing surface parking lots In the Boeing Renton Plant to the Immediate west of this area. There are no Boeing Renton IndustrlaVmanufacturlng buildings adjacent to the west portion of Sub-district 1 B. The multifamily or low-rise retail uses in the southwest portion of the site would be compatible with the existing residential uses to the south. Overall, the land uses proposed under the SUb-district 1B Conceptual Plan would be compatible with surrounding uses, consistent with the impact conclusions drawn In the EIS. Approximately 660,000 square feet of existing office uses would remain In the Sub-district 1B area under the Conceptual Plan. These existing office uses are generally located in the south portion of Sub-district 1B. The proposed new uses under the Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan (multifamily, lab and office uses) would also be compatible with these existing office uses. . • EIS Land Use Conclusion 3: Eventual conversion of Sub-district 1B to a mixed use, urban district would Increase the likelihood of similar changes In the surrounding area. consistent with the City's vision for the area. Redesignation of Sub-district 1B to UC-N, and redevelopment to higher intensities across the property, Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Conslstaney Analysis May, 2006 2-8 could generate pressure for Comprehensive Plan map and zoning redesignations for surrounding properties located generally between 1-405 and Rainier Avenue (north of N. 4th Street), currently designated for a more limited range of uses. Overall, redesignation of Sub-district 1 B to UC-N reflects the City of Renton's goals for its Urban Center. Over time, the re-designation could facilitate changes in land use patterns that are consistent with the City's vision for where different types of land uses should be concentrated and the ongoing transition of the Boeing Renton Plant site area from an industrial base to one that is more mixed and urban in character. Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning provisions and individual project review by the City would serve as mitigation to preclude potential future impacts. Subsequent to issuance of the Final EIS, the 80eing Renton Plant site and properties between the site and 1-405 (north of the PACCAR property) were redesignated to UC·N in the Comprehensive Plan and reclassified to the UC·N1 zoning classification, consistent with the City's vision for the area within the Urban Center. Further pressure for additional Comprehensive Plan map and zoning re.deslgnatlons, as a result of Sub·dlstrlct 18 redevelopment, Is expected to be limited. Consistent with the conclusions drawn in the EIS, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning provisions and Individual project review by the City would serve as mitigation to preclude potential future Impacts. The EIS concludes that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to land use patterns would result from development under the range of alternatives. Redevelopment under the SUb-district 1 B Conceptual Plan would be consistent with this conclusion. Cumulative Redevelopment of Sub·dlstrlcts 1A & 1B Redevelopment proposed for SUb-districts 1A and 1 B together would include a wide array of retail/commercial, lab, office and multifamily uses. This cumulative redevelopment would more completely convert Sub-district 1 of the Boeing Renton Plant site to a mixed use, urban district, consistent with the analysis in the EIS and the City's vision for the area. Under the current redevelopment plans for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, future uses are generally proposed to be located in the same areas of the properties as under the range of alternatives in the EIS (see Figures 1-3 and 1-4 in this ConSistency Analysis). However, as noted above, under the Sub-district 1 B Conceptual Plan, multifamily uses are not proposed to be located in the east portion of the property, but could be located in the southwest portion of the property. Under the current Master Plan for Sub-district 1A, multifamily uses would be located in the northeast (Fairfield) portion of that property. Garden Avenue, which adjoins the Sub-district 1A property to the east, would separate the multifamily uses from existing parking lots associated with the Fry's Electronic store. Park Avenue N., which adjoins Sub-district 1 A to the north, would separate the proposed multifamily uses from the existing PSE SUbstation. Overall, the land uses assumed under the current redevelopment plans for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B would be compatible with surrounding uses and existing uses to remain on those properties, consistent with the conclusions drawn in the EIS. Consistent with the conclusions the EIS reaches, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning provisions and individual project review by the City would serve as mitigation to preclude potential future impacts. Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrlct 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-9 The EIS concludes that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to land use patterns would result from development under the range of alternatives. Cumulative redevelopment under the current plans for Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B would be consistent with this conclusion. Relationship to Plans & Policies The following section draws from the Relationship to Plans and Policies section of the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dreft EIS (2003) (pages 3.6.1 through 3.6.13). Background The 2003 EI S analyzes the consistency of the proposed land use designation for the Renton Plant site with applicable state and local land use plans, policies and regulations (in place at that time). The EIS summarizes important elements of each applicable plan, policy, and regulation, and provides an analysis of consistency. Highlights of the EIS analysis are presented below, followed by an evaluation of the consistency of the Conceptual Plan proposed for SUb-district 1 B with the analysis in bold italic. Sub·dlstrlct 1 B State of Washington Plans and Policies The 2003 EIS addresses relevant State of Washington Plans and Policies, including the Growth Management Act (1990) and the Shoreline Management Act (1971). The EIS concludes that the City of Renton had adopted a Comprehensive Plan to guide future development and fulfill the City's responsibilities under GMA. The City had also adopted mitigation (impact) fee standards for fire protection and parks and recreation, consistent with GMA. The EIS determines that the proposed amendments to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan would encourage future growth in the City's Urban Center (within its UGA), and would be consistent with GMA goals and policies. The Shoreline Management Act is implemented in the City of Renton through the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (see the discussion of City of Renton plans and policies below). Amendments to the Renton Comprehensive Plan that encourage future higher Intensity growth In the City's Urban Center (which Includes Sub·dlstrict 18) were adopted subsequent to Issuance of the Final EIS.The Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub·dlstrict 18 would represent an urban, mixed use development in the City's Urban Center, and is consistent with the EIS analysis regarding GMA goals and policies. King County Plans and Policies Relevant King County plans and policies, specifically the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) (1992) are also discussed in the EIS. The EIS indicates that, as mandated under the GMA, the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan was consistent with the Countywide Planning policies. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan included policies to accommodate the CPP housing and employment growth targets city-wide. The City of Renton also had a designated Urban Center, with associated goals and policies, consistent with the CPP (see the discussion of City of Renton plans and policies below). The EIS concludes that the general policies proposed for Renton's Urban Center reiterated the CPP language regarding the vision and "design" of Urban Centers; and, that the proposed zoning would create capacity for Urban Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-10 Center employment and residential density levels that reflect the CPP household and employment capacity criteria. The current general policies for Renton's Urban Center North area, and the zoning of the Sub-district 1B site, were adopted subsequent to issuance of the Final EIS. The Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B potentially includes both employment and residential development, and would help the City to meet its employment and household targets, consistent with the EIS analysis regarding the CPP. City of Renton Plans and policies City of Renton Comprehensive Plan The EIS addresses the following elements of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Downtown and Economic Development and Environmental. • Land Use Element. The EIS states that policies in the Land Use Element encouraged a compact urban city with a revitalized downtown that would function as a regional Urban Center. Office, retail and residential developments were encouraged in the downtown area. New commercial and multifamily development outside the downtown would be accommodated in "centers". The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan would divide the existing (at that time) Urban Center into two parts: Urban Center Downtown (UC-O) and Urban Center North (UC-N). The proposed policies that would apply to the Urban Center would establish these areas and outline objectives for Renton's Urban Center that would reflect the CPP objectives and criteria for Urban Centers. The proposed zoning would create additional capacity for mixed use development. The EIS indicates that proposed policies specific to the UC-N designation were intended to provide a blueprint for transition of land over the next 30 years into a dynamic mixed use district. The UC-N policies were developed to correspond to the EIS alternatives, and allowed an analysis of the impacts associated with different thresholds of land use and intensity in the Boeing Renton Plant area. The policies reflected the assumed level of redevelopment associated with each EIS alternative and a wide range of potential. uses and densities of redevelopment. Subsequent to Issuance of the Final EIS, the CIty adopted the UC-N Comprehensive Plan designation and the UC-N1 zoning classification for the Boeing Renton Plant area, including Sub-district 1B, In November 2003. The City also adopted new policies and regulations to support the re-deslgnatlonlrezoning In November 2003. These new policies were consistent with those In the EIS analysis (see below for an analysis of the consistency of the Sub-district 1B Conceptual Plan with key Urban Center North policies). The redevelopment currently proposed for Sub-district 1B would contribute to the creation of a dynamic mixed use district In an Urban Center, consistent with the Intent of the UC-N land use designation and UC-N1 zoning claSSification. • Transportation Element. The EIS indicates that the re-designation/reclassification of the Boeing Renton Plant area, and related adoption of policies, would increase the 80elng Renton Sub-district 18 Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-11 area's employment and residential capacity. Actual redevelopment would result in additional traffic volumes distributed on the local and regional roadway. Under EIS Alternatives 3 and 4, higher density mixed-use redevelopment would support transit and non-motorized travel patterns (at a lower density, Alternative 2 would not be as likely to support transit and non-motorized travel patterns). The EIS concludes that demands on transportation infrastructure would be dealt with through ongoing capital facilities planning by the City, consistent with the policies in the Transportation Element that require coordinating land use and transportation planning, and phaSing transportation plans concurrently with growth. Following issuance of the Final EIS, the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan was amended to address potential impacts from increases in Boeing Renton Plant site area capacity (including the capacity from Sub-district 1B). Various Improvement needs were defined and included in the City's six year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which is updated annually. The City is planning new improvements to certain existing arterials and planning new arterials (Logan Avenue N., Park Avenue, Ifh Street, and 1£1h Street) surrounding Sub-districts 1A and 1B to support redevelopment of this area (the capacity of these Improvements would be at a greater level than required to serve redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1B, but at a lesser level than required to serve redevelopment of the entire EIS study area). See the Transportation section and Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for an analysis of the consistency of the potential transportation Impacts under the Sub-district 1B Conceptual Plan with the analysis In the EIS. • Housing Element. According to the EIS, the redesignation/reclassification of the Boeing Renton Plant site, and related adoption of policies, would generate new residential capacity within the area that would accommodate future population growth within the City. Potential future redevelopment allowed under mixed-use zoning would add to the multifamily housing supply in the City and would be consistent with the Housing Element goals that call for adequate supply of multifamily housing capacity to meet Urban Center goals. Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing, served by transit, with a wide range of other land uses. The Sub-district 1B Conceptual Plan could include multifamily housing, consistent with the Housing Element goal to provide an adequate supply of multifamily housing In Urban Centers. This housing would be located In a mixed use development area that also features employment opportunities and Is served by transit. • Capital FaclllUes Element. As the EIS describes, the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations would create the capacity for a range of uses at the Boeing Renton Plant site, and associated employment and housing potential. The EIS concludes that ongoing capital facilities planning related to provision of public services (i.e., fire and police protection), parks and recreation facilities, transportation, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure would address the increases in population and demands on services associated with potential future redevelopment. Following Issuance of the Final EIS, the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan was amended to address phased improvements required by 80e/ng Renton Sub-district 18 Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-12 future redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant site. See the Summary Matrix at the end of this chapter for a comparison of the potential impacts of the Sub- district 1B Conceptual Plan on public services, parks and recreation, and utilities with the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on these elements. • Utilities Element. The EIS indicates that future redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant site area that occurs as a result of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning would require utilities infrastructure to serve the area. Utility policies in the Comprehensive Plan support those improvements that are necessary for redevelopment of the Urban Center. Any utility improvements that would be made as a result of redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1 B would be consistent with the policies In the Utilities and Capital Facilities Elements. See the Summary Matrix at the end of this chapter for a comparison of the potential impacts of SUb-district 1 B redevelopment on utilities with the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives. • Downtown Element. The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would divide the existing (at that time) Urban Center into two parts: Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) and Urban Center North (UC-N). Adopted general policies would be consistent with CPP criteria for Urban Centers that would apply to the whole of Renton's Urban Center. Individual policies and zoning for the UC-N area would support a higher density mixed use urban district. Potential future redevelopment that could occur under these land use regulations, particularly under EIS Alternative 3 and 4, could result in a spillover effect to the downtown area as a result of increases in population (Alternative 2 would be less likely to have this effect, given the lower densities of development assumed under this alternative). This could generate support for businesses in the downtown area and create new types of businesses. Alternatively, some downtown businesses could compete with uses in the Boeing Renton Plant site area. Subsequent to Issuance of the Final EIS, the City adopted the UC-N Comprehensive Plan designation and the UC-N1 zoning classification for Sub- district 1 B. The City also adopted new policies and regulations to support the redeslgnatlonlrezonlng. Redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan for Sub- district 1 B would represent a higher density mixed use urban district with an Increase In employment and population. This could result In impacts to (and from) downtown businesses, Similar to those described in the EIS. However, given that Boeing operations are continuing in Sub-district 2 (the area west of Logan Avenue N.), such potential for Impacts would be less than identified In the EIS for Alternatives 3 and 4. • Economic Development Element. The EIS concludes that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and related new general pOlicies for Urban Centers would be consistent with the goals and policies from the Economic Development Element. Redevelopment under EIS Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would include office, retail and commercial uses, consistent with policies in the Economic Development Element relating to expanding the City's office and retail employment bases. Redevelopment under EIS Alternatives 3 and 4 would encourage mixed-use redevelopment in a range of office, retail, residential and community-based land uses (redevelopment under Alternative 2 would be less diverse and intense). This type of redevelopment would be Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency AnalysIs May, 2006 2-13 consistent with policies supporting a diversified employment base, and expansion in retail and office use. The redevelopment currently proposed for Sub·district 1B would contribute to the creation of a mixed use development that could include office, retail, lab and residential uses. This redevelopment would be consistent with the Economic Development Element pOlicies related to supporting a diversified employment base and expanding the City's office and retail employment bases, as identified in the EIS. • Environmental Element. The EIS concludes that redevelopment of the site. as allowed by the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and related policies and regulations. would occur consistent with City adopted environmental and critical area regulations. Redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan for Sub·district 1B would occur in compliance with City-adopted environmental and critical area regulations, consistent with the conclusion in the EIS. See the Summary Matrix at the end of this chapter for a comparison of the potential impacts of Sub·district 1 B redevelopment on the environmental elements (I.e., earth, water quality, fish and Wildlife habitat) with the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on these elements. City of Renton Shoreline Master Program No portions of Sub·district 1 B (or Sub-district 1A) are located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington or Cedar River shorelines, and, therefore, are not subject to the provisions of this program. City of Renton 2003 Long·Range Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan The EIS indicates that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations would create capacity for a range of uses in the Boeing Renton Plant site area, including housing and employment uses. Future redevelopment would lead to demands on parks and recreation facilities. These demands would be addressed in annual updates to both the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Redevelopment within the Boeing Renton Plant site area would be subject to the City's Park and Recreation Mitigation Fee policy (Resolution 3082). EIS Alternative 2 did not include residential development, and demands for open space and/or park and recreation opportunities were assumed to be minor; Alternatives 3 and 4 were assumed to generate greater demands, because of the greater range of uses (including residential). All of the EIS alternatives were assumed to include some open space. The redevelopment under the proposed Sub·distrlct 1B Conceptual Plan would contribute to the creation of a mixed use development that could include residential uses. These uses would lead to demands on parks and recreation facilities. The Sub- district 1 B residential redevelopment would be subject to the City's Park and RecreatIon MItigation Fee policy. Redevelopment of Sub·district 1 B is proposed to include some level of open space (pedestrIan connectIons between areas of the Sub·distrlct and adjacent areas and newly landscaped areas). See the Summary Matrix at the end of this BoeIng Renton Sub·dlstrlct 1 B EnvIronmental ConsIstency AnalysIs May, 2006 2-14 chapter for a comparison of the potential impacts of Sub-district 1 B redevelopment on parks and recreation with the potential Impacts of the EIS alternatives. New City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies The 2003 EIS analyzes a new UC-N land use designation for the Boeing Renton Plant area (including Sub-district 1 B). The EIS includes a proposed intent and vision for the UC-N area, as well as new policies to support the UC-N vision. Following issuance of the Final EIS, the City adopted the UC-N land uses designation for the Boeing Renton Plant area, and related policies and regulations in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton Comprehensive Plan [2004]). A brief summary of the current vision and purpose statements and excerpts from several of the current policies applicable to redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B are presented below, followed by an evaluation of the consistency of the current redevelopment plan for Sub-district 1 B with each statement/policy in bold italic. • Vision Statement. The vision for redevelopment of the Urban Center -North is one of dramatic change as existing low-rise industrial and mid-rise office buildings are reconfigured into a dynamic new retail and office neighborhood. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office, and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. Also part of the vision for the UC-N is a dense employment center. The redevelopment under the Sub-district 1B Conceptual Plan would support this vision for the UC-N. The Conceptual Plan proposes that the property would be reconfigured Into a new mixed use development. The north portion of the property (the ROFO area) Is assumed to Include retail development, consistent with the destination retail shopping district pattern of development from the vision statement. The remainder of the property Is assumed to be developed In a mix of uses, Including office, lab and multifamily uses, consistent with the more diverse mixed use urban scale of development from the vision statement. The Sub- district 1B redevelopment would contribute to creating a dense employment center in the Urban Center North area. • Purpose Statement. The purpose of the UC-N is to redevelop the area at a larger scale than found in Downtown Renton, with a wider range of uses, taking advantage of the greater size of available land holdings. These uses are anticipated to include some industrial-type uses as ongoing within the larger context of commercial/retail, office and residential. The Sub-district 1B Conceptual Plan would contribute to redevelopment of the Boeing Renton Plant site area at a larger scale than in Downtown Renton, and with a wider range of uses. The uses proposed for this area Include retail, office, lab and multifamily uses. Industrial uses are currently being consolidated in the west portion (District 2) of the Boeing Renton Plant site area. • Pollcv LU-265. Support a more urban intensity of development (e.g. building height, [etc.]) than with land uses in suburban areas of the City. Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-15 The Sub·district 1 B Conceptual Plan would feature a more urban form of development. Building heights are assumed to range from one-story in the north portion of the property to up to six stories in the south portion of the property. • Policv LU·301. Ensure that big·box [Iarge·format] retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban·scale retail developments. Redevelopment of Sub-district 1 B could include a destination retail store. It is assumed that such a store would be located in the northwest (ROFO) portion of the site, in an anchor position. • Policv LU·303. Encourage pedestrian·oriented development. The Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1B includes provisions for pedestrian connections (I.e., along North 6th Street and Park Avenue N.) (see Figure 1·3 in this Consistency Analysis). It Is assumed that proposed pedestrian features would be further refined In the Master Plan development phase. • Policy LU·311. Reduce the suburban character of development, preserve opportunities for infill development, and provide for efficient use of land by setting maximum parking standards. To a certain extent, the redevelopment proposed for Sub· district 1B would represent Infll/, as some of the existing office buildings in the south portion of the property would be retained. It is assumed that the eventual parking ratio for Sub- district 1B would be consistent with maximum parking standards determined by the City. It Is also assumed that efficient use of the land would be promoted by the use of existing and new structured parking facilities In the development. The EIS concludes that amending the Comprehensive Plan, adopting related policies and regulations, and developing under the range of EIS alternatives would be consistent with existing (at that time) plans, policies and regulations. Redevelopment under the Sub·district 1 B Conceptual Plan would be consistent with this conclusion from the EIS. Cumulative Redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A & 18 Redevelopment of Sub·districts 1 A and 1 B together would include a wide array of retail/commercial, lab, office and multifamily uses. This redevelopment would more completely convert Sub·district 1 of the Boeing Renton Plant site to a mixed use, urban district, consistent with the analysis in the EIS, and the City's vision for the area. The redevelopment proposed for Sub-district 1 A would feature retail uses (as well as office and multifamily uses), and would be consistent with the pattern of development from the vision statement calling for creation of a destination retail shopping district. As mentioned above, redevelopment proposed for Sub- district 1 B would be consistent with the pattern of development from the vision statement calling for a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale development. Together, redevelopment of Sub· districts 1 A and 1 B would contribute to creating a dense employment center in the Urban Center North area. Cumulative redevelopment of Sub·districts 1A and 1 B would feature a more urban form of development. Sub-district 1 A building heights would range from one to ten stories; Sub·district Boeing Renton Sub·dlstrlct 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2·16 1 S building heights are assumed to range from one to six stories. Redevelopment of Sub- districts 1A and 1 S together would include destination retail stores (in the east and south portions of Sub-district 1A and possibly in the northwest portion of Sub-district 1 S). These stores would be located in anchor positions of the overall developments. Pedestrian connections and open space would be provided with redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1 S. Pedestrian-oriented streets would include: Park Avenue N., N. 6th Street, and N. 8th Street (see Figures 1-3 and 1-4 in this ConSistency Analysis). The EIS concludes that amending the Comprehensive Plan, adopting related policies and regulations, and developing under the range of EIS alternatives would be consistent with existing (at that time) plans, policies and regulations. Cumulative redevelopment under the current redevelopment plans for Sub-districts 1 A and 1 S would be consistent with this conclusion. Summary Matrix The following matrix provides a comparative overview of the significant impacts that would potentially result from the EIS Alternatives, the Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-district 1 B, and the cumUlative redevelopment plans proposed for Sub-districts 1 A and 1 S. The potential impacts that would result from the EIS Alternatives are listed in the left column of the table, and the potential impacts from the Conceptual Plan proposed for Sub-district 1 S, and the cumulative redevelopment plans proposed for Sub-districts 1 A and 1 S, are compared to them. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts are also identified, as applicable. The matrix addresses those elements of the environment that were analyzed in the EIS. It does not address Stormwater, Transportation and, Land Use Patterns, because those elements have already been covered in this chapter and in the technical conSistency analyses appended to this document (see Appendices A and 8). Conclusion Redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan proposed for SUb-district 1 B, and under the cumulative redevelopment plans proposed for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B, is considered to be within the capacity of the range of development alternatives and associated impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS. Sub-district 1 S is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation without undergoing additional SEPA review (per RCW 43.21 C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 315). Boeing Renton Sub-district 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 2-17 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment EARTH Impacts • Redevelopment would require site preparation • Consistent with EIS analysis. including: removal of some of the existing struclures and foundations, grading including provision of structural fill, and provision of foundation support including the likely use of new andlor existing piles. • Deep foundation systems, including the use of • Foundation systems similar to those described driven or dnlled piles, would likely be required in the EIS would be required for SutHIistrict 1 B for most structures. Some level of ground redevelopment. vibration would occur with pile driving (see the Noise section). • Significant erosion and landslide impacts after • Consistent with EIS analysis, because erosion redevelopment would not be anticipated; and landslide impacts would not be anticipated, impacts associated with seismic hazards and mitigation measures similar to those (liquefaction) would not be anticipated with identified in the EIS would be implemented implementation of proposed mitigation relative to seismic hazards. measures. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Implementation of the redevelopment • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because alternatives would alter the site area through mitigation measures similar to those identified construction of new roads, utilities and in the EIS would be implemented. structures. Wrth implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts from the redevelopment altematives would be anticipated. WATER RESOURCES Impacts Surface Water Quali!Jl • Redevelopment would expose erodible soils to • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing varying degrees; however, the increased site soil conditions are the same as described erosion risk from redevelopment would be in the EIS and TESCP' measures similar to Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 S-1 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment • Consistent with EIS analysis. • Same as under SutHIistrict 1 B. Foundation systems similar to those described in the EIS would be required for SutHIistrict 1B and 1A redevelopment. • Same as under SutHIistrict 1 B for cumulative 1A and 1B redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-District 1 B for cumulative 1A and 1B redevelopment. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment much less than for many other construction those identified in the EIS would be employed. sites, because the site area is already developed and covered in impervious surfaces. With proper implementation of required TESCP measures, erosion impacts would not be anticipated. • During construction, unintended release of • Consistent with EIS analysis, because fuels, oil, or hydraulic fluid could contaminate construction site control measures and spiu soils and ultimately migrate to groundwater or response planning similar to that idemified in into nearby surface water resources. Such the EIS would be implemented. water quality impacts would typically be prevented with adequate construction site control measures and spill response planning. • Stormwater runoff during construction would • Consistent with EIS analysis, because TESCP ultimately be directed to the Cedar River, measures similar to those identified in the EIS John's Creek and Lake Washington, and could would be implemented. result in a local rise in turbidity near the discharge locations. With proper implementation of required TESCP measures, no significant water quality impacts to these water bodies would occur. • Impervious surfaces within the site area would • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because water be subject to water quality treatment under quality treatment similar to that described in the Altematives 2, 3 and 4, compared to no EIS would be implemented (see Appendix A assumed water quality facilities under the for more information on stormwater impacts existinglbaseline condition. Water quality from 1 B redevelopment). parameters in the stormwater discharge to Lake Washington, the Cedar River and John's Creek would improve relative to the existinglbaseline condition. Groundwater • Recharge to the aquifer beneath the site area • Consistent with the EIS analysis, because the from direct precipitation is considered minimal majorily of groundwater recharge would with the majorily of recharge Originating from continue to originate from off-site areas. off-site areas. The potential for adverse impacts to groundwater recharge from redevelopment is considered to be very low and not si!lnificant. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 5-2 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment ! • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1A and 1 B redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1A and 1 B redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-District 1 B for cumulative 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment • Dewatering would likely be required for the • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing placement of new utilities and other excavation. groundwater conditions are the same as If groundwater levels are significantly described in the EIS, and mitigation measures decreased, ground settlement could result that similar to those identified in the EIS would be may impact existing fences, buildings, implemented. bulkheads, or other nearby structures. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would preclude these impacts. Dewatering would not be expected to produce silty or turbid water, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Future redevelopment of the site area would • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because new resutt in the construction of new water quality water quality treatment facilities would be treatment facilities that would meet current constructed and conditions would improve applicable standards. Compliance with such relative to the existing/baseline condition. standards would resutt in an improvement in water quality and localized drainage conditions, relative to the existing/baseline condition. Wrth implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected. FISH AND WlLDUFE HABITAT Impacts Shoreline Habitat and Fisheries • Under Attematives 3 and 4, construction could • Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub- occur near Lake Washington, and potential District 1 B is located at a distance from these water quality and aquatic habitat impacts could water bodies and habitat, and TESC measures resutt. The potential for impacts to aquatic similar to those described in the EIS would be habitat in Lake Washington, Cedar River and implemented. John's Creek would be lower for Altematives 1 and 2 because construction work would occur at greater distances from these water bodies. Wrth implementation of TESC measures, significant impacts would not be expected. • No post-construction/operational impacts to • Consistent with EIS analysis, because new aquatic habitat in Lake Washington, the Cedar water quality treatment would be implemented Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May. 2006 5-3 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. • Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub- districts 1A and 1 B are located at a distance from these water bodies and habitat, and TESC measures similar to those described in the EIS would be implemented. • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1A and 1 B redevelopment. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment River and John's Creek would be expected due and conditions would improve relative to the to increased stonnwater quality treatment existing baseline condition. associated with redevelopment relative to the existing/baseline condition. Upland Habitat and Wildlife • Temporary, minor construction-related impacts • Consistent with EIS analysis, because existing to wildlife habitat could occur. However, wildlife conditions continue to be limited and of existing habitat is limited and of poor quality, poor quality. and its temporary loss (until re-landscaped) is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on wildlife. • At full buildout of Altematives 3 and 4, open • Consistent with EIS analysis, because open space is expected to increase relative to the space and landscaping would increase relative existing/baseline condition (less open space to existing conditions with redevelopment would be provided under Altemative 2). This assumed for Sub-district 1 B. increase in open space would increase wildlife habitat. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to • Consistent with EIS conclUSion, because fish fish or wildlife resources would be expected to and wildlife habitat continues to be limited and occur from the redevelopment under any of the of poor quality, TESC measures and other EIS altematives. (This is primarily due to the BMPs similar to those identified in the EIS existing lack of any significant fish or wildlife would be implemented and improved habitat or fish or wildlife use of the site area; the stonnwater quality would result. lack of any in-water work assumed for redevelopment; with implementation of typical temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures (TESC) and other best management practices (BMPs), construction could be completed without adversely affecting nearby watercourses; and improved stonnwater quality treatment prior to discharge to the Cedar River, Lake Washington, and John's Creek from all redeveloped areas.) Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 -S-4 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1A and 1 B redevelopment. • Consistent with EIS analysis, because open space and landscaping would increase relative to existing conditions with redevelopment of Sub-districts 1 A and 1 B together. • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelo(lment HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impacts • Any need for further investigations, associated • Consistent with EIS analysis. with future redevelopment in the site area, as well as any subsequent remedial actions, would be determined as part of the Corrective Action process or state Model T oxics Control Act (MTCA) process. • If proposals for redevelopment to different, non-• Consistent with EIS analysis. Assumed industrial land uses are submitted in the Mure, redevelopment of Sub-district 18 would include the MTCA process would address appropriate non-industrial uses similar to those identified in cleanup levels at that time, based on the land the EIS, and cleanup measures similar to those use proposed for a specific area. identified in the EIS would be implemented, if necessary. • There would be the potential for new areas of • Consistent with EIS analysis, because, as contamination to be identified, in Subareas A necessary, investigations and cleanup similar through C, in addition to the one area of known to that identified in the EIS would be contamination at the southeast comer of the 10-undertaken. 50 complex (Subarea 8), as buildings are demolished and pavement is removed for new construction in the Mure. If such areas are identified they would be investigated, and if necessary, cleaned up, according to MTCA regulations (WAC 173-340) or the conditions of the Agreed Order. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • No unavoidable adverse impacts from the • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because Mure redevelopment under any of the remedial actions similar to those identified in aHematives would be expected. the EIS would be undertaken, as warranted. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Impacts • No population would be added to the site area • New population could be generated in Sub- under AHemative 2. At full buildout in 2030, district 18 in year 2015. Population generated population capacity of the site area could be in Sub-district 18 would be approximately 963 about 7,300 people under AHemative 3 and based on a person per household ratio of 1.8 9,200 under AHemative 4. This population and a 100 percent oCcupancy rate. This Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 -5-5 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment • Same as under Sub-district 18 for cumulative 1A and 18 redevelopment. • Consistent with EIS analysis. Redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 18 together would both include non-industrial uses similar to those identified in the EIS, and cleanup measures similar to those identified in the EIS would be implemented, if necessary. • Same as under Sub-district 18 for cumulative 1A and 18 redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-district 18 for cumulative 1A and 18 redevelopment. I • Population generated cumulatively by redevelopment in Sub-districts 1A and 18 could be approximately 2,600. This population would be within the range estimated in the EIS. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 RedeveloDment growth would represent between 37 and 47 population would be within the range estimated percent of forecasted growth that is projected to in the EIS. occur in the overall Renton/Skyway Forecast Analysis Zone (FAZ) Group between 2000 and 2030. • New employment capacity and associated • Consistent with the EIS analysis, because the indirect employment would likely generate potential for new employment capacity and increases in population to the City of Renton associated indirect employment to generate over the 25-year buildout period. increases in population to the City of Renton would be within levels identified in the EIS. Employment • At full buildout in 2015, total employment • New employment capacity in Sub-district 1 B at capacity in the entire Renton Plant site area partial buildout in year 2015 would be up to under Alternative 2 would be about 14,700 and about 2,000, based on ULI standards used in would account for 18 percent of total projected the EIS. New employment capacity in Sub- employment in the overall Renton/Skyway FAZ district 1 B at full buildout in 2030 would be up to Group. At full build out in 2030, total about 3,200. New employment capacity in 2015 employment capacity under Alternatives 3 and and 2030 would be within the range estimated 4 would be about 23,700 and 41,400, in the EIS. respectively, and would account for 25 and 43 percent of total projected employment in the overall RentonlSkyway FAZ Group. Wrthout existing Boeing employees, total new employment would be 3,500 under Alternative 2, 4,400 under Alternative 3 and 7,900 under Alternative 4. • By 2030, redevelopment would result in a • Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub- transition in the employment base within the district 1 B is assumed to be redeveloped as an site area from industriaVmanufacturing to the urban mixed-use development. services sector (potentially including jobs in the retail, "finance, insurance, real estate and services", and government/education employment sectors). .The new mix of employment would reflect that of a mixed-use urban district and is assumed to include a range of jobs associated with redevelopment in new retail, office, lab, hotel and residential uses. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 S-6 Sub-Districts 1A and 1 B RedeveloDment • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1A and 1 B redevelopment. • New employment capacity generated cumulatively by the current redevelopment plans for Sub-districts 1A and 1 B would be up to about 3,850 in 2015, and would be within the range estimated in the EIS. • Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub- districts 1A and 1B together would be redeveloped as urban mixed-use developments. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment • Jobs created within the site area would • Consistent with EIS analysis, because jobs generate secondary and induced (indirect) similar to those described in the EIS would be employment that could resutt in increased local created, with the potential to generate and regional economic actMty. secondary and induced employment. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to • Consistent with the EIS conclusion. population, housing and employment would occur as a resutt of the redevelopment altematives, as analyzed. PARKS AND RECREATION Impacts • Increase in demand on pari< and recreation • Consistent with EIS analysis. facilities would resutt from Mure redevelopment. Mitigation would include capital facilities planning by the City, provision of on- site open space and compliance with the City's Pari< and Recreation Mitigation Fee Policy for residential projects. • It is assumed that redevelopment would include • Similar to EIS analysis, because it is assumed new open space, a portion of which would be that some level of open space (landscaped available to the public, with a mix of active and area and potentially open space as part of passive recreational features. Under residential development) would be provided Altemative 2, it is assumed that approximately with redevelopment of Sub-district 16. two acres of new open space (conSisting of landscaped area) would be provided. • Construction-related impacts could include • Sub-district 16 is not located adjacent to these temporary increases in noise and dust levels at pari< and recreation facilities, and construction the Cedar River Trail, new Sam Chastain in Sub-district 16 would not adversely affect Waterfront Trail, and Gene Coulon Pari<; them. however, these increases would be temporary in nature, likely of short duration and not significant. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • With implementation of mitigation measures, no • Consistent with the EIS. conclusion, because significant unavoidable adverse impacts to park similar mitigation measures to those identified in Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 -5-7 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment • Same as under Sub-district 16 for cumulative 1A and 16 redevelopment. • Same as under Sub-district 16 for cumulative 1 A and 1 6 redevelopment. • Consistent with EIS analysis. • Similar to EIS analysis, because open space would be provided with redevelopment of Sub- districts 1A and 16 (including landscaped area, courtyards/plazas and open space in residential areas). • Sub-districts 1A and 16 are not located: adjacent to these pari< and recreation facilities, and construction on these properties would not adversely affect them. • Same as under Sub-district 16 for cumulative 1A and 16 redevelopment. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment and recreation faciltties from the redevelopment the EIS would be implemented. scenarios, as analyzed, would be expected. AESTHETICS/UGHT AND GLARE Impacts • Views to the site area from adjacent areas • Similar to EIS analysis, views to Sub-District would substantially change. 1 B would change with redevelopment of that property. • The visual character of the stte area would be • Consistent with EIS analysis, the visual substantially changed. Buildings could be character of Sutxlistrict lB would be located along the street edge, encouraging substantially changed. It is assumed that increased pedestrian activity. Street-level retail redevelopment would represent an urban scale spaces could be included in some mixed use and character. buildings, and parking areas could be hidden from street view, representing an urban scale and character. • New sources of light and glare would be • Similar to the EIS analysis, because primarily from vehicular traffic, parking areas redevelopment assumed for Sutxlistrict 1 B and street lighting, and interior and exterior would create new sources of light and glare building lighting. light and glare would also similar to those described in the EIS. However, likely increase near the Lake Washington light and glare would not increase substantially shoreline. near Lake Washington, because of the distance between Sutxlistrict lB and the shoreline. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to • Consistent wtth EIS conclusion. aesthetic, light and glare conditions would occur. NOISE Impacts • Noise associated with the demolition of existing • Consistent with EIS analysis. Noise would structures, parking area removal, building generally be limited to the Sub-District 1 B construction, truck traffic to and from building property and immediately surrounding area. sties, and the operation of heavy equipment Noise-sensttive receptors would include the and support vehicles in the site area, would residential uses to the south of the property. increase noise levels adjacent to the stte area Construction mitigation measures similar to Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May. 2006 --S-8 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment • Similar to EIS analysis, views to Sutxlistricts lA and 1 B would change with redevelopment of those properties. • Consistent with EIS analysis, the visual character of Sutxlistricts lA and 1 B together would be substantially changed. Redevelopment would represent an urban scale and character, and would include design features to encourage pedestrian activity. • Similar to the EIS analysis, because redevelopment of Sutxlistricts 1 A and 1 B would create new sources of light and glare similar to those described in the EIS. However, light and glare would not increase substantially near Lake Washington, because of the distance between Sutxlistricts 1A and 1 Band the shoreline. • Same as under Sutxlistrict 1 B for cumulative lA and 1 B redevelopment. • Consistent with EIS analysis. Noise would generally be limtted to the Sub-District 1A and 1 B properties and immediately surrounding area. Noise sensttive receptors would include the residential uses to the south of Sutxlistrict lB. Construction mitigation measures similar Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment over the duration of the construction process. those identified in the EIS would be Locations immediately adjacent to the site area implemented, and no significant impacts would could experience brief sound levels exceeding resu~. 110 dBA during pile driving. The majority of noise-sensitive receptors (existing residences) would experience lower noise levels due to the distance from the site area. Noise associated with demolition and construction traffic would be of shorter duration under Memative 2. • Increases in the sound level from operation of • Consistent with EIS analysis, because the building mechanical equipment after level of development assumed for Sub-district redevelopment would be between 4 dBA and 6 1 B would fall within the range of development dBA above baseline levels at some analysis assumed for this area in the EIS. Also, locations under A~ematives 3 and 4, standard noise reduction mitigation measures respectively, representing a small to moderate similar to those identified in the EIS would be increase. Under both baseline conditions implemented. (without redevelopment) and with redevelopment, sound levels would exceed City of Renton allowable daytime noise limits at some locations, and the nighttime noise limit at all analysis locations; however, with implementation of standard noise reduction mitigation measures, no significant impacts would be expected. Sound level increases from operation of building mechanical equipment would be slightly lower under A~emative 2. • Increases in traffic noise levels above baseline • Consistent with EIS analysis, because vehicle conditions (generally within 2 dBA) would be trip generation would be within the range small or imperceptible at the more sensitive estimated in the EIS for redevelopment of Sub- analysis locations. district 1B (see the Transportation section and Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for details). Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • The predicted sound levels from the • Consistent with EIS conclusion. redevelopment a~ematives would not resu~ in significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2006 5-9 Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment to those identified in the EIS would be implemented, and no significant impacts would resu~. I ! , ! • Consistent with EIS analysis, because the level of development assumed for Sub-district 1A and 1 B together would fall within the range of development assumed for this area in the EIS. Also, standard noise reduction mitigation measures similar to those identified in the EIS would be implemented. • Consistent with EIS analysis, because vehicle trip generation from cumulative redevelopment would be within the range estimated in the EIS (see the Transportation section and Appendix B to this Consistency Analysis for details). • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. Summary Matrix 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment PUBUC SERVICES Fire and Emergency Services • Construction-related impacts would include the • Consistent with EIS analysis. • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative potential for increases in calls for service 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. related to inspection of the construction sites and potential construction-related injuries. • At full buildout under Attemative 2 in 2015, an • At partial build out of Sub-district 1 B in 2015, an • Increases in calls for fire service generated by increase in annual calls for service from the increase in annual calls for fire service of up to the cumulative redevelopment for Sub-districts Renton Fire Department of two to three percent 2 percent over 2002 levels would be expected; 1A and 1B would represent approximately up over the 2002 district-wide call levels would be at full buildout in 2030, an increase of up to 3 to a 4 to 5 percent increase over 2002 levels in expected; at full buildout under Attematives 3 percent over 2002 levels would be expected. 2015 and 2030, respectively. These increases and 4 in 2030, an increase in annual calls for These increases in calls for fire service would in calls for fire service would be within the service from the Renton Fire Department of 19 be within the range estimated in the EIS. range estimated in the EIS. and 30 percent, respectively, over 2002 district- wide call levels would be expected. • At full buildout under Attematives 3 and 4 in • Wrth only Sub-district 1B redevelopment, • Similar to EIS analysis; however, with Sub- 2030, the projected increase in calls could expanded personnel levels and equipment districts 1A and 1 B redevelopment, expanded require expanded personnel levels and fire and would likely not be necessary. personnel levels and equipment mayor may emergency response equipment to ensure not be necessary. consistent response levels to the site area and overall service area. Law Enforcement • New commercial square footage identified • At full buildout of Sub-district 1B • Increases in calls generated by the cumulative under Attemative 2 would generate calls for redevelopment, an increase in annual calls for redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A and 1B police service; such call volumes are not service from the Renton Police Department of would represent up to an approximately 3 anticipated to be significant. At full buildout less than 2 percent over 2002 district-wide call percent increase over 2002 district-wide call under Attematives 3 and 4 in 2030, an increase levels would be expected, and would be within levels in 2030, and would be within the range in annual calls for service from the Renton the range estimated in the EIS. estimated in the EIS. Police Department of 13 and 16 percent, respectively, over 2002 district-wide call levels would be expected. • At full buildout under Attematives 3 and 4 in • The potential for increases in calls and • The potential for increases in calls and 2030, an additional 4.1 to 5.3 patrol officers associated need for increased personnel levels associated need for increased personnel levels (over 2003 levels) would be needed to maintain and equipment at full buildout of Sub-district 1 B and equipment at full buildout of Sub-districts the existing City of Renton level of service would be within the range estimated in the EIS, 1A and 1 B together would be within the range standard of 1.75 patrol officers to 1,000 and less than under Atterinatives 3 and 4. estimated in the EIS, and less than under Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis S-10 Summary Matrix May, 2006 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment population. Long-term capital and operating Attematives 3 and 4. I needs would be addressed through incremental capital facilities planning over the buildout period and beyond. Schools • Increases in enrollment associated with • At full buildout of Sub-district 1 B, an enrollment • The enrollment increase generated by the Memative 2 would not be expected to be increase of up to 2 percent over 2002 district-cumulative redevelopment of Sub-districts 1A significant. At full buildout under Attematives 3 wide enrollment would be expected to be and 1 B would represent an increase of up to 4 and 4 in 2030, an enrollment increase of 7 and generated and would be within the range percent over 2002 district-wide enrollment in 9 percent, respectively, over 2002 district-wide estimated in the EIS. This increase in 2025; this increase would be within the range enrollment would be expected. This would enrollment would represent about 1 percent of estimated in the EIS. represent about 5 to 6 percent of Mure Mure projected district-wide enrollment in projected district-wide enrollment in 2025. 2025. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Wrth implementation of mitigation measures, no • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative significant unavoidable adverse impacts to mitigation measures similar to those identified in 1A and 1 B redevelopment. public services from Attematives 2, 3 and 4, as the EIS would be implemented. analyzed, would be expected. It is anticipated that incremental increases in population over the 25 year buildout period(s) would be planned for through the capital facilities planning by the City of Renton and other affected agencies. UTIUT1ES Impacts • The capacity of the City of Renton's water • Similar to EIS analysis, because the water • Similar to EIS analysis, because the water system (based on annual water rights capacity) demand generated by the redevelopment demand generated by redevelopment of Sub- would be adequate to serve future assumed for Sub-district 1 B would be within the districts 1A and 1 B would be within the range redevelopment. Based on water demand range of demand estimated in the EIS. of demand estimated in the EIS. estimates related to Mure growth in the City (used in the 1998 Water System Plan) at full buildout under Memative 2 in 2015, annual water demand would be approximately four percent of total City water system capacity; at full buildout of Attematives 3 and 4 in 2030, annual water demand would be 13 and 19 percent, respectively, of total City water system capacity. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1 B Environmental Consistency Analysis 5-11 Summary Matrix May. 2006 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment • New infrastructure improvements, including but • Similar to EIS analysis; infrastructure • Similar to EIS analysis; infrastructure not limited to new transmission and distribution improvements would only be required to serve improvements would only be required to serve mains, domestic meters, fire hydrants, pressure the redevelopment of Sutxiistrict 1 B. redevelopment of Sutxiistricts 1A and 1 B. reducing stations, and storage, would be needed. The private Boeing water system would not be used to provide water to any redeveloped areas. • At full buildout of Altemative 2 in 2015, annual • Annual wastewater flows from redevelopment in • Annual wastewater flows from redevelopment wastewater flows from the site area would be Sutxiistrict 1B would be within the range in Sutxiistricts 1A and 1B together would be about 398 million gallons, including allowances estimated in the EIS. within the range estimated in the EIS. for infittrationlinflow. At full buildout of Attematives 3 and 4 in 2030, annual wastewater flows from the site area would be about 564 and 714 million gallons, respectively, including allowances for infittrationlinflow. These flows would be less than 2 percent of the total King County Eastside Interceptor sewer main capacity. • New wastewater collection systems would be • Consistent with EIS analysis. • Same as under Sutxiistrict 1 B for cumulative required. The existing Boeing-owned 1A and 18 redevelopment. wastewater facilities would not be used to serve any Mure redevelopment. New wastewater facilities would be constructed in accordance with City of Renton standards. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Wrth ongoing utility systems and capital • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because • Same as under Sub-district 1 B for cumulative facilities planning by the City of Renton, utility mitigation measures similar to those identified in 1 A and 1 B redevelopment. infrastructure improvements would be made to the EIS would be implemented. ensure adequate capacity to serve the demand associated with growth from the redevelopment altematives and on an overall basis in the City. No significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. AIR QUALITY Impacts • Probable significant adverse air quality impacts • Consistent with EIS analysis, because • Consistent with EIS analysis, because from redevelopment under Altematives 2, 3 redevelopment assumed for Sutxiistrict 1 B redevelopment of Sutxiistricts 1A and 1B Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis S-12 Summary Matrix May, 2006 2003 EIS Alternatives Sub-District 18 Redevelopment Sub-Districts 1A and 18 Redevelopment and 4 would not be likely, because mixed-use would represent an urban mixed-use would represent urban mixed-use urban redevelopment are generally neutral or development. developments. beneficial to regional air quality, as they allow development to occur close to employment centers and housing, thereby minimizing commute times and associated vehicle emissions. • Under Altematives 2, 3 and 4, local air • Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub-• Consistent with EIS analysis, because Sub- pollutant emissions from associated traffic district 16 local air pollutant emissions would districts 1A and 16 local air pollutant emissions would represent less than 0.5 percent of the be within the range estimated in the EIS. would be within the range estimated in the EIS. regional transportation emission budget. Redevelopment in this location could reduce local emissions in other parts of the Puget Sound region; therefore, no significant impact to regional air quality would be expected under any of the redevelopment attematives. • Prior to Mure construction of new signalized • Consistent with EIS analysis. The City is • Consistent with EIS analysis. The City is intersections, a local intersection-level currently preparing an air quality conformity currently preparing an air quality conformity conformity analysis would be completed per analysis related to the construction of new analysis related to the construction of new WAC 173-420-120, which requires analysis of intersections in the site area. intersections in the site area. newly signalized intersections in air quality maintenance areas. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Wrth implementation of mitigation measures, • Consistent with EIS conclusion, because • Same as under Sub-district 16 for cumulative no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to mitigation measures similar to those identified 1A and 16 redevelopment. regional or local air quality would occur. in the EIS would be implemented. Boeing Renton Sub-District 1B Environmental Consistency Analysis S-13 May, 2006 Summary Matrix Appendix A Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-District 1 B Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-District 1 B May 2, 2006 Prepared By KPFF Consulting Engelneers 711 Court, Suite 202 Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 396-0150 (253) 396-0162 FAX Introduction The City of Renton issued the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in October 2003. The Boeing Company is proceeding with plans for future redevelopment of Boeing Renton Plant Sub-districts I B. This sub-district is part of the overall site that was evaluated in the 2003 EIS. The Boeing Company is seeking a Planned Action designation for their current Conceptual Plan. Preparation of an Environmental Consistency Analysis is requested by the City in order for the project to be eligible as a Planned Action. Following is the Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis for Sub-district I B. A separate Surface/Stormwater Consistency Analysis has been prepared for Sub-district 1 A. The Sub-district 1 B surface/stormwater analysis compares the stormwater conditions associated with the current Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 1 B to those associated with the range of development alternatives for this area analyzed in the 2003 EIS. The analysis highlights any differences in probable significant impacts to surface or stormwater conditions from the current redevelopment plan, and indicates whether the impacts were adequately addressed in the 2003 EIS. This analysis includes a cumulative analysis of the current redevelopment plans proposed for both Sub-districts I A and I B. The goal of the analysis is to determine whether the impacts of redevelopment of Sub- district I B, and the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment of Sub-districts IA and I B, are within the range of development alternatives and associated impacts analyzed in the 2003 EIS, and that Sub-district I B is, therefore, eligible for Planned Action designation. Summary of Redevelopment Scenarios The Boeing Conceptual Redevelopment Plan (BCRP) for Sub-district lA includes a range of potential uses and redevelopment scenarios that are discussed in detail in Chapter I of the Boeing Renton Plant Sub-District I B Environmental Consistency Analysis. For the purposes of analyzing the consistency of the current proposal with the EIS, the range of redevelopment scenarios identified by the BCRP have been compared in this report to the range of Alternatives evaluated in the E1S. Sub-district 1 B was identified in the EIS Surface/Stormwater Technical Report as Sub-Area C. BCRP Impervious Coverage "Table I, Impervious coverage associated with redevelopment alternatives" provides a comparison of impervious areas that would cover Sub-Area C, or Subdistrict I B; within the EIS site area, dependent on the redevelopment. This table is similar to the Draft EIS, Volume II, "Table 3.1 -Impervious Coverage". Primary differences between Table 2, herein, and the Draft E1S, Volume II, "Table 3.1 - Impervious Coverage", include the addition of the BCRP, and the omission of unaffected Sub-Areas, as the BCRP only affects EIS Sub-Area C. Baseline illS Redevelopment BCRP Scenarios Existing] Alternatives Sub·Area (%) (%) (%) C 100 100to38 93 to 88 Table I -ImpervIOus coverage assoctated with redevelopment alternatives. The HeRP scenarios would range from a high of ninety-three to a low of eighty-eight percent impervious coverage. This impervious coverage is within the range of EIS alternatives evaluated, and is lower than the present day, baseline. The BeRP would add varying amounts of pervious space, dependent on the decided upon HeRP scenario. Generally speaking, the higher the impervious coverage, the less pervious space is anticipated. Storm Water Quantity Analysis Method For consistency, the analysis method and calculation assumptions used in this Report are identical to those used in the DEIS. Stonn water quantity analysis is performed according to the 2001 Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual and specifically follows the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method. Reference Draft EIS Volume II, 3.1 to 3.3 for a more comprehensive explanation of the analysis methods and procedures. BCRP Quantitative Peak Flow Data and Quantitative Comparison Analysis "Table 2 -Storm event peak flows versus redevelopment alternatives for Sub-District lB" provides a comparison of baseline conditions, EIS alternatives and BeRP scenarios corresponding to five storm frequency events. EIS Baseline Redevelopment Storm Event (Existing) Alternatives BCRP Scenarios 6mo Flow (cfs) 15.36 14.89 to 7.63 14.06 to 13.56 2yr Flow (cfs) 21.35 21.32 to 12.92 20.36 to 19.78 JOyr Flow (cfs) 31.98 3 I .90 to 22.63 30.84 to 30.20 2~yr Flow (cfs) 36.46 36.45 to 27.04 35.38 to 34.73 100yr Flow (cfs) 43.45 43.43 to 33.96 42.35 to 41.70 Table 2 -Stonn event peak flows versus redevelopment alternatives for Sub-District 1 B. Peak stonnwater flows are very closely linked to the level of impervious ground coverage. In comparison to the range of EIS alternatives, the BeRP scenarios would decrease the amount of impervious surface (see Table 2); therefore, peak flows would decrease as stonnwater is able to penneate pervious surface area. In comparison to the baseline, peak flows for the BeRP scenarios would be reduced. The peak storm water flows for the BeRP scenarios would be within the range of peak stormwater flows for the 2 evaluated EIS alternatives, and lower than the present day, baseline peak storm water flows. Also of significance in Table 2, is how impervious coverage impacts peak runoff to a greater extent during more frequent storm events. For example, the six-month storm event decreases the peak runoff by as little as 8.5% and as much as 11.8%, comparing BCR!' scenarios and the baseline. The same comparison with a 100-yr storm event would decrease peak runoff by 2.5% to 4.0%. This makes sense, considering that pervious surfaces have a limited ability to absorb water during infrequent storm events, after which the surfaces become saturated and begin functioning similar to impervious surfaces. Storm Water Collection and Conveyance In its existing condition, stormwater runoff from Sub-District 1 B is collected and conveyed through a storm drainage system which discharges through outfalls located on the Cedar River, John's Creek and Lake Washington. These outfalls are identified in the EIS as Outfall #15 (Cedar River), Outfalls #13 and #14 (John's Creek) and Outfall #1 (Lake Washington). As assumed in the EIS, conveyance system components could be designed to divert water away from existing overcapacity outfalls within the EIS study area to the extent possible. There are 16 storm drain outfalls receiving stormwater runoff from the EIS study area. As stated in the EIS, some of the outfalls and the John's Creek channel, which receives flow from two outfalls in the EIS study area, appear to be over capacity during some storm events, while others appear to have excess capacity. Since the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, as well as the BCRP, involve redevelopment of large areas of the EIS study area, it is assumed that stormwater runoff could be directed to outfalls with excess capacity, and away from John's Creek and the outfalls that are overcapacity. This approach would benefit the area surrounding the EIS study area by alleviating drainage issues that are currently present. The degree to which this approach can be implemented in the E1S Alternatives, and in the BCRP (when Boeing Company operations remain in the site area), would be somewhat dependent on the extent to which existing Boeing owned and maintained outfalls can be utilized to convey runoff from non-Boeing properties. Since the possibility of implementing this approach was unknown at the time the EIS was issued, two approaches for handling stormwater runoff are considered in the EIS, defined as Case I and Case 2. To evaluate the consistency of the BCRP with the E1S, the BCRP is considered in terms of both the Case I and Case 2 approaches to handling stormwater. These approaches are defined as follows: Case I -In Case I, the general stormwater runoff patterns of the site area would be maintained, the areas drained by each of the existing outfalls would be maintained in size and configuration to the extent possible within the constraints of the assumed development in each redevelopment alternative; and in alternatives where Boeing Company operations continue within the E1S site area, a separation would be maintained 3 between systems carrying stormwater runoff from the areas used the Boeing Company and systems carrying stormwater runoff from areas used by others. Case 2 -In Case 2, stormwater runoff directed to the outfalls in John's Creek and overcapacity outfalls serving the E1S site area would be minimized to the extent possible by directing stormwater runoff from areas currently draining to John's Creek into outfalls with excess capacity on Lake Washington currently owned and maintained by the Boeing Company, in particular Outfall # I, which has a capacity of 437 cfs and a peak flow of 69.94 crs during the 25-year design storm event. BCRP Outfall Impacts Qualitative Assessment Stormwater from Sub-District I B flows to multiple outfalls in the baseline condition and under the EIS Redevelopment Alternatives. Additionally, these outfalls receive stormwater from areas other than Sub-District I B. To provide a specific analysis of the impacts to outfalls associated with the BCRP and a comparison of the impacts with those identified in the E1S, the following calculations were prepared: I. Peak flows at the outfalls receiving stormwater from the BCRP area were calculated. 2. Calculations assume that the BCRP is constructed and that the remainder of the EIS study area remains in its existing condition. 3. Calculations were prepared for the Case I and Case 2 approaches to handling of stormwater runoff, as defined previously in this report. 4. Calculations were prepared for the 25-year storm event, which is the basis of design for new conveyance systems according to the 200 I DOE manual. These calculated peak flows are presented in comparison to the baseline condition and the EIS Alternatives in Tables 3 and 4 below. Baseline (Existing) EIS Redevelopment Outfall No. (cfs) Alternatives (cfs) BCRP Scenarios (cfs) I 69.94 81.82 to 58.27 81.41 to 81.08 13 and 14 73.79 68.95 to 66.28 72.97 to 72.76 15 25.03 19.26 to 15.50 18.81 to 18.44 Table 3 -Case 1 : 25 Year Storm Event Peak Flows at Outfalls Affected by BCRP As indicated in Table 3, for Case I at Outfall # 15, the BCRP scenarios would decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition, and would result in flows that would be within the calculated range for tbe EIS Alternatives. Flows identified for Outfalls # 13 and # 14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfalls, dependent on 4 the detailed design of any site development. At Outfalls # 13 and # 14, the BCRP scenarios would decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition. However, flows would increase relative to the calculated flow range for the EI S Alternatives. This difference is attributable to the fact that the E1S Alternatives included, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, Band C, while the BCRP reflects only redevelopment of Sub Area C. Since Outfalls #13 and # 14 receive the majority of their flow from Sub Areas A and H, the lower flows at these outfalls identified in the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Areas A and B are redeveloped in the future. Flows identified for Outfall # I would be within the calculated range for the E1S Alternatives, but greater than the baseline condition. The capacity of Outfall #1 is 437 cfs. Therefore the increased flow is well within the capacity of the outfall. Baseline E1S Redevelopment Outfall No. IExistina) Alternatives '(cfs) BCRP Scenarios (cfs) I 69.94 122.31 to 96.39 87.62 to 87.15 J3 and 14 73.79 45.47 to 20.90 64.46 to 64.37 15 25.03 16.45 to 12.51 14.14 to 13.77 Table 4 -Case 2 : 25 Yea, Storm Event Peak Flows at Outfalls Affected by the BCRP As indicated in Table 4, for Case 2 at Outfall # 15, the HCRP scenarios would decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition, and result in flows that are within the calculated range for the E1S Alternatives. Flows identified for Outfalls # 13 and # 14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfalls, dependent on the detailed design of any site development. At Outfalls # 13 and # 14, the HCRP scenarios would decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition, and result in flows that are greater than the calculated range for the E1S Alternatives. This difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, Band C, while the BCRP reflects only redevelopment of Sub Area C. Since Outfalls #13 and #14 receive the majority of their flow from Sub Areas A and B, the reduction in flows at these outfalls identified in the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Areas A and H are redeveloped in the future. At Outfall # 1, the BCRP scenarios would result in flows that are lower than the calculated range for the E1S Alternatives. Similar to conditions at Outfalls # 13 and # 14, this difference is attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, Band C while the BCRP reflects only redevelopment of Sub Area C. Since the Case 2 Alternatives in the E1S sought to route runoff from 100% of Sub Area H toward the excess capacity available at Outfall # 1, the increase in flow at Outfall # I would not occur until Sub Area B is redeveloped in the future. The HCR!' scenarios increase anticipated flows at Outfall # I in comparison to the baseline condition. However, the capacity of Outfall #1 is 437 cfs. Therefore, the increased flow is well within the capacity of the outfall. 5 Summary 0/ Consistency Ana/ysis for BCRP The findings of this Report conclude that specific conditions and calculated impacts associated with the BCRP are consistent with the conditions and calculated impacts associated with the range of redevelopment Alternatives analyzed in the EIS. Peak runoff flows from the study area to the applicable outfalls would generally be reduced in comparison to the haseline condition, except for to Outfall # I. The peak flow at Outfall # 1 would increase in comparison to the baseline condition. However, the increase would result in a peak flow that is well below the capacity of the outfall. The peak flows at Outfalls # 13 and # 14 would increase relative to the EIS alternatives. These increases in flows are attributable to the fact that the EIS Alternatives included, at a minimum, redevelopment of Sub Areas A, Band C, while the BCRP reflects only redevelopment of Sub Area C. Since Outfalls # 13 and # 14 receive the majority of their flow from Sub Areas A and B, the lower flows at these outfalls under the EIS Alternatives would not occur until Sub Areas A and B are redeveloped in the future. The peak flow at Outfall # 15 would decrease in comparison to the baseline condition, and would result in flows that are within the calculated range for the EIS Alternatives. Similar to the conclusion of the EIS, there would be no significant impacts to the surface or storm water environment as a result of the BCRP. Summary o/Cumu/ative Impacts To understand the cumulative impacts of the BCRP in Sub District I B, the Harvest Partners Master Plan proposal for Sub District I A and the arterials planned by the City of Renton associated with the proposals, combined peak storm event flows and peak outfall flows were calculated for the three proposals. These calculations were compared to the conditions and calculated impacts included in the EIS for Sub Areas A, B, and C and the EIS arterials. The areas of redevelopment included in the current proposals are approximately 8% smaller than the areas assumed for redevelopment in the EIS as shown below in Table 6. This difference is primarily due to the difference in the extent of roadway development. Impervious Peak Stonn Event Flows (cfs) Area (acres Coverage (%) 6mo 2yr 10yr 25yr 100yr EIS 117.0 100 to 66.7 38.44 to 55.05 to 82.34 to 94.10 to 112.11 to 29.62 44.82 71.07 82.65 100.59 Current 108.4 91.6 to 89.5 33.87 to 48.98 to 74.11 to 85.02 to 101.66 to Proposals 33.37 48.44 73.48 84.34 100.98 1 able 6 -Cumulattve ImperVIous Coverage and Peak Storm Event Flows for Sub DIstrict I A, Sub District I B and Arterials As indicated in Table 6, the cumulative impervious coverage and peak storm event flows are within the range of EIS Alternatives. Since the current proposals and the EIS Alternatives do not affect precisely the same areas, the peak storm event flows were also calculated on a per acre basis. 6 Peak Storm Event Flows (cfs/acre) Area (acres) 6mo 2yr lOy,. 25yr 100yr EIS 117.0 0.33 to 0.25 0.47 to 0.38 0.70 to 0.61 0.80 to 0.71 0.96 to 0.86 Current 108.4 0.31 0.45 0.68 0.78 0.94 Proposals , , Table 7 -Cumulative Peak Storm bvent I' lows per Acre for Sub DlStnct I A, Sub DlStnct IB and Arterials As indicated in Table 7, the peak storm event flows from each acre affected by the current proposals is within the range of peak storm flows anticipated in the evaluation of the EIS Alternatives. Summary of Arterial Development As discussed in the report titled Boeing Renton Sub-District I A Stormwater Consistency Analysis, the City of Renton plans to improve existing and develop new arterial roadways defined as Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, 8th Street and lOth Street. Table 5 below compares impervious coverage and storm event peak flows for five storm frequency events associated with the arterials assumed to serve the EIS Alternatives and the arterials currently planned to serve the Boeing and Harvest Partners proposals. Impervious Peak Storm Event Flows (cfs) Area (acres) Coverage (%) 6mo 2yr 10yr 25yr 100yr ElS Arterials 29.11 100 9.57 13.7 20.49 23.42 27.90 Arterials Planned to Serve Boeing or 16.9 87.4 5.55 7.95 11.90 13.60 16.20 Harvest Partners Proposals rable 5 -ImpervIOUs Coverage and Peak Storm Flows for Proposed Artenals Note: The roadway sections of these arterials will provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District 1. From Table 5, a significant reduction in runoff from the arterials under the City's current plans is evident in comparison to the arterials proposed to serve the EIS Alternatives. This reduction is attributable to two factors: I. The currently planned arterials cover a smaller area than is assumed in the EIS. The analysis contained in the EIS assumes roadway development that would be sufficient to support redevelopment of the entire EIS study area (including District 2 to the west of Logan Avenue N.), while the City's current plans include roadway development (i.e., roadway sections) that will provide capacity at a level that is greater than required to serve District I only (Sub-district I A and I B redevelopment), but lesser than required to serve the entire EIS study area. 2. The impervious coverage of the currently planned arterials is reduced in comparison to the arterials assumed in the EIS. As a result of this reduced 7 impervious coverage, the peak runoff per acre of arterial is lower for the currently planned arterials in comparison to the arterials assumed in the ElS. Cumulative Impacts Qualitative Assessment To provide a specific analysis of the cumulative impacts to outfalls affected by the BCRP, the Harvest Partners proposal and the arterials planned by the City of Renton and a comparison of the impacts with those identified in the EIS, the following calculations were prepared: I. Peak flows at the outfalls receiving stormwater from the three areas were calculated. 2. Calculations assume that the BCRP, Harvest Partners proposal and associated arterials are constructed, and that the remainder of the ElS study area remains in its existing condition. 3. Calculations were prepared for the Case I and Case 2 approaches to handling of stormwater runoff, as defined previously in this report. 4. Calculations were prepared for the 25-year storm event, which is the basis of design for new conveyance systems according to the 200 I DOE manual. These calculated peak flows are presented in comparison to the baseline condition and the ElS Alternatives in Tables 8 and 9 below. Baseline (Existing) EIS Redevelopment Cumulative Redevelopment Outfall No. (cfs) Alternatives '(cfs) Proposals (cfs) I 69.94 81.82 to 58.27 81.41 to 81.08 13 and 14 73.79 68.95 to 66.28 62.23 to 62.06 15 25.03 19.26 to 15.50 18.81 to 18.44 Table 8 -Case I : 25 Year Storm Event Peak Flows at Outfalls A ffected by the Cumulative Redevelopment Proposals As indicated in Table 8, for Case I at Outfall # 15, the Cumulative Redevelopment proposals would decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition, and result in flows that are within the calculated range for the EIS Alternatives. Flows identified for Outfalls # 13 and # 14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfalls, dependent on the detailed design of any redevelopment. At Outfalls # 13 and # 14, the Cumulative Redevelopment proposals would decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition and result in flows that are below the calculated range for the ElS Alternatives. This difference is attributable to the fact that the Cumulative proposals include a smaller area of redevelopment than the area included in the ElS Alternatives as described above. If the areas included in the current proposals matched the ElS Redevelopment areas precisely, the peak storm flows at Outfalls # 13 and # 14 would be within the range anticipated in the EIS. 8 At Outfall # I, flows are within the calculated range for the ElS Alternatives, and increased in comparison to the baseline condition. The capacity of Outfall #1 is 437 cfs. Therefore the increased flow would be well below the capacity of the outfall. Baseline (Existing) EIS Redevelopment Cumulative Redevelopment Outfall No. (cfs) A Itematives '( cfs) Proposals (cfs)' I 69.94 122.31 to 96.39 107.24 to 106.75 J3 and 14 73.79 45.47 to 20.90 38.68 to 38.61 15 25.03 16.45 to 12.51 15.23 to 14.85 Table 9 -Case 2: 25 Year Storm Event Peak Flows at Outfalls Affected by the Cumulative Redevelopment Proposals As indicated in Table 9, for Case 2 at Outfalls #13, #14 and #15, the Cumulative Redevelopment proposals would generally decrease anticipated flows in comparison to the baseline condition, and would result in flows that are within the calculated range for the ElS Alternatives. Flows identified for Outfalls #13 and #14 are combined, since the pipes are nearly identical in destination, and flows may be split between these two outfalls, dependent on the detailed design of any redevelopment. Flows at Outfall # I are within the calculated range for the EIS Alternatives and would be increased in comparison to the baseline condition. The capacity of Outfall # I is 437 cfs. Therefore, the increased flow is well below the capacity of the outfall. Summary o/Consistency Analysis/or Cumulative Impacts The findings of this Report conclude that specific cumulative conditions and calculated impacts associated with the BCRP, Harvest Partners proposal and planned City of Renton arterial development are consistent with the conditions and calculated impacts associated with the range of redevelopment Alternatives analyzed in the EIS. Peak runoff flows from the redevelopment areas would generally be reduced in comparison to the baseline condition, and would be within the range of peak runoff flows calculated for the EIS Alternatives. The peak flow at Outfall # I would be increased in comparison to the baseline condition; however, the increase would result in a peak flow that would be well below the capacity of the outfall. Similar to the conclusion of the EIS, there are no significant impacts to the surface or storm water environment as a result of the BCRP. 9 Appendix B Transportation Consistency Analysis for Sub-District 1 B DATE: TO: cc: FROM: RE: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC May 1,2006 l\lex Pietsch, Administrator, Memorandum Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning City of Renton Mike B1umen, President B1umen Consulting Group, T nco Michael J. Read, P.E. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Boeing Conceptual Plan (Sub-district 1 B) -Transportation Consistency Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan with the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS - The memorandum summarizes a detailed comparative trip generation analysis of the Boeing Conceptllal Redevelopment Plan -SlIb-district I B, a proposed conceptual redevelopment plan calling for mixed use development within Sub-thstrict 113 of the overall Boeing Renton Plant site. Redevelopment of the 290-acre Boeing Renton Plant site was evaluated in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment (BRCPA) EIS (2003). Sub-district 113 is noted as Subarea C in the 2003 EIS. This analysis addresses consistency with the transportation element of the ETS, and specifically with the land use and trip generation assumptions that were used to evaluate the transportation impacts of redevelopment. For traffic analysis purposes, proposed uses under the Boeing Conceptllal Plan -SlIb-distn'ct 113 were assumed to comprise approximately 1,478,000 square-feet of new development at build-out, and would include approximately 210,000 square-feet in new office space, 180,000 square-feet in laboratory/technology uses, 535 residential apartment units (assumes 800 square-feet per unit), with the remaining 270,000 square-feet in a mixture of retail uses in 2015. By 2030, an additional 390,000 square feet of laboratory/technology and office uses were assumed to be constructed. Under both 2015 and 2030 horizon years, the existing 660,000 square-feet of Boeing-occupied office space within Sub-district 113 was assumed to be sold or leased to non-Boeing owners/tenants. Existing Boeing employees within these buildings were assumed to be consolidated within Boeing operations located in facilities west of Logan Avenue N., consistent with the BRPCA EIS assumptions. This assumption related to relocation of Boeing employees provides a worst-case analysis of transportation impacts from redevelopment (Refer to Chapter 1 of the Consistency Analysis document for more information on the Conceptual Plan for SlIb-district I B). This report analyzes a potential range and mix of land uses within Sub-district 113 from a worst-case vehicle trip generation standpoint. The potential range of uses proposed within the Boeing Conceptllal Plan -SlIb-district IB could result in a higher total square footage of redevelopment than evaluated in this report. However, to evaluate a worst-case trip generation scenario, individual Development Parcels (DP) noted within the Boeing Conceptllal Plan -SlIb-district 1B were tested to determine which proposed land use and level of development would generate the maximum number of trips for each parcel within www.tenw.com PO Box 65254. Seattle, WA 98155 OfficelFax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 The Landing Trip Generation Comparison with BRCPA EIS May 1, 2006 Page 2 Sub-district 1 B, Based upon this review, multifamily residential uses were assumed in DP·l, laboratory/lechnology uses were assumed in DP-2, and office uses were assumed in ])1'·3 and DP-4, Trip Generation Comparison Trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRCPA ErS were used to estimate a,m, peak and p,m, peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by redevelopment under the BOClng Conceptual Plan -SlIb-district1 B, Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated 2015 and 2030 a,m, peak and p,m, peak hour vehicle trip generation of redevelopment under the Conceptual Plan compared with those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportation impacts and outline mitigation measures for Alternative 4 in the BRCPA BIS (i.e" the maximum redevelopment scenario), Detailed trip generation comparisons to all ElS alternatives are provided as Attachment A, As shown, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels of redevelopment under the Boeing Conceptual Plan arc significantly less than those estimated under Alternative 4 in the BRCPA EIS, Reductions in vehicle trip generation from Sub-district 1B would range from approximately 272 p,m, peak hour trips in 2015 to nearly 1,129 a,m, peak hour trips in 2030, and the number of trips are substantially less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and develop mitigation for the ms, Although an estimated increase in entering p,m, peak hour trips (96 p,m, peak hour trips) is estimated to result by 2015 with redevelopment under the Boeing Conceptllal Plan versus those levels evaluated in the BRCPA ElS, the significant reduction in estimated exiting trips from the site (nearly 370 p,m, peak hour trips) would on an overall basis result in less trip generation and improved intersection levels of service as compared to those reported in the BRCPA EIS, Therefore, based upon this comparative analysis: redevelopment according to the Boeing Conceptual Plan for Sub-district 113 would result in less peak hour vehicle trip generation as compared to the trip generation reported and evaluated in the 2003 ErS for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site; there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment under the proposed Plan as compared to those disclosed in the BRCPA ErS; and redevelopment of approximately 1,478,000 square-feet of new mixed use development in Sub-district 113, as assumed under the Boeing Conceptual Plan, is within the range of development alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the 2003 ErS, As noted previously, the potential range of uses proposed within the Boeing Conceptual Plan -Sub- district 113 could result in a higher total square footage of redevelopment than evaluated in this report. However, to evaluate a worst-case trip generation scenario, certain land uses and levels of development in the individual Development Parcels (DP) within Sub·district 113, that were estimated to generate a higher number of vehicle trips, were used in the consistency analysis of transportation impacts, Transportadon Englneerlng Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 OfficelFax (206) 361·7333 • Toll Free (888) 220·7333 The Landing Trip Generation Comparison with BRCPA EIS May 1,2006 Table 1 -Sub-district 1 B 2015/2030 Trip Generation Comparison 2015 Development Scenario Enter Exit Total i AM Peak Hour .. ', ' ' -~ ,,' , .. ,It .. ,:J;_'"" , ,: " ,., ':, , , , '. Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 823 293 1,116 Sub· district 1 B Alternative 4 1,487 277 1,764 BRCPA EIS Difference from BRCPA EIS -664 16 ·648 ,PM PiNlkHouh':;· ,.".~" . , ",(~-, " . ~ ,'.;': • "i ',' ,,' , n ", ~ ~~.'~ ,,!ft""u-, ~ ':':: I <:~! /','t: ' , Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 450 I 081 1 531 Sub-district 1 B Alternative 4 354 1,449 1,803 BRCPA EIS Difference from BRCPA EIS 96 ·368 -272 2030' Development Scenario Enter ExIt Total AM Peak HOUr:,,' ~'~ r , ,-",' ", :\ ' .. " . Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 1,011 420 1 431 Sub-district 1 B Alternative 4 2,199 361 2,560 BRCPA EIS Difference from BRCPA EIS -1,188 59 -1 129 'PMPeak Hour ' 'p . '.-;:"" .. " ,;' ',' ,i:;;~:~'~: J .. .. ''',L' .. , , , '.~,. " " Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 295 1 354 1,657 Sub-district 1 B Alternative 4 409 2,047 2,456 BRCPA EIS Difference from BRCPA EIS -114 -693 ·799 Note, rhese compartllons do not consIder additIonal mode split adjustments made In the trlp generat.lOn estlmates evaluated in the BRCPA ms, and therefore, should be considered conservative. Trip generation estimates from the BRCPA RIS can be found in Attachment n of Appendix E in Volume II (lfthe Druft ms. Cumulative Impacts -Sub-district 1 A and Sub-district 1 B Page 3 Table 2 provides a summary of the estimated 2015 'and 2030 a.m. peak and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation for the cumulative redevelopment under both The Landing (Sub-district lA Master Plan and the Boeing Conceptual Plan (Sub-district lB), as compared with those trip generation levels used to evaluate transportation impacts and outline mitigation measures for Alternative 4 in the BRCPA EIS (i.e., the maximum redevelopment scenario). Detailed trip generation comparisons to all EIS alternatives are provided as Attachment B. Note: A separate consistenfY analysis has been prepared for The LAnding Master Plan proposal,' see Chapter 1 of this ConsistenfY Analysis document for description o/The Landing, Sub-district lA redevelopment proposal. As shown, total off-site vehicle trip generation levels from redevelopment under the Boeing Conceptual Plan (Sub-district lB) and the Landing Master Plan (Sub-district lA) are significantly less than those estimated under Alternative 4 in the BRCPA EIS. Reductions in cumulative vehicle trip generation from Sub-district lA and 1 B redevelopment would range from approximately 720 p.m. peak hour trips in 2015 to 3,935 a.m. peak hour trips in 2030, and the number of trips are substantially less than those levels used to evaluate traffic impacts and develop mitigation for the EIS. Transportadon Engineering Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 9B 155 OfficelFax (206) 361·7333 • Toll Free (BBB) 220-7333 The Landing Trip Generation Comparlson with BRCPA EIS May 1, 2006 Table 2 -SUb-district 1 A & 1 B 2015/2030 Trip Generation Com :>arison 2015 Development Scenario Enter ExIt Total ''AIrtPeak HO!II'" "",' , ,: '":', .. " .ll -1 ',~ ,t":~'::, ",'" ;' -.~~;~;;:j' , f ,:_.~t,~/':.~. ...... J,.'. ',< <: ~ • ~ >";+'t-V"'·' , '!,~ The Landing & Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 1 1 31 444 1 575 Sub· district 1 A & I B Alternative 4 • BRCPA EIS 2948 524 3472 Difference from BRCPA EIS ·1,817 ·80 ·1 897 1Plrf Peak HO!Ir., '';'. ~'~t~~},.,: ,~":';~.;,~: .)--, , ,', ,; . ,!.~ .: ~, ' , ' , , ' , > " Y.." , , " :"-. I>" , " The Landing & Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 1,206 1 951 3,157 Sub·dlstrlct lA & 1 B Alternative 4· BRCPA EIS 838 3039 3877 Difference from BRCPA EIS 368 ·1.088 ·720 20301 Development Scenario Enter ExIt Total ''AM Peak Hour ' .' ,,~ " " ' .! -< '< ,~" ".:' " .. . '-~ , .. i ..... " The Landing & Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 1,306 547 1 853 Sub·dlstrlct lA & lB Alternative 4· BRCPA EIS 5006 782 5788 DIfference from BRCPA EIS ·3700 ·235 ·3935 WI Peak Hour ~ .. " , .~ .' . , " '-~ ~~." : The Landing & Boeing Concept Plan (Feb. 2006) 1,013 2,224 3,237 Sub·dlstrlct 1 A & 1 B Alternative 4 • BRCPA EIS 1,094 4,935 5929 Difference from B RCPA EI S ·81 ·2611 ·2692 " Note. I hesc companIOns do not conSIder additIOnal mode split I1dJus~nt. made 10 the tnp generation estlmatCll evaluated 10 the BRCPA ms, and therefore, should be considered conservative. Trip generation estimates from the BRCPA ms can be found in Artuchment n of Appendix E in Volume II of the Draft BIS. t -Oy 2030, no increase in additional development is assumed within Sub·district tA. However, due to future additional redevelopment within Sub-district t B between 2015 and 2030 more vehicle trips within Sub-district 1 A would internalize within the site area. As sllch, a slight reduction in totnl off-site trip generntion by redevelopment in Sub-district 111. is expected by 2030 over those levels estimated in 2015. This charucteristic is consistent with the trip generation methodologies and assumptions applied in the BRCPA ErS. Page 4 Although an estimated increase in entering p.m. peak hour trips (368 p.m. peak hour trips) is estimated 10 result by 2015 with redevelopment under the cumulative buildout of The Landing and the Boeing Conceptual Plan versus those levels evaluated in the BRCP A EIS, the significant reduction in estimated exiting trips from the site (nearly 1,090 p,m. peak hour trips) would on an overall basis result in less trip generation and improved intersection levels of service as compared to those reported in the BRCPA E1S. Therefore, based upon this comparative analysis, cumulative redevelopment proposed in Sub-district 1A and 113 would result in less peak hour vehicle trip generation as compared to the trip generation reported and evaluated in the 2003 EIS for this portion of the Boeing Renton Plant site. As such, there would be no differences in probable significant traffic impacts or mitigation needs from redevelopment under the proposed Plans as compared to those disclosed in the BRCPA EIS; and cumulative redevelopment in Sub-district 1A and 1B would be within the range of EIS alternatives and associated impacts addressed in the 2003 EIS. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 9B 155 Office/Fax (206) 361·7333 • Toll Free (88B) 220,7333 The Landing Trip Generation Companson with BRCPA EIS May 1, 2006 Page 5 Infrastructure Comparison I n addition to the trip generation analysis above, key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the BRCPA EIS were reviewed to identify whether any significant changes have occurred since the Final EIS was issued in October, 2003. The infrastructure needs comparative analysis was conducted using Network 13 -Baseline Network 2015 from the Draft EIS (see pages 35-36 and Figure 15 of Appendix E in Volume 1I of the Draft EIS). Network 13 assumes that the transportation network essentially remains as it is today, with the inclusion of certain planned, local roadway improvements identified in the City of Renton's Transportation Improvement Program, transit service improvements and non-motorized facility improvements. No improvements to the regional freeway system are assumed for this network, consistent with the EIS assumption for Network 13. Three main transportation infrastructure needs were outlined in the EIS: • Intersections • Arterials • Freeway Access SubseCluent to the IllS, the Boeing Company and the City of Renton entered into a Development Agreement in December 2003. Based on this agreement, the City is completing design engineering and will be constructing improvements to the local roadway system that will serve the Sub-tlistrict lA and 113 redevelopment area and provide a basic street grid system within the sub-districts. This includes improvements to Logan Avenue, Park Avenue, North 8'h Street and North 10'" Street to be implemented by the City, as well as certain on-site access and circulation improvements to be constructed by the applicants. These planned improvements to the local road system will provide capacity at a level that is higher than required to serve only Sub-district 1 A and 113 redevelopment in 2015 or 2030. Per the EIS, this through "public street" system was not required to support redevelopment levels evaluated in the EIS for Sub-districts lA and 113 by 2015 or 2030; instead, these improvements were required to support the redevelopment of that portion of the ElS study area west of Logan Avenue N., defined as District 2. Specifically, the City planned improvements include initial arterial segments and key intersections constructed along: } N 8'" Street (reconstruction between Logan Avenue and Park Avenue) } N 10'" Street (a new arterial between Logan Avenue extension and Garden Avenue) } Logan Avenue (extension from N 6'h Street to Park Avenue) } Park Avenue (realigned to provide a new T-intersection with Logan Avenue extension). The following provides a comparison of the identified transportation infrastructure needs in 2015 from the BRCPA EIS with the needs of cumulative buildout of Sub-districts 1A and 113 (Subareas A, 13 and C in the EIS). As identified above, given the significant reduction in vehicles estimated to exit the site under redevelopment proposed in Sub-district lA and 113 by The Landing Masler Plan and the Boeing ConceplHal Plan, all infrastructure needs identified in the BRCPA EIS would either be mitigated through Transportation Englneenng Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 OfficelFax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 The landing Trip Generation Comparison with BRCPA EIS May I, 2006 Page 6 these reductions or as part of the planned transportation improvements to be implemented by the City of Renton or the applicants. Intersection Needs » Location: Intersection #10/#11 (park Drive/lAOS NB/SB Ramps). Identified Deficiency: Eastbound volumes exiting the site. Mitigation Improvement Identified in the EIS: Reconftgure northbound access ramp and possible changes to southbound ramp junction to accommodate access changes. Conclusion: Reductions in exiting site traffic that would result from cumulative redevelopment under the Sub-district 1A and 113 plans would completely mitigate impacts to these intersections and the interchange system; therefore, the improvements identified in the EIS would not be required. » ,Location: Intersection #12 (park Dr/LWB/Garden Ave). Identified Deficiency: Westbound left turns and eastbound through volumes. Mitigation Improyement Identified in the EIS: Remove westbound left turns at the intersection. Conclusion: With implementation of the City'S proposed changes to the intersection (addition of another westbound left turn only lane), the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E with cumulative redevelopment of Sub-district 1A and 113 in 2015; therefore, cumulative redevelopment impacts would be fully mitigated at this intersection. » Location: Intersections #13, #14, and #15 (park Ave/10th, Boulevard of Champions/727 Avenue, Park Ave/8th). Identified Deficiency: General site access improvements to address congestion. Mitigation Improvement Identified in the EIS: Turn lanes and intersection approach widening to accommodate site access. Conclusion: All site access improvements and internal roadway infrastructure will be completed by the City and the applicants to provide adequate site access and mitigate deficiencies at these intersections; no further improvements would be required .. » Location: Intersection #20 (park Ave/N 6th Street). Identified Deficiency: Southbound right turning movements. Mitigation Improvement Identified in the EIS: Construct a separate southbound right-turn only lane. Conclusion: The construction of Park Avenue/Logan Avenue as a "thru street" by the City will mitigate impacts to this intersection. Therefore, the deficiency identified in the EIS at this intersection would be fully mitigated. No/e: L1Jca/ions and I n/emc/ion codes referenced above are fOllnd in Figure 3.10-3 on page 3. 10-6 I!f the Drqfi EIS. Arteria! Needs » Location: Park Avenue Identifted Deficiency: Directional volumes exiting the site (eastbound). Mitigation Improyement Identified in the E1S: Potential arterial widening. Conclusion: Planned City infrastructure improvements and reductions in exiting site traffic that would result due to cumulative redevelopment under the Sub-district 1A and 1 B plans would completely mitigate impacts to this arterial. Therefore, no widening to Park Avenue between the site and the 1-405 interchange would be required. Transportadon Engineering Northwest, LLC PO 80x 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 Office/Fax (2061361·7333. Toll Free (8881220-7333 The Landing Trip Generation Comparl,on with BRCPA EIS May 1,2006 ~ Location: Bronson Way Identified Deficiency: Directional volumes exiting the site (southbound). Mitigation Improyement Identified in the E1S: Potential arterial widening. Page 7 Conclusion: Reductions in exiting site traffic that would result from cumulativc redevelopment under the Sub-district 1 A and 1 J3 plans would completely mitigate impacts to this arterial. Therefore, no widening to Bronson Way over the Cedar River would be required. Freew!\y Access Needs Location: 1-40S/Park Avenue Interchange -NB On-Ramp Identified Deficiency: Directional volumes exiting the site onto northbound 1-405. Mitigation Improyement Identified in the E1S: Potential interchange reconfiguration or direct access ramps. Conclusion: Reductions in exiting site traffic that would result from cumulative redevelopment under the Sub-district lA and 113 plans would completely mitigate impacts to this interchange system. Therefore, the existing J-40S/Park Avenue interchange would not reqUlte any improvements to support cumulative redevelopment under Sub-district 1A and 1 B. Based upon the review of key transportation planning assumptions and infrastructure needs outlined in the BRCpA E1S, no additional infrastructure improvements would be required to support cumulative development under the Sub-district 1A and 113 plans as compared to those levels of infrastructure improvements assumed within the EIS. Current plans for Sub-districts lA and 113 redevelopment would result in a significant reduction in peak hour vehicle trip generation, as compared to the trip generation reported and evaluated in the 2003 EIS. 1 n addition, the City intends to construct improvements to the local roadway system that would serve redevelopment levels beyond build-out of Sub-districts 1A and 113. , therefore, the remaining development within Sub-district 113 that is assumed to be constructed after 2015 (390,000 square-feet in office and laboratory /technology uses) would not result in significant impacts nor require additional infrastructure improvements. Lastiy, if redevelopment of Sub-district 113 is considered as a standalone project in comparison to cumulative redevelopment assumed by 2015 in Sub-districts lA and 113, there would be no changes in conclusions regarding transportation impacts or infrastructure needs. Tran,portadon Engineering Northwest, LLC PO Box 65254 • Searne, WA 9B 155 Omce/Fax (206) 361·7333 • Toll Free (BBB) 220·7333 Attachment A Detailed Project Trip Generation Estimates Draft for Review Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Oifference from Subarea C BRCPAEIS Boeing Concept Plan (212006) (BRCPA EIS) Peak Period otal nter it AItemative 7 -No Action MPeak Hour PM Peak Hour 328 AItemative 2 -Partial RedeveJo en! MPeakHour PM Peak Hour 452 Alternative 3 -Full Redevelo ment (Low-to Mid-Rise) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour -152 Alternative 4 -Full Redevelopment (Mid-to H- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 4 1, 1, 4 1, -272 No~: These comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjustments made in the trip generation estimates e\'aluated in the BRCP A EIS. and therefore, should be considered consen"au"e. Transportation Engineering Northwest 312812006 Attachment A Page 2 Draft for Review Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2015 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation The Landing and Boeing BRCPAEIS Concept Plan (212006) Peak Period nter It ota nter xit otal Alternative 1 -No Action AM Peak Hour 1, 2 1, 1 4 4 PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AJtemative 3 -Full Redeve/o ment (Low-to Mid-Rise) MPeak Hour PM Peak Hour Alternative 4 -Full RedeveJo men! (Mid-to High-Rise) MPeakHour ,9 5 PM Peak Hour Difference from Subarea A. B & C (BRCPA EIS) nter Xlt ota 1,052 218 -720 Note: These comp:trisons do not consider additioru\l mode split adjustments made in the trip gen=tion estimates eniuared in the BRCP lI. EIS. and th=f=. should be consid~d consen'alive. Transportation Engineering NortnW8Sf: 312812006 Attachment A Page 3 Draft for Review Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation Levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Boeing Concept Plan (212006) Peak Period Enter Exit Total MPeak Hour 1 PM Peak Hour AJremative 2 -PaJtiaJ Redevelopment AM Peak Hour 2 PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AItemative 4 -FuH Redevelopment (Mid-to High-Rise) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2,047 Note:: These comparisons do not considu additional mode split adjusnnems made in the trip generation estimates .C\·aluated in the BRCP A EIS, 2nd t:huefore, should be considered conservative. Transportation Engineering Northwest 3128/2006 Attachment A Difference from Subarea C (BRCPA EIS) -30--· -, 5 •.. ,30 446 570 1 -1 92- . ,1 5 , 1 -799 Page 5 Draft for Review Boeing Renton Plant -Subarea 1 a& 1 b Redevelopment 2030 Comparative Trip Generation levels of Net Off-Site Trip Generation Peak Period MPeak Hour PM Peak Hour MPeak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour lAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit The landing and Boeing Concept Plan (212006) Total I Enter EXIt lotal Alternative 1 -No Action Note: These comparisons do not consider additional mode split adjustments IIl2Ck in the trip generation estirm.tes en.luated in the BRCP A EIS, 2nd therefore, should be co~ consuvabve. Transportation Engineering Northwest 3/28/2006 Difference from Subarea A, B & C (BRCPA EIS) nter xit otaT -2.692 Attachment A Page 6 Form WA-S (6176) Commitment Face Page COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by File No.: NCS-368221-WAI FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American 11tle Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to Issue Its policy or policies of title Insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby In the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and' Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the Identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been Inserted In Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the Issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to Issue such policy or policies Is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, ali In accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment Is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." First American Title Insurance Company .... -/ By: ,....'l;.,y-;'7" /c"wu:c/-'---"-President . ,.; .'f -/f- 'J Attest: /11 u.ll-. ~ Secretary By: rrf.~ Countersigned First American 77t1e Insurance Company Form WA·5 (6/76) Commitment File No.' NCS·368221·WAI Page No.1 To: . '\ .\ ~I t. i( I ,~':' ("/ :~ ~$" First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121 (206)728-0400 -(800)526-7544 FAX (206)448-6348 Donna F. Koerber (206)615-3021 dkoerber@firstam.com Perkins Cole, LLP 1201 Third Ave Seattle, WA 98101 Attn: Michael A. 8arrett SCHEDULE A MonlqueJe Schmitt-Johnson (206)615-3141 mschmlttjohnson@firstam.com File No.: NCS·368221·WAl Your Ref No.: Lakeshore Landing, Lot 5A L Commitment Date: September 04, 2008 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Standard Owner's Coverage $ 15,475,000.00 $ To Follow $ To Follow Proposed Insured: Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership 3. The estate or Interest In the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, and title thereto Is at the effective date hereof vested In: The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation 4. The land referred to In this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report Is described In Exhibit "A" attached hereto. R'rst American ntle Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EXHIBIT 'A' File No.; NCS-368221-WAI Page No.2 LOT 5A, BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2, A BINDING SITE PLAN, RECORDED JANUARY 11, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080111000854, IN VOLUME 246, PAGES 1 THROUGH 3, OF PLATS, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. First American ntle Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B -SECTION 1 REOUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.; NCS-368221-WAI Page No.3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or Interest to be Insured. Item (B) Proper Instrument(s) creating the estate or Interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest In the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 GENEBALEXCErnONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, Interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making Inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, confiicts In boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions In patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, Including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, Installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, If any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the , proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or Interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American ntle Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-368221-WAI Page No.4 SCHEDULE B • SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Uen of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton Is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2100 2. For all transactions recorded on or after JulV 1, 2005: • A fee of $10.00 will be charged on all exempt transactions; • A fee of $5.00 will be charged on all taxable transactions In addition to the excise tax due. General Taxes for the year 2008. Tax Account No.: 088661-0010-03 Amount Billed: $ 5,944.72 Amount Paid: $ 2,972.36 Amount Due: $ 2,972.36 Assessed Land Value: $ 0.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 608,000.00 3. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: April 23, 1942 under Recording No. 3235807 In Favor-of: The Northern PaCific Railway Company, a Wisconsin corporation For: Spur Track Affects: as described therein 4. Easement, includlng·terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 16, 1962 under Recording No. 5453013 In Favor of: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington For: Sewer pipe lines system Affects: as described therein First American ntle Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment 5. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: March 18, 1997 Recording No.: 9703181422 File No.: NCS-366221-WAI Page No.5 Said instrument is a re-record of Recording No. 9612120855, recorded on December 12, 1996. 6. The terms and provisions contained In the document entitled "Development Agreement", executed by and between The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation and City of Renton, a municipal corporation, recorded August 2, 2002 as Instrument No. 20020802000224 of Official Records. 7. The terms and provisions contained In the document entitled "Development Agreement", executed by and between The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation and City of Renton, a municipal corporation, recorded December 10, 2003 as Instrument No. 20031210001637 of Official Records. 8. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Boeing Lakeshore Landing Binding Site Plan recorded December 23, 2004 under Recording No. 20041223000856 and also In Volume 225 of Plats, Pages 83 through 86, in King County, Washington. Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded March 14, 2007 as Recording No. 20070314001933 of Official Records. 9. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: December 28, 2004 Recording No.: 20041228001871 10. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, If any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Boeing Lakeshore landing 2 Binding Site Plan recorded January 11, 2008 under Recording No. 20080111000854, In King County, Washington. First American ntJe Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-368221-WAl Page No.6 11. Mechanics Lien. Claimant: Against: Amount: For: Date Work Commenced: Date Work Ceased: Recorded: Recording No.: Straight Line Striping, Inc. Millennium Building Co. $4,221.70 Labor and/or Materials and/or Equipment October 1, 2007 October 18, 2007 January 11, 2008 20080111001220 Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded January 18, 2008 as Recording No. 20080118001094 of Official Records. Affects: The land and other property. 12. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Partnership Agreement of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership. A copy of the current agreement and all amendments must be submitted prior to closing. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the Partnership property must be executed by all of the General Partners. Note: If the proposed transaction Involves a sale of all or substantially all of the Partnership's assets the written consent of all of the Limited Partners should be submitted, prior to closing. 13. Matters which may be disclosed by a search of the records against the name(s) of the general/managing partner(s) of the partnership named below, provided said matters represent partnership obligations. Partnership: Duke Realty limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership 14. Unrecorded leaseholds, If any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. First American 77t1e Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES File No.: NCS-368221-WAI Page NO.7 A. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result In rejection of the document by the recorder. B. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and Is not part of any title commitment or policy. It Is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting In locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. C. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below If necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear In the document(s) to be Insured. Lot 5A, Boeing Lakeshore Landing 2, BSP Rec. 20080111000854 APN: 088661-0010-03 D. According to the application for title insurance, title Is to vest in Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership. Examination of the records discloses no matters pending against said party(ies). E. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-368221-WAI Page No.8 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security Instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or Interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company In writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company Is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or If the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously Incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured In the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss Incurred In reliance hereon in undertaking In good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown In Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or Interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated In Schedule A for the Policy or PoliCies committed for and such liability Is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for In favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby Incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or Interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American 77t1e Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment The First Amerltan Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to safeguardlng'Customer Inrormation File No,: NCS-36B221-WAl Page No, 9 In order to better selVe your needs now and In the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain Information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such Information particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we wilt utiliZe the personallnfonnatlon you ,provide to us. Thereforel together with our parent company, The First Amerlcan Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Polley to govern the use and handling of your personal Information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our usc of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner In which we may use Information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained From a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.flrstam.com. Typel of Information Depending upon which of our services you arc utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • Information we recetve from you on applications, forms and In other communications to us, whether In writing, In person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and' • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Jnfonnation We request Information from you for our own legltlmate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law .. We may, however, store such Information Indeflnltely, Including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types af nonpublic personallnfonnatlon listed above to one or mOre of our affiliated companies. Sud"! affiliated companies Include finandal service providers, such as title Insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and trust and Investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we coUect, as described above, to companies tflat perform marKeting services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marKeting agreements. Former Customers Even If you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your Infonnatlon. We restrict access to non public personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that Information to provide products or services to you. We wlU use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your Information wilt be handled responsIbly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations ta guard your nonpubllc personal Information. c 2001 The First American Corporation ~ All Rights Reserved First American nt/e Insurance Company .. -... _-;-; -'I~'i·r -1'1-;::'-;---' .. ~ . u; ... : •• -... .•• ... ~;===l ;,===== ........ ~.~. ~~'~ ;, .. ====~..~,~~i,i I ~-i; -= .... ·············---11·-.-&- I, .,~ti~ :: Ii . :'1 " .:,:::..... ;1 .' ~.. . . .... ':----'\~ ;,rr.r~"-.i' -.-------"'---. -----=== ,::"=: JT::;=;:! '.;=~ =.=",=);r,=~, =,=,,=:IT ,:' rfl;ll=.=:·==-.=J~~ ~'l', ~)'\ ';:71, 1 1-.. : r"'~----"--l------~. ~. .:--:: .. ---.. :.---.. ----. '<. [.~ 'i e •... _ .... _ _ -:.,1 f, '-.. ~, II ' ---•• :) Ii iV , ,:' "" '-I:" I ! I" '1' i:---~,: ., ~ ':,';' i !:,' , , I ,"i ' ,', __ .. _________ , __ r51. ' ,t(f I .--,-----.. -: I ii, , ~"': '.i ': , qr , '" -(!), --__ r-(!)\"-":--1 0' 'I . , f / I :' ... ---~~--... i, i I I :. I' .-------, 'i ~ --~-·0' Ii': J, ! .. I , I .! r" -II'-"~'------" i i ! . i : ' I :: ! " , 'I I' ., •.• , _______ • )_~ ,.J. . .'j __ ~ __ r~. ____ ;:. __ _ : : --------"-----l---:'if---';,;;--------. 1--II --=;";,;.::: -T;·-r-:·r~-;· f, I' _'.:;::, ! , ,: ...... __ ...... " 1/ 0"/ ,'" I', _ ! i i , i, Ii, I I! ' "NTOt FAR·i~ ! : 1_ ... ,,_ ........ _ ... ~ H---= -'I I. (!)-'~~'i--: .. Gl-I·---;, .. -il i' (!) : I I j ~ ,-, '.-: i ; ! I! ,,---· .. ----.. ·----11' , I -. I. " 'I ! , • I; , '~'. r.= ... I I : " ... '~ ,-I', : .. ".,,'---,., ,,---'''-'--' "I,," ; r.=-.-.. -'" "'-1: : • I . i I, " , ':,': Ii. , . , - -' - , I I t-i : Ii , ! ! - : ~\~. : , ... I :! e' I , , , II! I .... ···: ,I •• _ --'101 c_ ==--.:"::;"'" I Q-o .... -==-==-~ ---- • • + . .. SW 08-23-05 ... ... iIIIf , ... _ ... '- , ". .., -:: t I -':'. , ,' •. -.:;; I ~ ;.-............... '\' I : : I ': r=-···;,' .' ~ . R j/ I~:·II' .... ~......···: \;J ~ I '-1. 0 I ! i'" '''1 Ii I' -,'''' .... ~ ... : .. i i ! I':: I . !: : .-----4; .[ .; I . ........... $: .. # ..... :~;;.'.::, ....... '....... ,I ":".' II ... " ,-~~,: ,; .......... . Sf .. . :'-......-. .~ ..,.. :''''r"';-'r :. : ... , ......... ··· .... H ';/' : i i" ......... -';.. .. I : i I ilf-~ _' i 'I i I • , i I::;: I .. k. " ;: I ' ! RE~0t4 fARM! ~EAoe 1 ; i H--~ I I.. I " I· .......... I i,,', 0 . I I·· .... · ..... l 0·· .... ..1· .. ·1 " ;.. 0 11-I •. I I I·' i.······ .. ·· i ' I : i I I"'"'''' r.1 per.! " I 1 : : : .. '_ • • "\' ! ~ I· .. ·"" 1 iii : \ i' .. ": ! "'A i .. • ':.' : !!', I 1 .......... ·u I t = WI·, :~.;:,:,,:' I I , • , • - ~ ~~;~ ~~--~~--------~.~-----~.--------------------........... " ... "--" ~--....... -. -, --,f-----· .-- '. o • For Ten Dollars ($10.00) and Qtbc7 9aod and valuable consideration, tho receipt And sUfficioncy ot which 10 hereby ocknovled'Jod by Crantor, tho crantor, Parkoido partnoa:abip, A waohinqton 'Jenoral partnorship, boreby convoyo and ¥arnnta to Tho Booing COapany, a Delaware corporation, the rCUll property described as tollowa; ThAt portion of tho south 660 feet of tIlo northwest quartor of the 80utllveat quarter ot Section 8, Tovnobip aJ Horth, Rango 5 East, N."., in King county, Waoblnqton, ¥bieb l1co north of the north line of North sUrth Street and betwoen the northerly extenSion ot U1fl centerline ot Pelly Avenue Horth and Kain street, nov Ne1ls Street Harth, f!XCJfP'l" that portion thereof convoyed to the city ot Renton by deed rocorded August 19, 1911, under Recording Huaber 71)(081.0352. 'nlia: convoyanca is .. do oxprGaoly subjoct to tho followiRC) utters: 1. Real property taxc5, conservation Cbarq08 and public ASGeaGaento, if any, bcco.inq dUG after the date ot this Deed. 1. Eaaeaant& and tlll. tera and conditiono thereof recorded under Kine} county Recon1inq !f01i. JU~UO, Ju:n:u. 7JlU9029:Z. 77050l0~B9, 7708170731, 7710030507, 7711180856, 85121609." 85121601.9 and 8612031434. ... ,. e 0 C g (.\8 • e c e '" c II. ,- <. '" .. ~ " • c " ~ c • '" ., ~ ~ • ~ ... ~ .. , .. , 'i , "~ , I • • I. .~ " I r ------.. --....... ~----------~~ ------------ ---··;---~---r ----,-¥----, .---'---.. -.. ---.--.... --.----~- o • 3. Su:vey oxceptions 4iocl.oood by !xoeption No. 34 in Transaaorca Title lnaurance Couitllant Ho. 863013, Survey Job' 75066, dated Docaaber 8, 1994, prepared by Baiaa , Hol8be~, Inc. Dated a January 4, 1995. (Grantor) ParkPlde partnership, a WaGhinqton gonoral partnership ...... I· · L J" . If --~> .. ~~~ ....................... ~~ • . _" .. -If---, .•. -.-~-.. '-' . __ .. _ .... _-.. o· • STATE or lIASHING'I'OII ) ) 88. COUNTY or _ IUKO } On this ff! day of January, 1995, bator • .0, tho unde~1Iigned, .It! "atary Public 1n and for the St.a~e of wasbington, dUly ca.-i.aioned. and .wom personally appoarecJ lU90ne Horbacb and Hiohaol R. KIIatro, known to _ to be tho partners of Parkai4e Pcutnorphip, the pJrtnaruhlp that executed the tOrG9oing instruaont, and BoknovlodQoc1 the Gald inatn.ont to be the tree and voluntary act and dood of aai4 portnenblp, tor the ]UrpOou tberaln aentlonDd, An4 on oath stated that they vore author1led to oxocuta aaid inat~nt. t co~lCy that I ~:;v,or have o.tlst.cto~ evidence that the parsoRS appouing botore ae and ukinCJ tbi. aaknowloclgaont are tho persona wbose true Giqnaturea appear on this 4ocuaont. WITIfBss _'I hand and ofticial Dool hereto afUxod the day and year in the certificato above tton. Pr n "no NO'I'.\IIY PUBLIC In 0 for~~flJt.t. ot W.abington, uid nil .~tj=~~_~(4~g:= IIy COUIl •• lo Ires _ --m -J. ..... e' , \ \ ! ~ I· · .. -. -'-) ._---. -. --~ L. ~.;·Ir ----~--~----------~ WHEN II\:COF\OCO RET,JRN In Of!kle", ... cayCla<!< "'-nlanCity Ii,Ill 10115 801m a.dy W. Aen\OlI,W", IIIIOIIi BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 '''.,. 11,"I?r L~t77 ,~. .o': ..:: .r APPROVAlS· . .,r ":;,.:., ... ,. S/NP/NIl 8/T/! PUN Sf: 114 SECT. 7, TWP. 23N. Rae. SI: .. W.M. SW 1/4 secr. 8. TWP. 23 N .• ROE. se .. W,M. CITY OF ReNTON, KINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON .,~' ':' .. . ' .... ',.'. :, .... ~:. :';"","':'\".",.,. J ,t':A.J nr~CRlpnON or [X/SUNG PARCO S' W::~~~f~~~oo'WI ::~~f:' ~Q':.'::N ~;:"f~I~~~r ~!I-;.!~~=~'~~:,;r.\ .. ploRr.n '~I ~!)r .... !:Irf OIl!£NrtIfI 5tfIlII'r PI..\r HIIIoIfICIf Dtj·.i, Ifrt:Qllatb ~'a\'£"'fJI If. '.n llHO{If (1N(1 COUNfr If£COIIOINC HI!. U'H.~OOII 01 OmcrA~ lfC'OIlC~' I.ca>r fHAI _1lOH OXWOf""l'P TO 1M( orr or If£l/TOA/ &f CIVIT CLAIII orcD ~fCOIf!)r!) ",c\'n/atl' •• l~i VI'Il>£If I!I;ctlADI/oI(il ~o "1!CIIIOHJ Of' OFTlCIAl II(CQIIOI. 1>1 .""" COIJNfY. ".SHI~oro". .IUO Cta~AAO THrlfrfllOil Il<Ar Ptwl'lCW ccw\'£rro fO Il'If' ClfY Of R!H1'CW '1 DU'll IItCOflIml AI,ICUU 11. 'OOIIIIHCC~ Ift~".O 10C11Dj1'1OOO71.1N 1IlN'G C'tILlIrr. 1I"tHlNCrtW· ':' .. CITY or WORKS ",., M'"" ,-Mo.",' " .. ",_~_!!1.!,,,-_ ,~ j:!ft.( .. , :fi:'~~~ PAir('(\. 0 lor s ''''0 r-ACr~ •• Dt1NQ ~'''r$tjOl1( u~rG, A '''''01'<11 $Iff ~IAII. RfCD'lPlD DCCCII«CIt n 200<1 I.MIlIf IfCCO/IIIIN'O HO. 1QOf1U.JOOO.I-'4 ,., 101M[ 111 ~~cr' ~J "flilOIJCH d. 01' ",(lS .. CJ(Cfer rn.or "(}/fOOH CCWI'CIf"D fO 'H CHY 01' ~1OfI ,y w,r INSl1l'ulO(Nf /lCCOIIDfCi orCllIfWI Il. 1OOII1MDf~ IICCM()I>/C NO lOOftlt~ IN 1I:'N'C COUHr>; "'S><IHCIIW I(lNG COUNTY DePARTMeNT or Assr~i"ICNis'" LUA-O"l-048-0SP O[SIGI'J{D /lY ::I1E'KfO 8r. D~A'M'< Br ~ ~r>"~OVfD II~. PUll 0", II: I1.LfULfll. iffY/SIGN CI( D APr>R I '-- ..... ' .:'\ ,,' ',' \:~"~:/ DOEING RE'ALTI'COMPANY CITY OF RErflON LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN RE[(ReNers (0 ~ci:wcr ,,'t,,'t'lfJs:o'" .... AI -c::. NO 1!Y.lt11PJUOOO' SCAl[ IjD : (n:cl) ::;,5i"''';i'1) /fY' _ _ r,WCK(JJ flY ;l.U ..... rl(, c.':£ L.~I (:llf' OB/10LQl BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDINII BITII PLAN se 114 SECT. 1. TWP. 2JN., RGS. 5E., W-M, SW 114 SECT: 8, n\lP. 23 N" ROE. SE .. W,M'. OITY OF RENTON. KING OOUNTY. WASHINGTON LOT SE JIi,Btl Iq II os. BOEING REAL ry COMPANY CITY OF RENTON OTy Of RENTON WRYEr CONffiO(' nr$ rp CITY Of" ~£HfOH $I.I~"fr CONllto(' '1CTlIOIiK wao;wClllrs. ~s $1<0,,", ()I; SHeers I AH() ~ LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN '00' , jll,' me C-S\O' >,-... IIUPlllt2 $0.'015'.0· .... }f",' rsqov..ns-w. LV"OOJ-Al ReNTON fARM ,l.CRt;JoC( 'lOt 12/J7 BLOCI(' 4 ~",:;~, N 6r.1) 51. LUA-07-0<fa-9SP BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 S/ND/NO S/TI! "LAN SE 114 SECT.l, TWP. 2JN, Rae. 'fr., W.M. sw 114 SECT. 8, rwP. 23 N_. ROE. Sf., W.M. CITY OF ReNTON, KINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON RffffiQJCCS )0:: :~'flf .:;lOItr PW 01-0,. .' '!Ct. ,,0. 7OO111OStoOOO< SCALE ~ 5p 't (m:r J 1 WCH • roo rr 2. .~~CCQltO OF stJfIlU IfI!.IIJltQ(1J. II~-_rr;w DC""! <I ~SSOCl.trr5 "::i-" Pi.H OF ~flHCN fM" ~Cllr~Cf IQ... 12 Of f'LAIl, PC JI, LEt J: , ...... ' .. . ... ' ;' 110 1'Ii~11' ro<rr<r~5 IIIlL "'I'lAC£lI H 1'1,111 0< OVC,:to fUJU!I';,(,'!f'JIJIUCIION 'C~~f8.0.m:ws ~~r 'II' ~ /IC ~,.1tIfII Ii'~ ~:~ow~.~,. BOeiNG R(;ALTYCOMPANI' CITY or RENTON LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN RENTON I('ING SCALf.: PROJ£cr NO '" • 100' J21114 -SURV-8S0I.DWG ON , 10' or 01' lla' OF" 1~' Of ,01 TAJ >Ii ~iif\:\iiiOi;;rM:;r,i':Ji'~ing jl~ 'l;tj~,~*,,'1 .. 'I ~ :In:l ,I, :111:1 :..~';\;:~ ;';j . t"!!d~,~·~e..l~.tY. : ( ~;o )l:l'l . 01 ~\'1'hh, l\i:i'i~t.e~: .. q:O ) .. :.: ...... ;.: .. .. , .... ~ •. ~. ";;,t ~i=tt~~,~·: .. :;t3Jj,~-, .~:.~~~~.~-~"W:Y_· >. :.~ , ..:~ . . .1 '.:: .-.. ,,.. ""u,i.,1I" 1,rt'r1d~(''' IIi ~lh' l,:i;·:·!.n~ ,.;i ,lw',lir::H'1 'h'~(,"ihc·'I.f\~r(lIt .. \\·~!· • _-_.---..... --" -' "C'"., -;-"--:-. , ' , .... ;,c.· .. ~.~I;:.tJ~,~b· .. -,r.~i~:·~'~.i .. ~~.n .• L,.~.9 ~_~).~.!: .. F:.I?~a~~ :,; • ~. • • < .---.-~ih:;,i':? '?" 'ri~5:~ .. ~r-~~::·; -;: ".;;:'. .. J.~~~_9.~:."~· " .••...• " ,,'. -' '.' "j .... ';"", "",'" .rC~; ... ' ,:~ ~.~ ~r,jr~. ,"£Il·'·ll':)., • .!:: ~ to!! .1!J)I~;, . . .... of, ,_·",.,~,".·.·",·.'·'l·., .:':.:;~-.A,' ,',,'/l', .... ". ... ... \' _ '::;.~';~',-;:·.~C:C:Or.~\:,.: . '" .'.. . '." .......... . --..... , ..... ~ ....... ,~. " .... ~~.; ...:'" " . :-r.- .. , ........ . ..... -. __ . : .... ::.; ..... -:..---. .... '. '-.. -' ".' '. , APrll",:':, ' ,,\, Tl, IQ:42," ' .. '. t:Qn:n151~~[I. F·,~·snt.i'''·:''''<'~~'::.. .. ·::·:''=.I.J " .• :--.:: J _i1.n~; ~.~l!\~Y., . i.tl.i.:'~~,;,.; .... :c .. or. I ... , ...... ,l.. .. ~. _I..:' .' :~.:..~ ,:,,:;:"~.F •. ~; .. ;.#. -:. ';:. .' ~1' l'!tl1roo.j· lihe ... ~:).J.;t· .. :":.r •. :; -:.::-.::0 :7.. '.-::':)~_O ,:1;.) . ~:j,Q :~ ... p/.).r:~ -);.t,\''':\l.Q~: l· ~: ,~. , .... ~:.,. ".;.': '~.:J .. :.: ~.: (I ,S1C.:~:~ ;:.~: .. :.: .": . .':'.::t:-;I ~:::i;.:l ... ~:;. :'l" ~ ~ .•... , , " ... , .... ":"~ i:~.~"~ ~ln . ..... ;:~':";.:,~5 .. --. . "~.~'i~~.~: .. :~b~ .. '!f,~.~"~ ~~~~ ... ~.;.:q.: ,: :.,~./ ,"-.: .. .': " ' . .'.~. ,',' ,~-: :a.or.Ilo.I1,,;,!l.-'LC 1 \I;li"~:.'li ,'].:' .. ':;-s:. :,J: '.' .. ' . .. _"1": i .:; ~~('.:~ ..... .. ,::,',:c,o,.-.. -:,-,,-:,c ':: ,~.:v:~I.;; •. ", , .. " . ' ',"';' '~ . ,~.:... .. -_._-,,-,,---,-,--,-,, ~ ~_--·,-____ '_·_'-',r' ~-'-'~ ---.;:.:...-= '" . . ' , ,.' '-, ;";' . , ~.~. -;--r'-) h,Y'L,",':'''"'''''''''' ~11/·j.('.:l'n' .. "nt.~ ~t.lie ':daX :ir.ld .; . -" ?i~i~,~o,~ '. , ',,~:~,,~'>l~~:;WiD~;,r':::: ~ .: , ~ '. . . :...o.{.~.n."i):, •. 'L.""~: .. 9~"Vft!~~·~~~; '. . -v: ~iIii~tU!!!i.:D"JJl.~~iL.lii ."aJ.).d •.. "cd' .. ;Q,n;.-ihe .. P~&Lt~~.at:t~~bod::.l"la~.!;;o.: .. a-rid: . :.:':-:: ~:II.!~J~:r.~~ .. ~!,;:!?;·r·&·.·h . 'Pi"'"'' "~:~:::;;:r~lf:;:~:~~:jJ;~t'" .; .... ....•... n., ......... ~ , ", ,' . . ~-----" ....... .--..... '" ... ~ . ""';5. ;~.<.~,:.~::'.:.~:;:~~--- .\ .. -....... . -,';-'.-. -~~ . .:. ..•.. -'-, --' wJthJ~·liuiz:ument.· ock"""'c<I""i!"luii' -he "' ... ~·d,.0I!!~1~1; .... · . ~ndd;ed for t ht" ~~ !u!!rcoin ""'"""''',1: '~' .. ' j" '7:.1tc.:f". ~·~.i ~fc ;-.r y (":"~;;:~1C2I~J:cl::~:!~~~t::::_~ ''iE'!:'T' -:;.-:-:'" ':';-1,-: :.":i •• J ... : , .... ,. On this ... , ;lllt1· r!:,), ': ..... ,. . ... in":hll .\·(·.1r II). '::(': :·o.::~t:-u;:.l!~ ;'jlf~r'r:~ .... ,,:S"crt'l,,;rr H·j1.II·c{i~·c!'I.,y, ,If Ii:!!... \, '"ht:I!I:,I1}'.,lil., t'O:-:)'-':":!!I":: :.'.:iic-lr ,",". il'.~ I ru.!!.!..l' .!!i~j.!.l Jt.~"" hi! : I .. :.,,, 1 J I I J.v ...... ""W":1\,i_':" ~:.t...H~ 'f'"''''''''''''d't1IT'Tl',",;:;;rr.-:-~-~ . 'ohl:liri l'"r.rp~T:'.~i·'I', :,:.~ ~!:;:t hilt i·!· ··· .. ·':'1· :': '.1':.;· :',::\,~"f;;lIIJ -~Z.;;!I"I· ~1 t',·!I:ll! .. { ~: ... r-l, " •. ;...,.. 1';;i"0illll h,i :uIITIilril\' ~f its 1:";1:';1 ".:' nil'. l"~":'. ::'1<1 :;:,. ~.,i.J'" " . --imt-'J ••.• ::~...., '1\"~::'l\i ~,·do:'-·. " i.! :::-1! ::'::. : :. I., " I'J ,-' ..... ',. ," ~-.- "-'_'_-,--, ---,-' ....... ,J'I~' -:-'~-" ::: ... ,. /lied 1'Of.,.,~ m..c.·,.l.J.t.1Q~:_~ :::-P-.JL .. :, ____ . _'_' __ '_ :-.-"7' fI~UnTln"Siifllif-tfil" 6inrP"lY '. ._. _ '. -, _ .. ,:: . ·_.~l:a:r .• , MOUrIlS,.C:JlIl'r,"ucilor ._ ....... • ' • •. ." ..I ',' " " , .' . ~, '.-~. -:' -.. -,~. '7 .... --:.;. .. ~=....,-;. ',' .... ' .", /. " .' .... , .. ,'" ~~: '--' " ---'~' . '-.;~ " ,-, .... ~ ......... , ... ~e· Y~lr·I.9.:.~, .. ~ '. Ire the in'~ 'O"l't ant! dt!l'd of. "aid curl'''', ....... '-; ::.' .. --W .... ; .... ~cit~ry' Public, ..... : ... -............ ,,~ .. '~~!!1!!r:=:.,."''''';=".c:-.,..-'., ___ ~ .. J.~'_.. • ." ......... . . ,,' ;-' ... . ~ ,,,,,.,=,,,. C~~':';':~.~.' . . , .. .~.---'-'--. ..................... " . ".,' ',' '.' .. -,--'.'- ',""', ' 0' , .. ." . ."." '0 .' .• ; .--'-, . • , __ ~. ~._ • __ .;..::..:. __ .:-.• 'T_~ ..;. .•• _ •.• ,...- , , . . - I " rft WI'h "Cme W* .. • • . . ... IlL ........ ,.tIe '.z • ., I. "-il:~ f Dar, , .aW"_ CallI ... " ........ _ 1II1IIIIl'ALl'i'r OJ __ III" ...... V·ltt ..... ...., MiA ".ot .......... ot . , '. ___ ,.,,;._ 10 __ ...... to an4 _ ilWl~lMIIHIa_ Ita. 01_", ~ It ...... 'sa _ --. ..... of W ... UIC'OIt ~ V" eIi_ of ...... Va41l"C1W11<1 .-I4J1l.i.11111'" 0.. .... ·1oD .. L I, , l1li Ii at ~D Sf' alii 0..:-.. lito Iooloa 1, 2 .... , .... tale ... of,lIea\ioII It , __ ., ...... __ 5 111ft. V.M., lOIII 111 r.Joo WaaII1JWMD ......... 1" tbit laaeUal .. 011 tM iIIUIIIIr ~I • .., daWd relll'llU'f 16, liS, SI\oII\UiIII II 1IdI1b1\ '., ~UIIaed ~ ... ""'. & ,on ....... ot, '·hllt. 01 wq !til' til. t ... WtU. ~ i ......... '" .. __ all 1tdoUd\ 'P. ~, \1IIJI01'II'i' rip", of "., dar1IW ........ u..n of tM t.auu. \1lIOII t.IIoM porU.". ot \110 .bO'f ... a\1o!llll nbdirilioll 1III1oa\4II II)' DUal ~ 011 JIIIUIIt.\ ·P. /11ua'Prtol v;Jte I, I, ft. _..at", • _ of , .. au..r1". ·to.ou_ OllIS -'lI1J::~.r. (iI!5.000,CIO) in IIdYInoI t. tID fill ...... , .... .0 SUI'W .......... tltat-..,--.. J;;W or ... lUt. ,De f.,DId ... L Tb, ___ III boon.., ... _ Iaol*, 110, ... 1Iod ............... ...;,. .................... _, ..... lII0I _ 01 0lI4l_, Uot _ .... '1_ ....... _ ClGoqIIn, "'n dool ... wha • ...,u .. II,.., of ... work wUt 111 ... ." taM .. U...., 0.,""l1li for" PGrUoa ... fWntIn. wlU ,., dw RaUwa, CDlftPlII' ... eatIaaaIM COl' .fON Utt.oft" joM;"lbeldMl cot"1OIIda tbI ....... ,. PImd"" wiD,., tilt addlUoI1ItI.lAOGd ...... IIIdUpctDl if I'" .$111 cost b Ia. &ba" "'e ttUmlU. dM 8111 ... , CoIAplD, win "PIlY \1'1. turph ... AU "'r), Un"r br "" r,rmtle. IbJl be dOM In I ' .. : . .-. t.CJ,' .IIQ ....., to CM IIdIfuUoa III till dlYtlloa .. pe ...... , of die BalI.'r ColI""" lAd in II~' .illa ,lui acI '" 6:lUcu.1ddI ..... ,,..,o. or "'""" '"" .vllton lu,matllldnt of tilt IafIwar ea. p&nI' .h,1I hi .. tM rfItd a: 1J"''' II ........ 1 ........ ....." or IIdTWIbIf. to rwqutn ani maI.IriIl lINd In tb, worll to be ,.,.... willi Hb _tertal., wHIt *tIrIIl If aaon pmIWlIfI.t "buarlrr: .1 .. 10 ..... tno lIMitkomt "'~rl: IIr ehaqt. of '--u.. .. ..w '-'UJU .. ". • 5Ai. wr ....... '" l·r <iF,..nnct, or 011 .c~.,ltftt. of acIdlttonal hHkI Iwlq laid, ~'han .. of ~ Ibtnof, COllI"**" of , tnaOdlal. or tor III, ." ,"DOn wbt;/lIr ar nlll tomItClN with Ibt .,na ..... malnl.II"-or hIIPfO"tftIU' 01 tllo ralll'Wd of the Ban • ., tlo.,.., •• U of ... bith .11 be dcm •• t. Iht nPt" .. of t.ba p"- Ian", II tM ............ proride" a. ~,) ".. .... IUet..,... tN, dMI ,..Oltln .b,1I lIot A anr \1m. _ml,t th, railroad or .1,.,., ... of t.bf ltanw.y Com....,. OJ' bit ........ " .. lifter CJf It • .,.,.ttoal .... '0 1 ... 11, .... II .. hlmt .... ' ..... ,..., Cona,., from aU I., .. ud Uma" to tat t:nEb, ........ ~ NlU-1,! ....... on."pJ'OpI'rt, of thl Ba'''., OoaIpur dII proput, af lturd penanl, I. tnma I4IGrIu to or .. " of ,,"QM, ~,laIItq 1m,..,... 'It tbl rtlrtkri ...... 10. CK'Q.lnl1 .. d b, U. "'ft'I,,. "' th. p'I'1IIIHioa ilia,," ......... (b) ftI ..... "'" i.mbr """"r .,r.. '" bold tal,..... ,Ad I .. , .. ,,,, , ... RIll •• , ConI.,.n)' frora qd ,pIA ... nny and all 1011 or ..... to* radlftln. tilt hl.&ln, ... n ~ ,,"kit II ~bJ ptrmlUtd on Ch, pnml.." Df IIIf' 1111..., Cnlllpar.y, 4. It I. -rn-d IbM A. ,"",In or "Ion' .rt far I" equal PM'C'~ of IIlI' a'_ ",Urad "omPInY 0' eomparl,. ~\''''I.fan 0' ~, putId 'hi Jota, a. of 'he RIll; •• , O_PlII". ,.,."rt)' IIr .. hlrh lha pmaill"1 Up", .'hleh .. Id ,";11. II~" IN luelltd an • PI'" Ii. Th. hratuae IhIU no& h'Add' Of .utcn tI ... "ria" wlthou, dw .. rlllen rflftNnl "' 11\4' Rail •• , COIItpan,. d. If tbI PwIaJtt.N AlII at 117 tIIMI_" to .,Imaln lIul gprnt. thl .. id f ... llltI .. 1 ." .h.1I ,.1I1Q prfD"" ",I)' I"",,, m.nt Qf Ih. ,.tad" .... 1aDnr Coat,...., fmbwlu. ",...-ttl. pennlt and'ml, torm-Ilb •• ,.1 .... hnai'," fl'Glll 1111 p ... ·ml ••• ; ,,...., , ... d tJae,.,." UtI"""CMe wjU""," tbI,,,. .... t4 u.. Ran.l, c..pt"' tD \hll, fo,.., 1,,1., 7. 'lh1o POI"',.1t h ""bJ.at. w ox1Iio~ ,ti.fe .. ~,. o. ",',,i.N ~..-t.!aD .... &l.d ".(!IIt ot Ifq. III \Ill ... '" thn tile _ill ot thil '\'I""U ...,.1" _ uro .. I't.¥, ,nollldlft8 Nt no, u.s. .... w buUdlllt •• ~pI U-, an an.. &lid ." .. 11. 01 ~I'CI perU •• \Ill "_'too lII1all bear \Ilo ooot ot rost.oriftg ,1111011 Pnlpart) w • ooa41UGn 1$ ~ .. ~ood .. ito ooatiUGD'P tho u.. or ...... 1IIpai .... ~ end rhaU eo porto ... au von hereurod.r •• to Idat .. " 1117 Int8"""t10D of .... ot .WIII Pl'Oport.)'. . , "~,;O:~''(ConUsod on otll .. 0*) , 'f~ IN WITNES8 WIIJ1l\CO'dIo ~~ ....... __ ..... I ~T , (', .. ~'." !, It !ill' .. ;','/ )~~:'~C','" '.; .. ~:.,' )~Jf'\'.,~ . ,\".~" ~" ..111 ............. , a •• ,on" IC::-"~~' ,,~ . ' ... ~yca-~ ... . .'" 'l{\J'lJOlr HmoI'Ql.ITA~, ~.t.f'ru: ......... &0 ,_tu" .. "natMfti .,..., I. ~ . !ODll'l ~}{.!~~.~' E«(~.{<~~~2~~~'i"""'" ~;:;'.~~7 ~..,.,:P/ . . ..• .:,.!.;, . ,._~J~.:~-::;~,.~.~. ~":"'~"':"=··'!U~~"~''':~~~''~:'':''·:''J~;=~:~:'::'·~'"~' y~':t'~: '~'~: .. :':":(~<(,:(':'~''!I:.''~~:''_ •• . , ..... ',". . , .- ) , M5:~".l3 YIl429R 1MG12'm "". m& M'mUiti 9"'" 't!!! ". • PM m rpm. t:" t R. 'W' tl:f1 ,. !P Blue. IiIi He· •• II .. ,. on 1I~"r~ 1M "IN PM .... ., ••• ,. .. " J&, ,olIod Iolhrl1 Com ...... horeb, ''II.., -rc u. ot tile IIUM 01 tlmtnaft.r caUcd ,.mmw, lo carI.Uoct. opent •• r.4 _talA tilt I.a.. ... _Ita _Ito riP! 01.., .. 11-'11 1 .. '"'*' sa IiIII ~, ..... of Wlllh~, 10 th. CIi'J 01 ..... UDI,rtp'OUlld ._ 14" U-Sf iItt~ ~ .. L It , II1II II ot """",,, 5,' alii o.w'_ .. IB ~.t. 1, 2 ANI 3 IWII tile vt~ ot, &.oUo. B, 'I'~ aJ 1Iaftb, iIIq. S lin, II.M., l11li ill WIko WaaIlll1lW. S!Ioft .... 111 Ulit looat.l .a.-oA tilt ~. ~" up 4a~od robl'\W'7 16. uta, 1II.utWd u IIIh1bS\ I., "'~ .... II1II lUll. & pll'\ 1Iv .. ot, 1'1 p'. at vq tor the looWU.o lIeSI1II 1ad1.D_ '" IIIID 0010r ... 1lIb1b1' ••• Aloo, t .. po ....... r'ibta ot !Ill dIII'1III oonnl\lOUon of \b8 looW1I* IIpoD 1JIo., po..uOIll or tho abov_o.uo"",, IIIbdldDiou 1Ad1oaWid bf IIIWlW .,.. 0. 1iI:lUI>i\ I •• " ft, p_ will .......... 1 " , .. ~1V1 to ..... and 0lIl1 ....IlOD dolJan (025.ooo.oo) ;n ednnaI fa tbo lUI ........ &liD aU CUn .M ......... G .. ·UaIt .. , be ~ or alln"" ,,,'"I !M '.cnlU ... L Ttl. tnt., -'.w be btmI br .... ....,. ... , bull~ blat .. IImll:fd \0 UtI co-t 01 ~'rut'Ucm. optt.uon. • .mu. M~ Nd nlloql oIl1k1 flCQlUa, ~ 4lvWllfUl dptftll\mdIM cd &M .. 11-,. c.a,.n, _til decl. whal ponkln if &OJ of tbll w(lrk wUl bI 40IMt '" 11M lieu.,., OoaIpaa" tad 'or ..tI porct .. l1li JJmaI .... will PlY ... Ralhnl,. Com,.", .... nttrDaWd C'Uf' molon , ... won .. "'1 If dw ac'-l cw~ ,acwtb 'lNi .d ..... "" r,,,,,iu .. will par "" a441&loP'\l llAOaft' ."'n calted aponl If 1 .... utuII rolt lila' t"." tbI.,tt .. ", \hi Rill." Cam,.", will rf~.V ,'u .... lJrptll •• All wark htrtVDdtr by ,'" p.,lIdn .. ,tIIl\ toe don. In I .. ' ,-'I ~,fI. • 'ttka aaaaatr kI U. """-,,on Gf u.. dl,ld .. IU1*bla..ncIn' at u. RliI •• )' Coo,.",. Ind In "e'~nbnrl .i&It piau awl.. _Uou .. lair:b lI • ..., pracr1ba or _"rem. ftt dl,lIlcm .. "rlntcllChBi of tb, .. 0.., Com- p.ln), .... 11 h ... UtI riIId': " ..... II bill 1M ...... h btcoma ...... ,.,. or 1lCI,I .. btI. to noqulrf :In, maUiril1 uwd in \:'r work ta be ",1 ___ ell I"" _\trill .r wtUilMwrIII ". mort permlnent "hlnt'wr: .1,a In "",,,I,.. .MI'tnf!!I! '~!'r!: "r coh.n ... ot 10lahh oi _l-mLOu .. " .. l:ir': ...:.,;;:. Wll.; · ••. ,..r.nct. or nil .( ...... n\.nl .dclilimlal 1'· ... 1" b'in. law!, l-h.n,. of ".. ~. CODttnII~ of • "Hdln •• or .. I', oUter ;""\ on .. Iw. .. ~~i' or. ,,1M. conMdId will. tht OPtNIIc>", "lalnlenan" 01' Imp,.,.,.""", of '~1 rtllro.d of tllt a.II •• V l..iomplII),. all of ",hkt. .ball h, dOlI' .t U" nlH'n" of lb. P"r. min .. I" t.he maDDtr baNta PI'O"i4t4. . a. fa) fta Pwnnlttll ."... 1M' die ,,,UI" ... t..11 not It Inr 11m. ".nal' ltor lllilrnod Ir II"",hlr" of u", a.ilw.v Cwapam', or bt ....... tt .... lIIetr of II. l'PI'ItiOftt •• 4 &4 I ..... ifr .nd ""1 hamlin. Ih •• 1I_.r fnmpur 'rom .11 lM1~ ... daIup .. t&a ....... ,....., ItNI\aIA. roU"'~ .tatk 1ft' citbtr propartr a' UW &l1t"'r CCIGlpaA)' and propanv. of Ildnt par.on .. and """ IDJvrIa 'lor_Us of ","'n". IMllldlnc .mo~I.,. •• f U .. ,.,Ik>.! "'"'a, OC'",.1,..'11I br thr nllt'i.r •• , t.h. Plnaol .. iaD bmlIrJ Ift.IItI4. . Ih, n. PtnIlneI hi" .. , tIP1htr ...... te hmtd una .... lind Indflnnlfr .he Rallw"~' r.olll,.n)· from and .,:aln ... IIny and .111 ... ., ....... iOtb~ ""1"1I,,'be I •• &.I'-U.I\ I" _M'h II ."b)· pormlt.Wd on , .. ,r-.ml_,~ ", Ihr Rall"" rMnPlr'lo ~. It 1_ .,,,..s IbM ,', provblOa. of .helton a If? '0' 'bi fqUll pr~lon of III, "n .. , ,.lIr* ~"lmPiny ar C'omp.r W • ..... fl""'." or II.,."", mated the Jotat II. of 'M ",i;".), c.,.",', pn".rt)' .. ' ..... hich 1M JI"mi .. " upun ""hlrh gid '.~·:Ii. III'. ort l~Wd an I,.rt. ~, Ttl. Pnmtnet IhaU not , ..... .,... or • ..ten ttll. pomh wlthoot tlar .... ·riltl'n cnn"111 .. , thfl R.lI •• ~ CORIp.n,-. • 1. If tM hnllu.. QaQ ., IIIf tt.. ..... 10 "llntitn 1,,4 OJI'ntl the ,.Id "rille) .. "' ,h.1I f,ill" JU'r(om .".,. .,m,. nl"n' n' 'till ptrmU. ,hi RaPwtl CoaIPIQ l1li, 'ortbwltb. "lUll""" \bll pennlt ,ad ft'" forth.IUI .a,.1 tha ""min .. from I'· pn,",j~"~l .nd I' IbI_ at '..h. ,...-.I' tilt Ptrmhlel wUI n ..... &III prall ... allhI Rail ... , Companr to lltch 'oruMr It.at.t:. 1. Ttlia J.IIIf'·jt 11 aubJeai. to CIJQ..n.:..nl;,·tni,.,.~ill o. 1.. .... rd .. art.Leiu In '~Q r~,'bt. 01 VA1. In t.h. fteM th.t. tb8 awol .. or \1da ~t'1Il1t ...qJ.1~ UQ' lit-o •• rl,j·, :..nol .. d1nl5. l'\lt not UlDited '" bu1ld1",., pl..,. Unta, 1II.re Uno. and ", .... , 01 Will po .... a. tIIo ...... itt ... &hall be.,. \M GUilt of "non", ,wah P1'O .. a.n:. to I oond:1 Uon at. 1 ..... lUI bOod 8. to. 00l1li1"". '.t tho tw or sup \JIpI1 ..... t one! I\IIOU eo port .... all '''" ... h.,our"' .... to rd.Isia1 .. en" interruption 01' ;lIe of ,aah rropert.,.. . . ·:'~~.·:·~"):~'·(Cant.:l.ru..s on otber AiM) ., IN "'ITHESS WR~"'" ~~ _ .... IlwM ,_" "'" I ~ t Ct .... ..• .~ . "./ ">'1~ '.:. ~: ~I, ',"",1 t\.,oJ 10 ~. , . tit ........... all_, 0 ..... ', I. . ... ~ya-~ .. . • IB ...•...•.. !.,.. VIIl429R 1'AG1276 " , .. • • -,,' ". .. " (Oo .... ,.. .... ~) ~!I' "'f '~ Itt e. XII tA Ja ..... _ ' .. r.t.UUeI __ ..,~ ....... , ... IIIIU .~ 1I1t1i __ a.u.r ...,.. ~ ....... ClIo ......... -a.u." "' .... d .... rmlillN' I, :II ........ II et --. II." a ... 1lIi4II&' ..... " .. .... ~ ........ p" ....,. till .... of oo .. ~-"'a of e'd1~ tnok. Oft ... ,..us",. tile JIIftIl"" .... U. IIltlWl • _IOIIiMe ,. IftII' .. ". _ l1IOII 1IId~u....l a-wvftta td11 J,~ ' ........... ~ IIltil laid ...... U1oPi1 ... II ....... '1IIllits.a _1Il1ll ......... JlNPClIIII IilllStSoul ,-a. ,. lIMo 1-=1' ... · _en h ... "" IOn oil ,. iIll .oau I11III ..... :iliGvrlll bJ \I» 1181.., OampIQ 111 p"U1dau7 lao TO.tlallUon, 8lV ,"",,"'* pll'1o~ ond a_--""a 0Il4 "_, dnIrtaS" plIU II:d 1n1u\ ... pNIIIIId .., tile ~ GaIIPIIJ ill .01llllO\SAlD wltb .OU\rooUoa, .""0 Uo •• __ or -.1 of U. , ... 11I.Ue. 1>. All) alilnjIH, 1Iloludl.DI bll' no' UId...., '" 8111 tImpIrll"l Clhepl &Ad , •• _"' ... "", .. to •• :u tba Jl&Uw,y '"" ..... ~, .... _mo"Son or ~ liDo II1II. "'_117 bJ tho ...... 1 •• 01' W. peal" ~. .:NOli aa~_"·':'''' -r-. " ... ",,,,"'ton or t .. , .. 1llU ... u. IoU tla\! ~jon d __ ....... aI? by lbe RU1Wl ;o"p1lll1 dul'1lll: ~ at the raoil.lth •• 10. Th •. ;oj,lVQ ao., __ • u. r<.bt '" .... ' ODd to p_' otili. ,.ft1oo. \0 .... U,. land in tho lboYeodeaoribtd 1aoGioa t ... _ ODd en I",,,'ooea no' lJIoono1"'-' v~th tho 00l'01eo of tb~. p81'W:1t.. U. ','hl r.roo1tt ••• ~'1'''8 that II1I.I' o.nt .... t It.olob,lt Ib&ll la\ tor the ..... t ..... tto. of til. ( .. illU •• on .114 riiibt .r ~ oItaU "wv:.do ... :"11< ... , 4. Th. ""nt ..... tor ol1a3) 'IId_U) and ..... ham1ao. Iforu..m Pl<J\fta M.n.., Uo< 'p_1\j' Ira .. .., ..... all oltdM, lIIi\l, 10 ..... "'1/1'. or .1<,'_ or. _.Wlt ot "njvr.. .. to or d."" ot lUll and .u rar'D~. VI ........ O., '~ollldillil t.tu. ';untrao"'I', l\1li-oont,...,,,, ... , ..,p1o~ •• at \lie •• "\1'",,,1', ... I>ao:rt._n ond at .aid ,>&1lIr1l """"1111 ..... lUll and all PI'II~ """'011', arialna or ~1'OlIiJ'" .~, .1 .r IA __ r •• _atod v1th tIlo "'I'll ~rlorlll<l _ tllil .o:rt.r.lot. 0' o .. 1Id .r ooaaotollGd l., .,01. or 'II pen by r_n 01 \lie P"''''' .t til. r ..... n or at 'bl ,,"pen, ot tho ContrlO"", lUI>- .antrootora, tIl.i ..... ,107 .... or ""',., upon or ,'n Pl'OldJll.'l to til. P ... f ..... j ,ot oald IlBUwa, 00~P8ll1. B. Tba l~~raotoro turt.her ,,",8 \b~" ~lo v~ daJ.'QQd, at. . t.u 0\11. cqq...on •• iD \lui 11111',. IIIld on beIloll 0" •• ~d '141l1t~ ~ all 0""'" or ou:\o I'r'r ;a.1.rio. 100 penlCnD or dllll~' t.o F'O{oert.) ~'" or "",V1AIr. ,,~t. o! t.Il~ ""rtr: cUI'''',d.on a.nder t.b~. ao:rt.l'oot, C.r ,,,leII .o1d RU~ QoIOlpllQ' ie 1I.I:l>J..., or 14 a1J...od '" I>a 1UI>la. Q. 111 • .,;omno1or Ih&U OIft'7 n,ulAI' ~ntra.ot.orl. t\abl.1o J.. ab!J!Lt) Iturul"a=1 i ror.d1n;: ,.r • UId.' ,ot lID' lo •• \IIaD .:~.OUO tor all ~ .... ,·ol .... '.1. ot til. ho4J.~ ,1nJnr1 •• to or dutb ot ani ,. ... "" IIIl .. bJoa\ to th., 11mit ,'or GacII por ..... • .. \01 11111\ or ,11,000.000 tar au doIoIIU" .... .i.u..;; o~t. or b~' ~U': .. to or ~ .. tb ot .111) or MOre ForlOD' In IIl7 ODe AOO,;,dri. Dud ren' a lJ41'\ 0; !.lot loCUI ~14n . ~,OQO tar all dtl18Vlf u' a1.nc 0";\ 01' daalQiO to or d.&S\tWl1riO.l at ... .:'g~lot .. In lUQ-' unll acc1dlllt, aad IIIIbJ .. t to th., lJJu1'. Q total (or 1Ii:" ..... t1) l-a1t .r ~loOCo.ooo :or all d"',III" 1I'iIi118 out or dll'1Of,. '" or d .. t",.t1on .t P"'~ dur:'1f, I. •• paU<q ........ d. ,:1 ... 011 Fallo1l. IUIil u ... "'n",,"'.t.o tIIero\o, a1>&ll b ......... ad b, • ",,' ..... t:"n q,,'.,l:.ttod I.e , " .. a" t ....... ·0 J1 tho J\at •• t IllOli::nii\oll, .loIU be " ~ro ... d b;, I&.d ; .. u.. ... .;c;..; OIof ~ to the ·~1'18:..ra.'1oe QOIIIT'8rQ' vr1Unc 'IIM, ~ .. "le. at lorm DI1" tiJ!;.,t.".;co t;.root. ;'he Co~r 6l.all "'I'OO~ 11;"'" tl..miah to said ita:..l¥tll ":U.'lrM~, fori-or t..;, 'Ulu untt')' I.l.,(da or u.o 'at .&:1 d 11:4111 ... 1lOOlpIn, ". pro,)en, b, \,be Yo,otraol.or. t;.., ........ rano. FaUa,., a .. 10 u.u til ..... , • a.,;1t1aII 00111 at lIIob pollo;',. tot.tIl ... v1\il .n e, dor ... "".t IJ ...... , ~ ...... tho t ..... of "h:'h tho i_rone. oo"Ponl to • ..,... tile UoIIl.1.I." .. ......, Of \110 0011- traa'toOr nerlUnatr, IJUHMni1all1 SA tho {ON 01 ;"..-Gil wldor_~I.nt D,.to~l~od ; •• r6t.o and ~ed •• l'''' h .... t. ' " .' ~~ ., . . . .... .. ," . .......... , . . :.' P. _ !wa1 .... .uu It_ tIM .n 0" ;tii' "'( , .. ... W. aon. &lid 4 • i_Ii • .., \III RdJooor a......., ill pn~ iDo · ... ,tsDJ.on, uv IIII'YIf WIII ....... awd .. _-'lao IIIId _t draiIII" pi.- oed .~, prIpUIiII " \III aau.., ~ ill o~ .'" ..nruu.t, ..... \\.00, ~ .r -.1 of U. tut.~ , ' b. .IA) IIAIniN. iDDlIMIiAa IN, ... , UlGW to M1 ~"'" oIIUP' aad f , .... torailoon. ;11 tile ~ ~" 0 =".1tIa or Id.c-l J,1a. II1II0 _117'" tIIo _....,1.0. ot W. '*"'" v. taaa.i ... \j.iI .......... ~ ........ t. ... :,!~ ) •••• " .. , 1thIV COftiPM" JIll dllU1.1 to obi .... , GOn- .'_'Ioon ot ". tlOillU .. . D. All n.1I proMe\1on ..... D .... aart Ity .... Itd~ :o:.pOlQ' during u ..... 'NoD ot til. tlOi11'I.o •• lIl. 'l'ha .;aU..., aa.,paq __ tile r..,.t. to "'" _ too pend.' atIIu pans.. " _ tIIo lind 111 t.IIa llrn'...s...rllMll laMUcnI t ... M1 _ 111 _ .. "'" u.. ... d .... vah tho tDC~ll1 of tAt. PI'J'Id..~' .. . U. \'l1li I'maittoa agrao. that uv .ontnot It.'.1Ob l' II1aU lit tor \.be .o~ at til. , .. lUU •• on oojA rillllt ot ..., oIuIU _vUe .. t..lk., Ao 'I'h. :"'ntnotoor IlIaJ) l1li=' t1 and _ • .,....*. IlaJ'Ulom 1'101'10 HaillaO' Oo;'POI\l' ,'to; ..... 0111 all aIaSu, IIIi'" s.o._, ....,.. or u.,_ on a_lIIIt at ~$r.. .. to o ••• db ot OIQ' ond .U ;l1'oon. 11>II1II ... _., :'mllldiDil tba C"atraoto" 1111>- aontnotol'tl, 1!DplAI~1I 01 \III :;om",to" uboontnaton CId of .OjA iiaUInJ CoIIII., ...s UfI end all prop~ dllDlIIl, ~1111 " urov1i>" alit, a,t or 111 UV _" o .... eted \11th tile work ",,,.t0nt4 "". tbi •• ''''''''''. 0" ....... 01' ..... doaod t" _10 0. !J1 part b1 r_n .r u. pn_ .t till rll'8Oll or .t toll. proI*'Q ot toll. c.ntl'""",., lOb- oant.oot.oru, thei ..... ,107-'or ",""'a, upon or ~D praldJli'~ too tJut propen~ ,.1 Hid 1laUa)' IlOfIplIQ'. 80 fbi u..nrootar tunher _. \II"~ ilo v>ll.' d"oII4, at ~h 0\11. _ J.a tba nan. ond .n beheU 0" "'0 ,1a1llf~ ~ all .~ .r ouu. tor ~aJu"', tG perl'" .r •• "'. to 'JII'OPI~ lii'i.0.>l1li or ""'_ out or tIa_ ...... o orr ..... , •• -.. t .... oontnot, t.r ",lob .OjA a.u., Call1Jlllll 11 l1dllo, at 10 allo~ed ~ be Uobll. o. 'III. uantnotar IIIIll 0...., .... 1I!u' olantnat.ar'. ~ L. ob1lt~ lNNr.no. r rovldtn;; 1'01' A u.os.\ .t "'" 1111 \hall ':!iIXI,oao tor aU """-o:r:' at ... o.t ot till ba4!1l 1a3ur1a. to or dodb of 0111 PI"""" 8ZIII .w.l_ to till. l.J.a1t tor eaoh, jlIor .... • to'al Ua1t ot n.oao,oao tor au dlAlI," ..... dIJi; 'IIt ot b~ 1n,j ... II. w or da$ ot ,_ 0. lOON p ..... 1II ;In Ift1 alii .. old,"" and tor • lJId.. 0: IIOt 140. \:oan .::OO,oao t.r .U dllN/l'. "lillie .... at """-II too .r d • ..tNol1 •. , ot jol'Oi'Ort;. in IIDl u"" 1C014At., ...s ,IUlIJ ... ' to tII.t am" • total ,(.r ... ~ ... ,.tI) l\a1t .J.' aloo:s,c: t ... all "'11111 1r1I1II8 au. at dll'lll!l to .r d,"..:otion ot pro""", durinG ~. .0r.lG<l. 1:1 .... pollo101 """ .ndo ....... nt. tiler., oball c ..... ,.t .. b .... ~rpar.Uon qUoll!1ao 1.c , , wnw the • ." •• '" lob .• ~'atl ot. Wlllb~. tW~l ,b. ';_' \» II,' l;auv~ .:0"""'01 .., to til. ',nauNftOl ~.", vr1UII() ,_, t.lle ' ..... at ' tom cur. ti'Jb,t"100 th ..... t. 'l'ha Co"'""tar "hall proo." oM furnl.al1 too .. id ,1&>1_ c..,.,anl, prior to .... Iftt." ., .... 0. u •• 01 odd Rall1rq 1looIpIII," pro.,,,",, b, th. OOD,tr .. tor, to.. ....... ,, __ poU07 •• r 111 l1au t.h-' • o-"in..! lOW ot .1IaII palio<, to",tber V1t11 en ."dor._nt ~rot.o, uad_ tho tor ..... of wIll4!h lobi 1","'01 OIl"P""1 lAIIIIN8 tho UobiU~ III ...... bjI till Call-,notar 1I_.r, oublt.ont.l.al1l IA tba tan ., ~PlIP.a1 .. odor_ant .. toal,ed : ..... t. &lid .. ed, • l>art III"oot. .. ,; , . ,,' .. ,f • ' . . , . ' • ."(JIm_wl. ·~·of''''''''' •.•. ;,., .!.' ....... I.. ;. palD U, '. 01 * .. t_ ...... ____ ~_ .... _ .. , 0_"_ " . ...,U ."DCIf DI _iUfttA.GII 01 till .... at III:deIi 1IiSII ~ s. wi' .... U i • ..,.ad 1Iatl , . 1. AII¥ _1u1 .. 01' Pl"lri1lioD aJll*l'SIII 111 W. poUq 01' in __ d_t attaobad t.be""', .UIISIa\inc :~-.. tflr _ obUptioll 01' u.b4Ut,r a.1III8I ", tile tmurad a ....... OGlltlllot fir .,.._, .... tf1r ..... or lII,1ta7 to 01' dA'no~ 01 ........ ___ ad or 0""" or in till _. OIIatO" cr'oolUol or tile ......... U tle1&llId, but onlT I' "'1"0_ tlat aOll1Not vtaoad into........ ~ fit H JIb"'" ... aod ,datall , and tile tnlllriDS ..,-.u _ ....., crtR'" to odow till olo1_\1OII, 1..-4 by tile o_otal' 1IDIIrr till __ 01 VIa toUOWS!lll pl'l>Ybinna of .. 14 OOll"'Ot, .",., Oonvaotor .haU illdalllUr II1II ... 1arII1u. till Jlarthtm l'RoU!:I 1101 ""0" ""'r--'J :.,.. .... aod IU ala., 11111 ... laOln. _ .. ' .......... GIl 1000,., 01 1il"",~.WI ... " 'utll 01 1117 And 4U'paoeOU vIIa.c .. wi, 1ao1af:l:inc'tM Ooatzoaator, DUHontrso- toro, """ ••• or tile Oontoototor. ,oboontNotoro and or o~ Rdlway Do ... 117. aod '117 and.IU ........... _ .. , an,trw or iris .u tor, or in IIIf _lI/0II' _fill iii til III ... n: port ...... under tIIIa .anvaot, fir ...... or .. OIo10n0d In vbo1& or ia put by .. _on 01 til. __ or till _ cr 01 III. ~optI"t.y or til. Cont",otor, ""boontnotoN, tIIou eIIqI~o .... "lI"IIto, upon 01' In pl'COt1ll1l;y to till property 01 .. ld Railway C_." -",. Cant. ..... tor fUrtll .... ;,.e.. till t It vi 11 d.tend. • t • to """ apo .... , 111 tile no ... nd COl bohalt or laid l1li11 .... ' CoIIpanr, all .101 .. , or oa1to t .... lnJlII'l" til pezw_ or "'_ to praptrl;y orloirlr 01' poovins out or till von: c&n'Iod on uniler till. conva.t. tor which laid IIun ... y OaoIpony 11 Uable. or 11 alloROd to be liable.- 2. :II1e Rortlleru ,..1t10 IIa1l11ly Coa\JIIIII7 ODd aay otller rall"",' _ny fir .""""lI1ee hll'etot ..... or horoatter III'&fItod til. joirlt _ ot tile Rortbem I'DaUIo IIA1lway CbII>Iny'G pI'QpoM¥ aN aalilld G, additional lnourocla under Wo pol 107 , but only .1 roopeoto til ••• ",,.0,.. l'8'Iuil'ld 1»' tIIo abow .on-traot. ' 3. ",., aanae1lation perlod provided ror undor thil po1107 'hall be ... tended to )0 daya. but only .1 ""'pee" tba ."-EII ,.equired by the .bov •• ""traot. 1I11111:JJnn I on !I/o , VII/It. n . r ........ _~" ~ ( • (~ I:.,.M. itq"''' c:1 Mel,. " 101111 A. MOIl1S. '-Ao4JIOI '"--....... - • .' • • ,.nat Rf("()llONG RfTlltS TO em' Of 1tC>1OS em' CURt;'S OF1'1CE ~OO MIll. A \ "E'l'E SOl TH Ra.~ ... ·.'~~:!119 ......, ... .- \ ;1· • . .. , .... ) ~. :: 96llI2OlSS.baaa_ .. _ ...... iaEllAbilA c ........ ' .. 1.ad IIUr faa. -. fir'll _-.1 awalsl II nre BOEING COMPA.W •• DoIr.", "'"puo ..... I on' OF R£!'II'TOS .......... CC.,. ... ~ C ~~_Jllfll:_afdaaam " . l..tpI"'":' . ~ If J..t. hI..cL pltlln:ltQl. tIIIIo1lShip, lWIF' I, A"", O{IIocI ..... 1'01\ A,_ .. _ •. r ... .m.>lJ -It-. S _ \\' M, .. ~ ~. 110'''''-' ' I i!I AddilICDIJ WI 4." 01 Ox...- _II i --_'151 I Ie AQaq Ta, ... 'CI...,..t If \ - I I • • « " ...... . l , I! • , I ! • • • • \ '"~ :,p,. ~;;"at1\.W'IIlO ""., . ~ .... j.,,: ',' ;':l.~ :' ',' . " ~ ... ,," .. :. , .. , L L , 0 Tbot C:'AntOr, !"fU; II"'II:r~ CQKPI'IlT, ~ Ocla'.U'" ct't'l"':'ltlnr (Mrei"dUr referred to at -r.oetnq-'. for aM in t'\'IT\aid.retlon o~ :"C( OO!.LAM Ill:' an4 ::ther 'll00c .:'I~ \'.hI.lI~. c:o:\I~i:tU'U . .ior., UI Nnd Plid, t'onY.y1 an4 vuraJlU to t.., .... c:m Dr Q3r1OfI, • aDicLpal corpont.i.oll ct tM it&t. of ~tOf. (bullin&1't.,. u. Count, at ~ftQ, sut.. of vu.hu.qton, Il101'. partlcoluly "f.Ct'ibed Oft CXl.llti.t " &t:t&cMd htnw and IJf ~i. n'-tRee illc:orpautild ~uin (her.i.Qdtu rdlln.! u. •• -the Jt;;-op.:ty-); saJI4...,. TOI 1. All -...-.mt. .Uoot.1nq • ponl.= of tIM! h:'openy far UIe pupota of an electr!e' trusai .. ion Un. and tnoilloaul parpos ... in h1'or of t.be citr of ... td. ve.icm 1nt\nIMnt. ••• "'CQrd~ on tJecc:aber 27, Ill", undor Audita,,', No. ""Oll. 2. o\~ ...... nt tor "",'1:.Z'IW\i.on. uLnuz'ann ull operation ot • tul".y t:ac:k ovo.;r porUcmlo 0: ll'lcl ..... op.r;ty rncTVod in .. l! ... c.'I han .acUte COAst •• R. Co., '. Wub1nv~n corpantlon, I'ltC'Ordod 'Qllder AWlitor'. rUa •• U'n40. 1. C~uon \It' tJ. 'UU ~t "'al:J.Gvto:t ot • dqhC a! ICC«.I ~o IUU M,9bvoy ~ Df ll,ht, 'fin and &1.1'. by d,"" cniu.s JGDe 2'. lUI undu CUe at. nun. 4. Any QeaDr'&ncet or 4eftetl that. ..,. .tUeh .fter 'be CI'o of thh itatutory MUTant.)' Dnd tVDllth &nJ' penon otJMf thP Doe J, "i • EiCVU.ti o\IID It!iEi''lIG to _i", itt RCCltlIOn, ... 19M. J.avi.taoI. Uc:c=..." and punilttoe •• IICInOU'latl;" pa:qJoto&1 ... __ Milt anr, ICTOJ;O, and under tt. hcpn'tJ .. follOW'll 1IOei.n9 .blll hot ... tbI ~l rltbt to·op.nta, .. lntU.n. .. \ , " '. • . Z~ , ,., " , ',;00 0 . , OJ ~ 00 i • " I I • • ( . " ;-.,.. ---~~-------- • • • the 1), UOO·v-.)lt r • ..s" duct. p,.. .. nt11 en UI 'I'ope.ny. &04 Uil ItO~ JeWI' p".,entiy on the Pro:-rty, t~.t.t.r vitti aU """.UY or convloi&nt. .pp,.u·t~. W IUeb abIoItacaU. dun. and .... ". Ind lull nave tn. rig-tit Dr ace .. , over 11<4 ler;)" tlI., Pro?C::y tel enlbl. Dod"'i t.o uucba a. rLljjbU t.ar.un4~l". 1"M lSescrip- t!on and app,e.iDA"a locIUcm of ,!aCt! ~~U. '"",II" 611ct and ,\.en; '1I'~r ue .~ .. ,,\laber, s. i. t "'"I~ :.: 01'1 b."Iitli\. :I IU.ael\d """.to &Ad by tMI uf".ac:tI LncotpantCO huetn. 'er of ~t1l!Nt ion TbJ,. conqyanC'tl II IW.de UD4u and Il&bjft't to tM fcawi::; C'Ondic.iOM; 1. na Pl'operty ,ball 1M UMd t.o wWen tbe aU .. !. '~j",ht to thII 'C'OPUtl vit""" ]0 run alter lobe 4at. ot tbll St8tutory WUI'."ty D .. d; and l. Ranton ... .ill 115\1111t ,upontlbllu)' for vidlnio; lbe Itt •• t Idj.ee"t tQ the Proput1. 1A~hd1rlf w1tJW)lIt !111J.tnio."I &IIy and dl iAproveacnh or .:.ppurUAan«1 uhtw tl'Iaret;, My fllen .... i4on!n9: at tlI;l .treat. odj.c~t t.o t.be Property, iDC1QlSlnv. v'thollt l1&lUlti<m any tAd dl t.pro.aQ~ or Ippu.rt.«u.DCU ulatlld t.Nuto, lhaU til n no "'It. 0: apeMa to Dodftlli QQr IMU III')' oon 01' upaIIN tbu"lIOt or rdlU4 u..nto bt ...... " .,dnrt. u.. propact, aoutUov taM ~J. lat.oa uau pel .1! ell. COlt • .,.. eKpanM. ot ... 1aQ ~ nlocltUQ to 1oaiIlq'. lat1lt.~t1on u.:. propuil' .. ~..ut. CDtIW 1oc:a.ted 011 u.. 'ropertyl, tN d .. crtpt1Oll &Ad .~" loc:at.ioa ot wUch an .bown .1 n~n " 4, " •• U Ud 12 OlIo r:.M.b1t D·n~:b~:d !HInto &Ad bf tM. ntcr~ 1acorpQuted ,",".10. ....toa w!U allO ~ ADd .. u,uu, pcde:It:rian .... h1c:l. C'l'O'd"? ~I;'I;'." Ica.. OM aU. of the .t.r .. t aditwat to ..,. h'GPUtr to eM otber dde ot .u'*' nnet to •• ~ lOt. le .. tb&D pce~tl)' cU.u ao4 &eAton "U1· par .11 COle. &ad pPaMI &'I ... t .... to ncb pn"n_t1oJ& .n4 _1.ntcuAoa. • I , I • • ~' -I • • • \ It Lh' 'l'oper!;), or tlflt PAtt UlorttOf. br the .. cti01l 0: QlLi.ui.on to I"'t. oC ~ontbn, or itt ,lIcc.non or u.ivn •• i, not 1U.~ to \fiden WI. IU"" .dj~ctnt to t.IM Propert)' vitJIin 101 y.",a afUr thl diU. at thh Stltutary "urlnty Dnd or the con.!{tion. ltated in pu.,nph ;! .b<lv. on n;)t eOllpu..d with or UI Ot..l1:- vhe not. hlly .. thUed w (uUilled. thin Doc1n, ,~11 heva the right. to " .... nter t.he ',,",Pll'ty .. 1\4 urdut. Iny .,w::., "19ht, titl. or-intlr •• 1; ot Rentol', itt 'lIeu,.on or tluioni. in .. Ad to tM Propt.n.y, withOut .ny CGat or flZl'th&l' Uablht)' on tto. pUt at Benton. u.wUd by itl pro,.t MUI),f\tO 'lUnd ttll. 5"-1.11: or WASIU:~ ) ) II. CJUlfTV Dr K,....", J On thU J~ dl,. ot ~f:tfl-. Uli. Mfor. De, the IIftdlnillniiJ";"""i"WIl' hblTli .'ot the aUtA! of " ... b-in'n,' % .-t .. , .... ~' .. :~-:.::E~JwJ."r .?WlIiiIi5iI~ ..... "' ............ , , .... 'QUl9 'n.~t. ud IckAowhdg..s u.. Mid ~t to bI eM fr .. Ind val,",~ lOt NI4 ~d of .. 14 COrpo:E'IUoa. fol' tM "' •• ,nd P'U"PO." tMl".'" -.ntlon_ •• n4 00 oetb·at.aUd tlMt ha "' .. • l1tMl"I.1Id to t:UCUU tM .dd 1nn~t PIt tNit thII .U.l dti.ud h th. l;:orpQC'4h .Ql of Mid l;:":PO:ltJ.a;n. . WJ.tn ... -r Mnd and oruota! 'nl ,.. ... co afti.l;c:4·ttwl .say and YO'''''' lint above Vl'itten. . ' I • • , • • • \ T'bI eMt 11 , .... 17lD9 IiNtb.d, or tM WRar'l, pndICt.loQ of tbe 1IlN'ttIN'1y C"t,.~ ..... , U_ gf I. hb RnR. !!!! eM .. n U , .... lfi,Ag DDnbNl, of tbII WfteI'ly pradugUoa or tIoo -r ri4IIIt""'-11M of •• ItII _ ., till ioU •• "," "-'zUled aia ~I _ ...... , ...... '''9 At tile ~ of tM IID:I'tb U. of tbI. 1/_ 01 tM &II V. Of s.cuc. If ftIp. 11 I. I 1Dq. S 1" ••••• vi'tb till • ~ of tbI • 1" of paft I. ... , u IbIMI 11\ IiIDtaI ....... lat. eoa to 9ol. 1001 '1IU. ,eo_ 91. 1a. kw til .019 ....... ~ ..... ,._?lS,t •• ,tM. 1100 of .. _ ... ~Jlplt __ ru It. _ .. llA ... tt. • " s e •• of·tbI c.W Un 01 hUr ft. f tar • Ill' .. pI'Od _ lIM. to tM • u.. of .... laO to of .. _Y. tb • 019 III • 11M to tbo o1r .... of ..... , air ...... ,_. tJa ur &19 .s elf ... co AI • U. 01 .. MildlY. til • al, .. • 1 .... to ~ pDlot 01 ~f II'cludlftg' all u.t: JD".ion of Rntt. 1'19h'-of"7 "Gated. IiIr 0ft1MDCe .... 10,. 1",," o1t1W1 tho __ ~ II01A ... _. U:JUDIT It p&ge 1 of 4 \ 4it',,-'(tc t , I · • I .' / --'----_.--- - • • • ,... AYI.1It't IQtnI aJQIT..gr __ t 1CQD1S1T1QM -CQRIIf '- U) t.Mt POIt.1CX1 of ftlCt -.-wtt.bU ., 1/4 Section 8. TWp. 2l Honh • .lWnq& S r..ut, v .•. "'i119 NH&I'1, of u. eutel'l, n_tooof~ UM of IGIr ~ Il~. faUG ~ .. ' ........... am IUD IeCIOnIkr'r nate Bwy. Mo, '-&I ... _1, .... _1, 01 .... _1, n"' ..... I· .., ........ 01 ......... 1 I_, __ ... "'_ &'11", <1"' ..... '-1 .... _I, II1II _I, 01 .... "'UMav _iIIod It..., ""1.IaD.1oIJ n _ JDU~ em the ~ lLDe of u.. _ 1/4 01 lecUaa 8, .aid potat. ~tDv u r.-. eut of t.be lAtuwc:'\J.an of the -..ca'l, dvbt~f .., liDt of z..a ~ Ilwd. With NJ.4 eouc 1&. 01 t.t. .., 1/4 of 5ect.iaa ., ~ aDI"tMI'lJ a1aDv • Uat _,ch 11 pan.1l.1 wiCh ud 25 t..-t • ..tNl, of, .. ......s n Iitbt..,la to ad4 ...... 1' 1'i.Pt~f1lty Mr1Ln of &.ate .... , uta 1l9d •• ' ~ of 170 ,.-, 1'beACe lII~ced, 1A • 'Ua!9ht llDl CO • poj,Dt 10 teet: eptefl, of I AI ......,-.d at rivDt aqla CO tltIt ...cor1, ,,'_-ot __ r Mf91,n at Ntd road ... id pD.olIt bIiAv .,0 ,., aaI"Q of W ~Ua l.i.De 0' U. IN 1/4 of Sect.1on B, Tt.tI'=W mDUtIaJ.DIJ •• 't-blll, al..aaI • u .. Wl1cb ... ~ with ADS 10 1M' Mlt.Wlf of M14 eutarl, 1'1Qtrt-o'"" ..a:'91A to • fIO&.At opp:JI.t.u "~ DlUtMc'. ft&t.taD Ot-OO ..rk.1DIJ tbt PC' of • c:uw ca tbI cater liM !A'Iioo' _ of ......... I 1_'. 1114 _ .. "" 40 'oot "~1, t.buwfraIi, • .......... Wiell .u .... pIIt1ao of ,.... .,~ 1"'" vltbla • _1p of land , f ... ride IJiDI 011 __ to .... .,...uti wit!> .... _I, .1v1R-oI ... ., -.v'" 01 ......... I I_I _ ... ~ ~ .. .u..-"'_'. &~Loa 0.00 ~ • ,;vw to t.M rf4bt to • ~tat CIIIIIODtt IUtioII S+5S __ ~ "-'. Tract "1- TtI.It. s-Uaa of ~t...,.rur _11.) of -.euca 8, ~ n Monh. IWiAqIt 5 r:a.t., ••• ., ,,-"u.4 .. rolJ,ow, ~ n tIM ...... ~ of tM tGU'b UAI of Ntd ~ quart.r U .. 1/4' Wi ....... _I, ...-po Of __ • o1oa _ .. .........,. 'ute II1vz-t' •• a, ~ IDVth .... "". Met. aJ.aarg Mid IOQtb U,.. 111.21 r~ ...... .m O"I1'U· .... ass." 'lilt. to tbl'pot.R or CW'ftture or • curw ~ QI left. or n4a-150 'eR' t;pIIIOt AOftbtI'J., alorllil .. w. C"III'W nt ,12 '. tD t.bI poIat at ~, tbt:noI IIOIt.h 11'5")1)" .... to ID taunect10a Wltaa Cbe ~1, r19ht-ol ... , Er.Hl81T "A" paqe ~ of t " " tr I · • c ------------_._--- • • • \ aerqi.o c, ', •• 1 ••• 1 hi& 4OS) I u.a -=:. loRU1J IQo. ... r.."ly 6;NI: .. i.cI W, rltbt-~f"" .,.,w til _ ~ wiU. die Mlterly u~h~· of-..,. ...,iD of ..,. ..... I., 1'hItACe _taU'J.7 ..,..... "-~:'i' :~-:!~ -.: .~" n,; _.n. ."fIIa\W N. to ." 1aUi rt too 'At:.b U. MUtb U-of tbe • 1/4 of SKUaa I &110 tbe POUlt. of~. • ElftIBlf -A'" pa9. 1 of f + 0; , I I I I I \ i ", 1 S P I I· I · • , ,I, i" • • • , U1 tAat poruca. of ftKt -.-lrU9 _cl v1, of tbI ~l, '1 ...... ,_ UIIo of 0,1.' .... 1 \8 4051 ____ A- u.. .. "*""'-. _ -...1, '" till _ ntIIt""'-UM 01 ...... ... t1t utw at .... I. PUt ...... 1 as ...... , ... MJIIt' , tell, of U. "'UaorIa, _ u.. ~ ... pIIIt -'to ~ -"-'. ltatWo _.011 ... _ cat_ U .. ~Uae) .....,. of •••••• 'ID. 1 .CD 405" .u ~ tJtJ..Di SO f~ IIDI" 1, ~. __ , ... ,._ '" I I_to .t>OiaO-'''"-''' .. aa.» _ 15 __ 1 "'1, __ . ..u __ .. aa.lI o1oD bW:II till •• , .• , • ~·CD tbiI latta ........ 2 L :b tlGIIf • ~ w tile J,dt a.n.. • AIlu of 617 •• , .. to • pDIat -'too a...., ....... ___ • ool4 ftOt:IAIot __ ..... c. 01 Mid ........ IS _ ~, --"......, _til • .np af 10lIO IS ''"' _ lrl-l 011_ to ... ,..a1la1 wiG eM .... " rI J t DI ....... OIl s..--.' UtIUA 81",. \hft .... I.' -"" _ ~ ___ ._ • ..... f IIOGt:Iwrl, to tM math U. of ., " "* S, .... ~ '0 7!~ .,. AlI ___ oI III _1,3'" "'_I, "". DI •• "". 5 ....... IfUf r, ., of ........... CD. alit, _, of a.u_I' .... _ .•.•. , _____ ... , __ In, .......... " 01 ........ 1, ~ ...... r 2 ....... UtI, s.,' ..... tMt ~ of ~. at J= 11. ....... ..,.,..., at. au. UHID!,. 'A' PI,-• 0' .. #Mtflttt,; " it 1 I I • I I · • zd'!rii' ..... . . I . . . . I G • • • )// . COM '" II: ~ oJ It :r • t-Q. C l , :"'~~~ ~P05ED 5TREE.T VACATlON AND .>-RIC»IT-OF -\VAY ACQU\~TICtJ . eoEIN<J c.o -CJTY OF RENlON ·t as I · • I . , I ,nsO • • • ----.------ \ ................... """"I."''''' ...... " '!'nat portion ot I.Dg'&n Avenue Narth, North of 6th Stree loeated in Section 7, Township 23 North, RAnge 5 East, '''.li. State of WashirJgton described as follows: 8egiAnlA~ 'At the HortbWest cocner of the intersection of Logan Avenue No.rth ar.J 6th street, thence H. O· -26'-18-E; a distance of 1298.87', ·theAc:e S. 89· -JJ'-U-E. a distance of S.DOI," thence H. 0-.-26 1-18" E. a cU..tancc of 864.73', thence N. 41--22'-31" 'f. -. II 41st4llce of 2S.l1', t.beaco if .. 43--.7'-01" E. a . aist&DCO of 50.1&', thence S. 41--22'-31" E. A dls- taAco Qt 43.92', thence S. O· -26 1-18" W. A distance of 883.831 , =hence S. 89",-33'-42· E. a dis tan CO of 25.46', thence s. O~ -26'-18" ". a distance of 1298.81' ~ence H. 89· -l4'-11",W. a distanQe of ,80.00' to tb~ paiat of be91nning •. An UCUl of 3.43 acral or . ,', 1~9.J60.5Q s.f. . . ... .. -- \ • l I \ I • • j 3X,,--: \ i ------------------- • • • "'I\..ot. puruc;"I 0: 1,.1:,': ':.:.~,~:; ',::" 1Ot...,:t ... ""n:. ,.l.h j.,11", .. n .. ; :;..,c.:C'H''':'';:y :;L.:tJ I:, r .... r il .... 'I" .. "J 1' •• ,1: \ ',lItln",c ~I'I h~:I:'o.', 1:~:'~,H\itO, .:: .. ~i.tu",tt',J .in t!.r I; .. rth~ ... ,.;t (I..:.:r:.o:-0: :'Io'C:I ... ' t, ' J",'.r,ij' Jll'''rt~. II .. ,,,.,.: !o t: .. ",. ::,!',. J:,;,:o.r; Co.::o~: ... :.'.l:",~.;:,:;,~. I.""r:,· I'~:':~~",ll .. r!r ~.1.::':'J~ ~Io :~:~~.~: C'OlUc':-.:::lr,; ... t ~il.r i.":t~rt.:lC:i.tI'\ o! tht1 :'.,.,,::\ ! .ia..: ... : "' ... ~ :'.:::I:':.~:''''''':. Co~l/of·.~~ ' .. l.1.:, Lh, l:'.LI.'d~' ''''fC::~1\ oi ~ .. iol L~c \;.n .. i.n9t.or. D~II,;""fd. :,...hl y:t~,,:. Co" .i.M~a'::' ... Cti.O:l AltO ~",;,r,:;: lnt SO"'ttr ..... t COf:l;;t of til:: toG.·.".: eO,,?,.:lY'c tt.l:t !o;ro:,;:\ 'I"; ,·,;!teL'! IV; t:UH,::C ,,"':1:':1',: •• ~' .. '-,,~~ !:.:,,: o:!t.:";i In.) t:.I:t",rli' fUrr:>" et : .. ~I.! :.':":, \'':''hl~~to" no",av.cc! 1.213.") feu t.3" point lO,IIO ft'u fiIJh: 01 line! MUl.I.!'ed "t ri.ql t :In''~U to t!'te \i ... ,tl"ngto:'l ~tAte Iliqnw.y a.~tu-.nt Itotth twnco:l Intcrcll:!n'Jo! C.:nt.clJ,i.t'I. ':'OI:~tll'\ ~ ... ~, 'h·eD, ~il.! StOl:.io:l j."'~i"I,= the ro~~:. ... ! t'\u""'''~",n of .. C\l:"o'. U tn. ¥i9ht of c.:ntc:-l irl i~:Ji\.\1 $1:I.91i f .. ~, u.enCo) ~Unui.nli lIo:-th O· -57'-oU-t:01$t :a\OftCJ ~tle &.aaurl.y ,".u9Ln ot ni.cS ~o W .. ,nLn'lton • 1O~.v"ccS Z'$.OI teet to thO point ot ;n~~r;cctLon w1th A cur"'e of x-Adi.u. 611." hott 1\.1'I1nCJ 01 tACliOil tlollt1nq 50u~ GO' -JO'-SV-t:a~t' thence cont'nui"o North g • ... 57'-41 Ene. Alan9 tt~cS CAsI:C:hy 1IIo1l"Vin 1:1I'J feret; thAc:e unVOnt.· to Lhe prccediftlJ COUI'GC f'OrJ"c .. ltOtly AJ.OQ'II Q CUC'W to the 1' . .i.9ht hAt;'in'll 01. r')4i,,= of J117.C'; fc:et .:InC •. central .. nlJlo ot no -21·-~1· .11\ ;ICC cI.i.lot:lnce of 11)1.'0 letlt Lo tho truer pnlnt CIt h.l,ji:\n1.nf;j1 tnc:lCC I;'Q:'Itin"j,n'il Wort.h.a.t"t!'1 "~OIlfJ t.li..! "'Ullf\: 0:." urc Uiritolncc (,If .'J.ll [Cat. to Oi ""la, ,,~ rC'vcr.~c c~r"'oltw:o ot: "C",h'u to tho It:!t. ot 'C:'~.\lt 1,112.37 tca~; tnonco ~ortr#~'t\:rl1 ~long ~:ai~ c~:,,~ t~ tho left an olrc length 01 14)."J 'c.~ to v r~ir.t ~I in~ct~octlon ,,'it~ t.'le Southwo"tcrly Qol:I)~n 0' ""Ie: ,,"c;th Jl.l'nton :ntcrc:~~ irga whcr.e~ t~c center or ~_,~ C~=t;'~ be~r~ tlartn U· -40'-)S-IleSC: thC'll~ "Orth 4'· -11'-1,- ,lieU, .10R9 thll Sout.'N'.1It(U'ly ~"<;ij,n of :.~i'; Ln"rct\.)n9. 60.0r. feel:. to il po1nt on ttle Worth,,, •• t.clJ..y NeoL .. of s.~id l.Akc 1f"1iN.. .. 'ton 1I0'-11tl.,~nt .:and thu ~o .. th • .u.tlo.l'l)'" ~rqir, o! the IIoa'Hn'i:.:.o, ;; ... nhcrn P..JU'.l.lr l:i,h.t.-(U-lIoJjI'. t;wi.d po.l.At bei.n5 OIl il cvn. ol ro:l!l'" l~OS:t.)7 fc.t trOll' wt'."ch the ecnue be • .,.:: MoC't.h' (:I-_lIi1_11" W~_tl thenclI SCNt.!'IwU '. 'ly alcAg co1.W CW.CVf' oil'! .. ee length at 11l.C8 (o.t to ~ .~int of polftt at I..atuJ.tley: t.henc,) South SO· -.0'-31-I~~:. ~1~9 ttu.· 5oWt~turly !i,U'lln of naid Dlldi.nQttlr. tlotttwrft RolHvOl" k'CJnt~t-lf~t 4l.n fcwt; tNlnca ~th l,--1I:i '-.:11-Cjl&t. ~.'4 SOflC. to ~' point of IIlt.erHCtJOIl wit" tbc WnurI1 &:I"rlJln of ul4 L<a)',(t tluhin..-t.on Boulevard, ColLa paint. bcill'1 On 01 C\lrv~ of r.:nlius l47.6t fcet frDIII wh'ch tM ~ntcr hn.:&rc. ~t.h ~~. -_C'-ll~ ~tl t.~ l~l~ GAid Ud¥tarly I'\ilr.in or W4W ""hLflllJtDn uc.101..::v.ud aloru" I.llCl oC'~hl t.o Lbo cueVII, h.lwJ.I~ • ra::.iu," Qf l47.'" '0$11: nml " c"nt:,~l ilnl'Jlc or ". -ll'-H-, :;ollth 4OJ--.o'-~a" 1,;,11.l itO.(,IO teet. 1.0 t:lll' tr\ll j<9Lnt. ot ~i.l\nlAtJ. Ct~'~,H:I.i.l'\'; H,"',' ,;.: .. rc tv.-to or 0.274 olCC'<I'Ii. AQro ,,~ !,,,a. ., .. j j ~ • f '.1 i , . .1 I'.' j I i r '.' ., '. I • • ) t , ., , .. _d~, N N .,. PI ;,] PI ' ) ~ • • • , 7';\1:;' portion Q: ~o'ln '.Vlln~ I:Orth, 'lorUl CIt (;ttl !:tr~.'t lOCAted In Scotton 7. TOW"~p~! Q~tb. ~n~o S E~st. 1:.1«. SUto ot tf.:od.nvto,,\ ~lue('.iL .. 01; 'allow:.; BS91.MU9 et u.e IkJrtbw •• t cornal" 01 the .i.nt.cr •• Ctio~ at Logu. Aven., Worth And 6th :Otnct, UMmcc t!. o. -16'-1'· C •• diG~ gt U'I.I7'. '''.M:Ie S. 1,_ -J)'-U· C ... cU.at.aDce of ~.OO·. thc.CCt fl. C'.-lI'-ll. t.: •• diat.Gnca 01 " •• 7l', thence III. U' -2Z'-3!-~I. " .. dht.4nc:c of 25.U', tbcDco ... 41' -U'-Ol" c ••. .u.taDce at $O.U'. tbence s. 41' -ll'-U-E. & dil-. taAgo ot 4l,'2', theDco S, O' -11'-1,"' M •• dl.t&nce of IU.U·, ~·I. H' -ll'-U-t. a dhtllnca 01 '5.U', thcnQr B. 'O~ _U'_lIe 11. II cUcUncc at 1208.1:7'; tbeRQ8 H. I"~ -l4'-11-.h. A di~taftCC 0:.10.00' to the poInt. of bo91MJ.nV' An Aroa CIt 1. C3 4Ctlt5 C?r:" 141,"0.58 I.I. : -. . , : alllIlT t .... J of 2 -----_. -------------- :f .', ,,';, .; . .. •. . '. . -. ",:, • . -. ~~: ...•. . . t-., \ • , '--- 1 I I , I • • --.---- 'S .... 1 1\ , I I , ' , -"'-;:;i' • .. • , 9lillueeS55 , , L! ----... -' __ :'--'_'_1" ,---'-' -=-._. -' . '. ---.. :!......:... tt __ ._ . --.-.. -11 __ \. • • , Return Address Office of the City Clerk Renton Clly Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Document Title(s) (or transactions contamed therem) I Development Agreement Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: (on page _ of documents(s)) Graofor(s) (Last name /irst, then /irst name and Initials) I The Boemg Company Grantee(s) (Last name tirst, then tirst name and InitialS) I City of Renton Legal description (abbrevl8tcd I e lot, block, plat or section, township, range) Portions of Renton Farm Plat, Renton Fann Plat No 2, Plat of SartonSVllle, Renton BOIler Works Short Plat, Renton Farm Acreage Plat, Cny of Renton Shan Plat, C H Adstt's Lake Washington Plat, and Government Lots I, 2, and 3 -STR 082305 TAXLOT 55 PCL I BOEING, STR08230S TAXLOT liS peL 2 BOEING, 8TR 082305 T AXLOT 880 peL 3 BOBING, 8TR 082305 T AXLOT 19 peL 4 BOEING, STR 082305 T AXLOT 9 PCL 5 BOEING, STR 082305 T AXLOT 37 PCL 6 BOEING, STR 082305 TAXLOT 105 peL 7 BOEING, STR08230S TAXLOT 152 peL 8 BOEING, 5TR072305 TAXLOT I peL 9 BOElING, STR07230STAXLOT 46 peL 10 BOEING, STR082305 TAXLOT 11 PCL 11 BOEING, 8TR 082305 TAXLOT 187 PCL 12 BOEING, 5TR 082305 TAXLOT 79 PCL 13 BOEING, STR07230S TAXLOT 100 PCL 14 BOElINO, STR08230STAXLOT 204 PCL IS BOEING 129 Full legalis on pages 8 through 17 of document Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number Portions of the followmg #756460-0055.04, #722300-011S·OS, #722400-OS80.oo, #08230S·9019·00, NOS230S.9209-00, #08230S·9037-OS, #722300-0105-00, #082305·9152·07, #072305·9001-01, #072305· 9046-0S, #OS2305·901I:.oS, #OS2305·9IS7-06, #OS2305·9079-07, #072305.9100-01, #OS230S·9204-05 (OJOOJ.o IOll8D020080 0" J 6flOlO2 • C"'f. ."", .c:> ...... DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOEING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF RENTON FOR THE BOEING RENTON AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING FACILITY I. PREAMBLE TJus DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") between THE BOEING CaMP ANY ("Boeing"), a Delaware corporation, and the CITY OF RENTON ("City"), a muniCipal corporation of the State ofWasJungton, IS entered mto pursuant to the authonty ofRCW 36 70B 170 through 210, under which a local govenunent may enter mto a development agreement with an entity haVing ownersJup or control of real property within Its JurisdictIOn II. RECITALS A Boemg IS the owner of certam real property, known as the Boemg Renton Alfcraft Manufacturmg Faclhty ("Renton Plant" or "Plant"), located m the City of Renton, Kmg County, WasJungton, as more particularly descnbed m AttacJunent I, wJuch IS attached hereto and by tJus reference mcorporated herem B The Renton Plant consists of approXImately 279 acres located at the south end of Lake WasJungton m the City of Renton. The majonty of the Plant site IS located withm the Industrlal.Heavy ("IH") zonmg district and IS deSignated Employment Area-Industrial by.the City'S Comprehensive Plan. An approXImately 21-acre portion along the site's eastern boundary is zoned IH and is deSignated by the Comprehensive Plan as Employment Area-Transition (Intenm) C. The Renton Plant was onginally developed for construction ofnuhtary aircraft durmg World War II, With the first Plant buildings completed in 1942 Major buddmg construction occurred m the decades of the 19505 and 19609 By 1989, the Renton Plant contamed 69 major butldmgs With a total enclosed floor area of approXImately 6 9 nulhon square feet D In the late 1980s, Boemg planned an expansion of the Plant to accommodate projected production needs for the J990s and beyond. For that proposal. the City of Renton Issued an enVifonmentai impact statement ("EIS") pursuant to the State EnVifonmental Policy Act ("SEPA") that disclosed and analyzed the enVlronmentallmpacts of the additIon to the Plant of new buHdmgs and mcreased employees DEVELOPMI!NT AOREEMRNT (0300J.Q101iSB01OO80 Oll) PAGE I 6120102 E The BIS describes,. among other alternatIves, a "Proposed Action" to add four structures (the 4·80 bwldmg, expansion of the 4·82 budding, a 16,000 square foot addttlon to the eXIsting 4·86 bwldmg, and construction of a slx·level parkmg garage) and 1,500 employees to support a forecasted production mcrease Based on unpacts of the Proposed Action, a "MItIgation Docwnent," dated February 20, 1990 and reVised March 7, 1990, was Issued by the City's Envuomnental Review Committee ("ERC") F The EIS estabhshes that, Without the expansIOn described by the Proposed Action, the Renton Plant generated 28, 140 average dallY vehicle tnps and 4,060 p m. peak bour vehicle trips The EIS estimates that unplementatJon of the Proposed Acnon Will result 10 the addttlon of as many as 3,015 vehicle triPS per day and 435 p.m peak hour vehicle tnps per day. G Boeing and the City agree that addttlonal development of the Renton Plant should be regulated and mitigated 10 order to prOVide certainty and effiCiency With respect to the City's apphcable reView and approval processes Accordmgly, Boeing and the City Wish to enter mto a Development Agreement addressmg certam aspects of Phase I and Phase IT (as defmed below) development and therefore agree as follows m. AGREEMENT 1. DefmitlOns For purposes ofthts Agreement, "Phase I", descnbed by the EIS as the "No ActIon Alternative," shall include Renton Plant development existIng as of the date that the Mitlgatlon Document was Issued "Phase II" shall consist of the Proposed Action as analyzed and mitigated by the EIS and the MItIgation Docwnent, respectively, andlor such other plans for development or redevelopment of the Renton Plant site that may from time to time be approved by the City 2. Vesting and Teno of Agreement The City'S land use regulations 10 effect and applicable to project applications as of the record1Og date ofthts Agreement shall govern (a) the continued use and operation of Phase I for atrplane manufacturmg purposes and any other Boemg operatlon (b) Phase II developmentapphcatlons submitted to the City withm 45 years from the recordmg date of this Agreement, so long as such applications are for airplane manufacturmg uses Notwithstandmg the foregomg, the City reserves the authonty under RCW 36 70B 170(4) to impose new or different regulatlons to the extent reqwred by a senous threat to pubhc health and safety, as determmed by the Renton City Counct! after notIce and an opporturuty to be heard has been provided to Boeing DEVELOPMENT AOREEMENT [03003'()IOlf8B020080 011) PAOE2 6120102 ----------.. --------- 3 Land Use Regulations For purposes of tlus Agreement, "land use- regulations" means Comprehensive Plan pohcies and zoning standards In effect as of the date of thiS Agreement, provided, however, that Boemg may elect ,at Its discretion that Comprehensive Plan poltcles and wrung standards adopted after the recordmg date oftlus Agreement shall apply to all or part of Phase II development For purposes of this Agreement, the_ current Comprehensive Plan deSignation of the Renton Plant site is Employment Area -Industrial and the zoning deSignation appltcable to the Renton Plant site is IH pursuant to the March IS. 2002 Zomng Map as adopted by the City Counctl 4 Baselme Vehicle Tnps 4 1 Calculation of Future Traffic Impacts and MittgatlOn EXlstlng vehicle tripS associated With Phase I, described by the EIS as the "No Action Alternative," (i.e, 28,140 average daily trips and 4,060 p m peak hour trips) shall be considered to be vested and to fonn the "basebne trips" for purposes of the analysis of transportation impacts associated With Phase II development or redevelopment of all or a component of the Renton Plant site For example, and without lirotting the foregomg, If Boemg elects to dispose of or redevelop all or a component of the Renton Plant Site, all or a portion of the baselme tripS may be aSSigned to that component of the site when calculattng and detennmmg the appropnate mittgatton of futJtre transportation tmpacts appbcable to that component's redevelopment. Therefore, only those traffic tmpacts that exceed the Impacts associated With the "basehne tnps" shall be subject to transportatton rruttgatton 4.2 Traffic Modelmg "Basel me trips" as descnbed in Paragraph 4 1 above (i e , 28,140 average dally trips and 4,060 p.m peak hour trips) shall be Included In the City'S traffic model for purposes of estimating futJtre transportatton tmpacts 5. OtherMltigation Fees With respect to impacts to public seMces other than transportation, futJtre buddmg demolittons at the Renton Plant site shall be eligible for "redevelopment credits," which shall offset any apphcable rruttgatlon or tmpact fees (includmg, but not Imuted to, nutigation fees for ftre and water seTV1ces) that would otherwise be assessed by the City on the baSIS of square footage of new floor area for each square foot of floor area demohshed. 6 Mltigatlon Document To the extent that tlus Agreement conthcts With the Mltigatton Document, this Agreement controls. DEVELOPMENT AGREHMENT (03003'()IOS/SBOl0080 OSI) PAGE 3 6120/01 -----------'---------------_._--- 7 Recordmg. TIns Agreement, upon executIOn by the parties and approval of the Agreement by resolution of the City Councd, shall be recorded WIth the Real Property Records DivISIon of the KIng County Records and Elecoons Department 8 Successors and ASSIgns Tlus Agreement shall bmd and mure to the benefit of Boeing and the CIty of Renton and their successors m mterest, and may be aSSIgned to successors m mterest to all or a portion of the Renton Plant property Upon assigrunent and assumption by the assJgnee(s) of all obhgatlons under thIS Agreement, Boeing shall be released from all obhgaoons under thiS Agreement. 9 Counterparts This Agreement may be executed m counterparts, each of wluch shall be deemed an ongmal 10. Exprratlon. ThiS Agreement, unless rescmded by Boemg or Its successors m mterest, shall become null and VOId 45 (45) years from the date of recording of this Agreement -II' AGREED this K day of __ ....;~'7'fI..j"'MZU/""V=------->, 2002 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (03003'() 10)195020080 051 J PAGE 4 6120102 --------------. '----=" .~ ......... ~=~~~ ........... ""'"""''''''''''''''~. £:> -<0 By _~!1!lL!.l!!l!W-._ Its _--l~~ __ -" STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) ATTEST: By: Bonnie I. Walton Its --'C~J~t""~ "'C'-)"""er'-k-""''''-''''Oll.---- ~ed as to fonn' o<-~WU~ City Attorney On tlus __ day of June ,2002, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public m and for the State ofWashmgton, duly commissIOned and sworn, personally appeared J esse Tanner , to me known to be the person who sIgned as Mayor of the CITY OF RENTON, the corporatIon that executed the W1tlun and foregomg mstrument, and acknowledged saId mstrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporatIOn for the uses and purposes therem mentIOned, and on oath stated that h.. was duly elected, qualified and actIng as saId officer of the corporatIon, that he was authorized to execute saId instruntent and that the seal affixed, If any, IS the corporate seal of saId corporatIon IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and offiCial seal the day and year first above wntten DEVELOPMENT AORERMENT (OJOOJ.QIOSIBB020080 OSII (Prmt or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC m and for the State ofWaslungton, reSiding at S"e.,+b: My appomtment exptres' _--"l9f..F2P~~.u...r:~- PAOE S 6120102 co co = =-------------------------------------------- THE BOEING COMPANY DEVF.LOPMBNT AGREEMBNT [IS8020080051 DOC] By Philip W Cyburt Its Vice President PAGB6 6n102 <0 OCt = CALIFORNIA ALL·PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of 1..0:> At-lGE.I.E5 On JUNE' 01, lenJ.-before me, DAW~ b !'>I-lA\l15R, NoTp./LJI PU8UV DO. personally appeared Pl111..1P W C Y &U~T Name 100 TIIID 01 OII~r te II, Jane 000, Notary PubNl) NJmt{1' 01 59111(1) lit pel1lonally known to me o proved to me on the baSIS of sstisfactOlY eVidence to be the person{&) whose name(&} ISIsto subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he~ executed the same In hlsiReflthlm authorized capaclty!HIS), and that by h,s/barJI/laIr slgnature(~ on the Instrument the pel1lon(ej, or , the entity upon behalf of which the persoRts! acted, executed the Instrument ~NESS:y hand and ofllclal seal ~ t ?shov-v. -------------------opnONAL-------------------- ThoUQh the mlonnatJon below IS not '~lftJd by taw, " may prove Va/U4bie to persons f81y1ll(} on the ctocument lJnd could provon, lrouduhtnl removal and roott4cflmenl of thIs form to another documDnt Descrlplton of Attached Document TIlle or Type 01 Document ______________________ _ Document Date _________________ Numbar of Peges ___ _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above __________________ _ Capaclty(les) Claimed by Signer· Signer's Name ____________________ _ o tndlvldual o Corporate OH,cer -TIIle(s) _:-______________ _ o Partner -0 limited 0 General o AttorneY-In-Fact o Trustee o Guardian or Conservator o Other ___________________ _ Signer Is Reprosenllng '-___ --c-------------- II " I , I RIOrdII' CIII Tdi Fr .. 1100 11116821 __________ m.'~"~ ........ __________ .~~_--'_' -- -...... C> CD Ie ATTACHMENT I Legal Description of Boeing Renlon Planl Properly PARCEL I LOTS 1 THROUGH lJ IN BLOCK 11 OF IIEHTON FARM PLAT, A5 PER PLAT RetORDED IN VOlUME 10 Of PLATS, PAGE 97, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, EXCEPT THAT·PORTION THEREOf CONveYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEEDS RECORDeo UNDER RECORDING NOS 720J 14OJ38 AND 94011070578, TOGETHER WITH LOTS I THROUGH 8 IN BLOCK I OF SARTORISVILLE, AS PER PlAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 8 Of PLATS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, EXcePT THAT PORTION Of SAID LOT 1 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 7203140J38, DESCRIBED AS fOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER Of SAID LOT, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 13 50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AlONG THE ARC Of A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, RADIUS 13 50 fEeT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90·, AN ARC LENGTH Of 2120 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY UNf OF 511.10 LOT, 13 50 FEET SOUTHERLY Of THE NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOf, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY UNE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF lJ 50 fEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 ANO THE POINT Of BEGINNING, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER Of SAID LOT, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 13 50 FEET, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, RADIUS 13 50 FEeT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90·, AN ARC LENGTH OF 21 20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE Of SAID LOT, lJ 50 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 13 50 fEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAIO LOT 1 ANO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND TOGETHER WITH THE WEST 83 5 FEET OF LOTS 11 AND 12 IN BLOCK 1 Of SAID PLAT OF SARTORISVILLE, EXCEPT THE NORTH 20 FEET OF SAID LOTS 11 AND 12, AND TOGETHER WITH LOTS 1 'AND 2 OF RENTON BOILER WORKS SHORT PLAT NO 2B2-79, ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PlAT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO 7907109002, SITUATED IN THe CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON, PAQE8 --------------------------------------~ , PARCEL 2 LOTS J, 4 ANO 5 IN tlLOCK 4 OF RENTON fARM ACREAGE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME U, PAGE 37, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY 01' KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 3 THE WEST 11 5 FEET OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOT 10, THE WEST 11 5 FEET OF LOTS II, 12, AND 13, ALL OF LOTS 14, 15, ANO 16, AND THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOT 17, ALL IN BLOCK 10 OF RENTON FARM PlAT, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN 1001' PLATS, PAGE 97, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORT/ON OF THE VACATED ALLEY ADJOINING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY Of RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 7307090<150, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY Of KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 4 THAT PORTION Of THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 Of SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M , DESCRI8ED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT A POINT 60 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER Of LOT 13 IN BLOCK 10 OF RENTON FARM PLAT, AS PER PLAT RECORDEO IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 97, RECOROS Of KING COUNTY, THENCE NORTH, AlONG THE WEST LINE Of PARK AVENUE PRODUCED, 185 fEET, THENce WEST 107 5 FEer, THENCE SOUTH 185 FEET, THENCE EAST 107 5 fEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT pORTION THEREOF' CONVEYED TO THE CITY Of RENTON fOR THE WIDENING OF 6'" AVENUE NORTH BY oeED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 7206090448; AND ExcePT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY Of RENTON FOR RIGHT-Of-WAY BY OEEO RECOROEO UNOER RECORDING NO, 9406010S74, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 5 PARCEL B OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PlAT NO 093·89, ACCOROING TO THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO 8911149006, SITUATED IN THE CITY Of RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATl; OF WASHINGTON PAGES ___________________________ ~'_=_.4 W _, ___ "'t"''' __ ' __ '' _ -...,,,.._.-........ -.-.,_ .. ' PARCEL 6 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 660 FEeT OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 8. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. W M • WHICH LIES NORTH OF THE NORTH UNE OF NORTH 6'" STREeT AND BeTWEEN THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINES OF PELLY AVENUE NORTH AND MAIN STREeT. NOW WELLS STREeT NORTH. EXCEPT llIAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE cm OF RENTON BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS 7108190352 AND 8509130916. SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON. COUNTY OF KING. STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 7 PARCEL A OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO 093-89. ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNOER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO 8911149006. TOGETHER WITH LOTS 1 THROUGH S IN BLOCK 3 AND LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 4 OF RENTON FARM ACREAGE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 37, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; AND TOGETHER WIlli THAT PORTION OF VACATED STREeT AND ALLEY ADJOINING. AS VACATED UNDER cm Of RENTON ORDINANCE NOS 3319, 3327 AND 4048 WHICH, UPON VACATION, ATTACHES TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND TOGeTHER WIlli THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF SECTION 8, "TOWNSHIP 23 NOR"TH. RANGE S EAS"T. W M • WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE WEST liNE OF SMD VACATEO ALLEY ON THE EAST AND THE EAST LIEN OF SECONOARY STATE HIGHWAY NO 2-A (PARK AVENUE EXTENSION) ON THE WEST; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE cm OF RENTON BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS 5180889 AND 9406070579; SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON. COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 8 THAT PORTION OF llIE NORllIWEST 1/4 OF llIE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 8. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M , DESCRI8ED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF llIE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION WITH THE NORllIERLY PRODUCTION OF THE WEST UNE OF PARK AVENUE, AS SHOWN IN llIE PLAT OF RENTON FARM PLAT. AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS. PAGE 97. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PRODUCTION. TO A POINT 715 FEeT NORTH OF THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, THENce WEST PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 715 FEeT NORTH FROM SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE NORTHERLY PRODUCTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF PELLY STREET. THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID PRODUCED CENTERLINE. TO THE NORTH OF SOUTH 660 FEeT OF SAID SUBDIVISION, PAGe 10 ________ ".~I .. ___ :rn__'~......., ____ .... ...,....._ ... ,_. ___________ ..... _, •• - ..... ..... """ = = =' ..... THENCE WEST ALONG SAIO NORTH UNE TO THE NORTHERLY PRODUCTION OF THE CENTER UNf OF MAIN STREET, NOW WEllS AIlfNUE NORTH, AS SHOWN IN THE PLAT OF RENTON FARM PLAT NO.2, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME II OF PlATS, PAGE 32. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PRODUCTION TO THE NORTH LINE OF NORTH 6'" STREET, THENCE WESTERLY AlONG SAID NORTH UNE OF NORTH 6"' STREET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE ABANDONED BURUNGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT'OF~WAY, THENCE NORTHERLY AlONG SAID RIGHT·OF-WAY TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAIO SUBDIVISION, THENCE EASTERLY AlONG SIUD NORTH UNE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR THE WIDENING OF NORTH 6TlT STREET BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 7106110508, 7106110510, 7106110511, 8509100968,8509130916 AND 8509130917; SrruATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 9·A THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M , LYING SOUTHERLY OF NORTH 6'H STREET, WESTERLY OF LOGAN STREET NORTH EXTENSION (LOGAN AVENUE NORTH) AS OEEOEO TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY OEEO RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 3261297, EASTERLY OF CEDAR RIVER WATERWAY (COMMERCIAL WATERWAY NO 2), AND NORTHERLY OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT Of LAND CONVEYED TO RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 5701684, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE BOEING COMPANY BY DEED RECORDEO UNDER RECORDING NO 5907048 (ALSO BEING THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 10 FOLLOWING), SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 9·B THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS I ANO 3 IN THE EAST .... OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 2] NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W M , AND OF C H ADSlrS lAKE WASHINGTON PLAT, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 8 OF PLATS, PAGE 79, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, ANO CERTAIN VACATED STREETS, AVENUES AND ALLEYS IN SAID PLAT, AND CERTAIN SHORf LANDS AND VACATED LOGAN STREET NORTH (FORMERlY WIUIAMS STRfET NORTH), IN SAID SHORE LANOS, AU OESCRIBEDAS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NDRTH LINE OF SIXTH AVENUE NORTH AND THE WEST LINE OF LOGAN STREET NORTH. THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SAID LOGAN STREET NORTH TO THE EAST·WEST CENTERUNE IN SAID SECTION 7, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION TO THE WESTERLY LIlliE OF SAID LOGAN STREET NORTH, AS THE SAME IS ,CONI/EYED NORTH OF SAID SECTION LINE, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID LOGAN STREET NORTH TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID WEST lilliE, PAOE 11 -------------------,--.-.~. , co co = IN ,= ,= "" THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY UNE OF SAIO LOGAN STREET NORTH TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30 feET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE GOVERNMENT MEANDER UNE IN SAID GOVERNMENT LOT I, THENCE NORTHeRLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL UNE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED LOGAN STREET NORTH, THENce ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, NORTHWESTERLY TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED STREET TO THE INNER HARBOR UNE OF LAKE WASHINGTON, THI!NCE SOuTHweSTERLY ALONG SAlO INNER HARBOR UNE TO THE EASTERLY UNE OF THE RIGHT- OF-WAY OF COMMERClAL WATERWAY NO Z, THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG THE EASTERLY UNE Of SAID WATERWAY RIGHT-Of-WAY, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH UNE Of SAID SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THe POINT OF BEGINNING, TOGETHER WITH BLOCK C OF THE 3'0 SUPPLEME!'IT OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE Of WASHINGTON PARCEL g·c AN IRREGULAR TRACT OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHWEST II~ Of SECTION 5, THE SOUTHEAST 1/. OF SECTION 6, THE NORTHEAST II~ Of SECTION 7 AND IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 Of 5ECTIO" 8, AU. IN TOWNSHIP Zl NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W M , I!'ICLUDING WITHIN THIS TRACT CERTAIN PORTIONS Of LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS, AS SHOWN ON SHEETS NOS J AND 4 OF MAP PREPARED BY UOO HEsse AND FILED IN CAUSE NO 156371 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT Of KING COUNTY eNTiTLED SEATTLE FACTORY SITES COMPANY, ET AL VS ANNIE) ADAMS, ET Al, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBeD AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER Of GOVERNMENT LOT I, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP Z3 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M., THENCE NORTH 88'51'05-WEST ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID LOT I, AND ALONG SUCH UNE PRODUCED WESTERLY 960 01 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT·Of-WAY Of THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88'51'05" WEST A~ONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID lOT 1 PRODUCED WESTERLY, 161 39 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN EKISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT, SAID MONUMENT BEING AN ANGLE POINT UPON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SHUffLETON STEAM PLANT PROPERTY, THENCE NORTH 43°06'56" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID SHUFFLETOH PROPERTY, 680 06 fEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE INNER HARBOR LI"E OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS LAID OUT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THENCE SOUTH 46'5Z'27" WEST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE 858 51 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT Of 8EGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 46°52'zr WEST A~ONG SAID INNER HARBOR WIE 726 94 fEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THe VACATED COUNTY ROAO NO 376, A!.SO KNOWN AS RAI~ROAD AVENUE, WILLIAMS STREET AND LOGAN STREET IN THE CITY OF RENTON, SAID ROAO BEING MENDED NORTHERLY, PAQE 12 "~-, -------------------------------~ ._---_._-- THENCE SOUTH 14'36'26" EIIST, ALONG THE EASTERLY MAAGIN OF SAID ElCfENOEO COUNTY ROAD 81701 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN TIlE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID ROAD, THENCE SOUTH 41'22'31' EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 514 19 FEET TO A POINT UPON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TIlE BOEING COMPANY PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARCEL V, THENCE SOUTH 66'24'16" EAsr ALONG SAID NORTHERlY BOUNDARY OF PARCEL V 217 51 FEET, MORE OR lESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT-Of-WAY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, SAID INTERSECTION BEING POINT ON A CURVE OF RADIUS 1482 71 FEET FROM WHICH THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE BEARS SOUTH 62"38'53' EAST; THENCE NORTHEAsrERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF-WAY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT AN ARC LENGTH OF 316 79 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHENCE THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE BEARS SOUTH 50'24'23' eAST, THENCE NORTH 14'34'18' weST 1,54644 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SITUATe IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL g-o AN IRREGULAR TRACT OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTIlWEST 1/4 OF SECTION S. THE SOUTHEIIST 114 OF SECTION 6, THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 7 AND IN THE NORTHweST 1/4 OF SECTION 8. ALL IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M_, INCLUDING WITHIN THIS TflACT CERTAIN PORnONS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS, AS SHOWN ON SHEET NOS 3 AND 4 Of HAP PREPARED BY UDO HESSE AND FILED IN CAUSE NO 156371 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY ENTITLED SEATTLE FACTORY SITES COMPANY, ET AL VS ANNIE 1 ADAMS, ET Al AND MORE PARTICULARlY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS' BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT I, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W M , THENCE NORTH 8B'51'Os" weST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, AND ALONG SUCH UNf PRODUCED WESTERLY, 96001 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT-Of-WAY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPA'IY, THENCE CONTINUI'IG NORTH SS"SI'05' WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT I PRODUCED WESTERLY 761_39 fEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT. SAID MONUMENT BEING AN ANGle POINT UPON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SHUfFLETON STEAM PLANT PROPERTY; . THENCE NORTH 43'06'56' weST, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID SHUFFLETON PROPERTY, 680 06 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE INNER HARBOR LINE Of LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS, AS LAID OUT By THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THENCE SOUTH 46'52'27' WEST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE 607 89 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 46'52'27' WEST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE 250 62 FEET. THENCE SOUTH 14')4'18' EAST I,S46 44 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT-Of-WAY Of THE NORTHERN PACifiC RAILWAY COMPANY. SAID INTERSECTION BEING POINT ON A CURVE OF RADIUS 1,482 71 FEET FROM WHICH THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE BEARS SOUTH 50·24'23' EAST, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAlO RIGHT-Of-WAY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT AN ARC LENGTH OF Il2 81 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE OF RADIUS 2.052 27 FEET fROM WHENCE THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLES BEAR SOUTH 45'16'28" EAST. PAGli13 ------------------------------_______ ~ ____________________________ ~_WM· . <:':I co = THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT ·OF·WAY MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT AN ARC LENGTH OF 214 91 FeET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY, THENce NORTH 50°43'32' EAST ALONG SAID RiGhT·OF·WAY MARGIN 15990 FEET, THENCE NORTH 20°38'24' WEST 700 81 FEET, THENCE NORTH 46°53'04' EAST 215,00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 43°06'56' WEST 713 B7 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 10 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M , LYING EASTERLY Of COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTRICT NO, 2 (CEDAR RIVER WATERWAY), AND WESTERLY Of LOGAN STREET NORTH EXTENSION (LOGAN AVENUE NORTH) AS DEEDED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEEO RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO, 3261291, DESCRIBED AS 8EGINNING AT THE SOUTH MARGIN OF 6'" AVENUE NORTH AND THE WEST MARGIN OF LOGAN STREET NORTH, THENCE NORTH 89°34'11' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN, 674 91 FEET, TO THE MOST NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY CORNER OF A TRACT CONVEYED TO THE 80EING COMPANY, BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 5701683, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89°34'11' WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN, 441 54 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT -oF·WAY LINE OF COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTRICT NO 2, AS CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO 211409, THENCE SOUTH 12°47'42' EAST, ALONG SAIO RIGHT·OF·WAY LINE, 328 72 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND no FEET SOUTH OF, AS MEASUREO AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTH MARGIN OF 6'" AVENUE NORTH, THENCE SOUTH 89°34'11' EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 366 34 FEET, THENCE NORTH 00°25'49' EAST 320 00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, srrUATE IN THE cm OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL \I THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION B, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M" DESCRI8ED AS FOLLOWS. 8EGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 WITH THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PARK STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS SecONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO 2A, THENce SOUTH 89°2B'19" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 771 21 FEET, THENce NORTH 00°31'51' EAST 253 23 FEET TO THE TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS BsO FEET, PAael4 ._- co ClCJ c:> THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 274 82 FE1:T TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY, THENCE NORTH 17°59'39' WEST 1484 8 I FE1:T TO A POINT ON A CURVE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT SAID POINT. BEING ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY NI.RGIN Of LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, ' THENce SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAIO CURVE TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT FROM WHENCE THE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 49°18'19' EAST 288 67 FE1:T, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 250 57 FE1:T TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY, SAID POINT OF TANGENCY BEING ON THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAIO PARK STREET, THENCE SOUTH 00°57'41' WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 1581 30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO, I (SR 405) NORTH RENTON INTERCHANGE AS CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAuse NO 656127, AND eXCEPT THAT PORTION(S) THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR PARK AVENUE NORTH 8Y DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 9703181422, BEING A RE-RECOROING OF 9612120855 AND RECORDING NO BB 111 50482, TDG1:THER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, ADJOINING, WHICH, UPON VACATION, ATIACHED TO SAID PROPERTY 8Y OPERATION OF LAW, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING,·STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 12 AN IRREGULAR TRACT OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 2J NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, INCLUDING WITHIN THIS TRACT CERTAIN PORTIONS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS SHOWN ON SHEETS NOS 3 AND 4 OF MAP PREPARED BY UOO HESSE AND FILED IN CAUSE NO 156371 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY ENTITLED SEATILE FACTORY SITES COMPANY, 1:T AL VS ANNIE I ADAMS, ET AL , AND MORE PARTICUlARLY DESCRIBED AS FOllOWS BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT I, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M" IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, THENCE NORTH 88°51'05' WEST ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID LOT I. AND AlONG SUCH UNE PRODUCED weSTERLY 960 01 FEET. MORE Oil LESS, TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT-OF'WAY OF THe NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88°51'05" WEST AlONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT I PRODUCED WESTERLY 761 39 FEET, MORE OR LESS. TO AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT, SAID MONUMENT BEING AN ANGLE POINT UPON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SHUFFLETON STEAM PLANT PROPERTY; THENCE NORTH 43°06'56' WEST. ALONG SAIO NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF SAID SHUFFL1:TON PROPERTY. 680 06 FEET, MORE OR LESS. TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS AS LAID OUT 8Y THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THENCE SOUTH 46°52'27' WEST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE 607,89 FEET. THENCE SOUTH 43°06'56" EAST 713 87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 43°06'56" EAST 220 00 FE1:T. THENCE SOUTH 46°53'04" WEST 220 00 FE1:T, PAGE 15 THENCE SOUTH 31'37'23' EAST 448 22 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHweSTERLY MARGIN OF THE RIGHT·Of·WAY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, ThENCE ALONG SAID MARGIN SOUTH 50'43'32" WEST 174 00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 20')8'24' WEST 700 61 FEET, THENCE NORTH 46'5]'04" EAST 21S 00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THOSE PORnONS THEREOF CONVEYED TO PUGET SOUND POWER. UGHT COMPANY BY OEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING No 8812140277 AND FURTHER OEUNEATED AS PARCELS C AND 0 ON cm Of RENTON LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT NO 004·88, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8808309006, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION KNOWN AS PARCEL E Df cm OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO 004·88 RECoRDED UNDER RECORDING NO 8808309006, DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE ABOVE REFERENCED TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTH 4]'06'56" EAST] 86 PEET, THENCE SOUTH 14'36'26' EAST 24487 fEET TO THE TRUE TO THE POINT OF 8EGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 14']6'26" EAST 345 29 FEET, THENCE NORTH ]1'37']2" WEST J09 6] FEET, THENCE NORTH 46'53'04' EAST 1030] FEET TO THE TRUE TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 13 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 2] NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W,M., LYING EASTERLY OF THE ABANDONEO BURLINGTON NORTHERN (LAKE WASHINGTON BELT LINE) RAILROAD RIGHT-oF·WAY AND LYING WESTERLY OF PARK AVENUE (LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD S e ); TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 IN SAIO SECTION, DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN of THE ABANDONED BURUNGTON NORTHERN (LAKE WASHINGTON BELT UNE) RAILROAD RIGHT·Of"WAY AND THE WESTERLY MARGIN Of PARK AVENUE (LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD S E ), THENCe SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN 60 FEET TO THE TRUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGleS THERETO 10 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF PARK AVENUE (LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD S E ), THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT, THENCE WESTERLY TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RAILROAD MARGIN, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, PAGE 16 ----------_.-, -.~-..... ' EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED FOR SR 405 BY KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO 656127; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVE (ED TO THE CITY OF RENTON fOR WIDENING OF PARK AVENUE NORTH BY DEED RECORDEO UNDER RECORDING NO 9703IBI422, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY Of KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 14 THAT PORTION OF THE BURLINGTON·NORTHERN INC. (FORMERLY NORTHERN PACifiC RAILWAY CO.) 100 FOOT RAILWAY RIGHT'Of-WAY IN SEcnONS 7 AND B, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5.EAST, W M" LYING BETWEEN THE NORTH MARGIN Of NORTH 4'" STREET AND THE SOUTH MARGIN OF NORTH 6"' STREET, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY Of KING, STATE Of WASHINGTON PARCELlS THAT PORTION Of THE BURUNGTON NORTHERN INCo'S 100 FOOT RIGHT-Of·WAY FOR ITS aELT UNE IN GOVERNMENT LOTS I, 2, 3 AND NORTHWEST V. OF THE SOUTHWEST Yo Of SECTION a, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M., AND GOVERNMENT LOTS I ANO 2 IN SECTION 7, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, BETWEEN A WEST PRODUcnON OF THE NORTH LINE OF 6'" AVENUE NORTH AND A UNE EXTENDING SOUTHEASTERLY AND RADIAllY TO THE MAIN TRACK CENTER LINE AS NOW CONSTRUCTED FROM SURVEY STATION 1068+00 IN SAID CENTER UNE (DISTANT 40 8 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY, MEASUREO ALONG SAID MAIN TRACK CENTER LINE, FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY END OF BURUNGTON NORTHERN INC'S BRIDGE NO 3) ANO SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED UNE BEGINNING AT A POINT 25 fEET SOUTHEASTERlY, MEASURED RADIALLY AND AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE CENTER UNE OF TRACK AS NOW CONSTRUCTED, FROM SURVEY STATION 1068+00; THENCE SOUTHWESTERlY IN A STRAIGHT UNE TO A POINT 1S fEET NORTHWESTERLY, MEASURED FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT·Of-WAY UNE AT SURVEY STATION 1074+00, THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHWESTERLY AT AN ANGLE TO THE RIGHT TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY UNE Of THE 100 fOOT RIGHT 'OF-WAY Of BURUNGTON NORTHERN INC AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF SPUR TRACK HEADSLOCK STATION 8+85 5 THE END OF DESCRIBED UNE AND END Of DESCRIPTION, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY Of KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PAoe17 -""'" .... co = c:> ..... c::t QQ CI IN ·co .= ..... 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Development Regulations Applicable to Phase II Development Development regulatIOns, including, but not luruted to the followmg chapters ofTltIe IV of the Renton MuniCipal Code • Chapter I • Chapter 2 • Chapter 3 • Chapter 4 • Chapter6 PolIcies set forth In the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan (adopted February 20, 1995, amended August 13, 2001). PAOE 18 Relllnl Add reg Office of Iht CIIY Clerk Remon elly Ha II lOSS Soulh Grady Way Remon. W A 'I80S$ Borum.at Title(,) (or IrlUli.chons contaIned Iherem) I Oev~lol'm""t AlJTeemenl for Renton Plant Redevelopment RefereDH Nwnber(l) oJDocllllleDIII alligaed or rele.sed: (on pall~ _. oj'documcnlS(~)) GrantOl'(s) (1..1151 name first, !hen first name and .mlhals) I The OoCtn8 Company GraDteo(l) (Ln51 name firs!, !hen firS! name IUlcllnlltals) I Cily of Renlon .-IAlgal detcriplioD (abbrOVlated I e lot, block. plat or secllon,tolWWIIP. ranse) Portlllns of Renton Farm Plat, Renton fann Pial No 2, Plat ofSartonsvlllo, I«n\on Boller Workf Short PIII~ Renlon Fann Acreage Plat. CIty nfRenton Short Plat. C H Adsit', LIke Washtngton Plat. and Government lois I. 2.lIIld 3-STR082305 TAX LOT 55 PCL I BOIlINO. STR 082305 TAXLOT 115 PCL 2 BOEINO. STR 082305 T AXL0'l'880 PCL 3 BOEING, STR 08230n AXLOT 19 PCL 4 BOEING. STR 082305 TAXLOT 91'(;1.5 BOEING. STRomos TAXLOT 37 PCL6 BOEING, STR08230STAXLOT IDS PCL ~ BOBI NG. srR 082305 TAXLor 152 PCI. 8 BOiliNG. STR 072305 TAXLOT I PCL 9 BOilING. STR 072305 TAXlOT 46 pC!. 10 BOEING. S11l 082JOS TAXLOT II PCL II BOEINO, STRIl8230S TAXLOT 187 PCI. 12 pOEINO. STR 08230STAXLOT79 PCI.. 13 BOi!I'N(l. STR 0723115 T AXLOT HID PCL 14 ROEINO. srR 082305 T AXLOT 204 PCL IS BOEING /]] Fulllq!llils on pages __ Ihrough __ . of document Aaseaor'. Prop.rqo T.II Parcel/Account Namber Portions ofthe followtng· ~7S6460·00SS-04, N722300·011 ~.08, H72240t).0880-OO, ~082305·9019-00. U082305·9~09·00. n08210S·9037-08. tn22)OO-O 1 0s'()0. n0823D5-9lS2-o7. N072305·9OOI·0I, 11072305· 9046-08. #1)82~05.9011'()8. n082305·9187·06. #082.10'·9079-07, 11072305·9100-01, H08230S·9204·0S (/BOlINe Dfy ",,,mtn1 ll24 OlCItX] 11124103 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOEING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF RENTON . FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF A PORTION OF THE BOEING RENTON AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING FACILITY I. PREAMBLE 'nlis DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Apment'~ between THE BOEING COMPANY ("Owner" or "Boeing"), a Delaware corporation, and the CITY OF RENTON ("Renton"), a municipal corporation of the State of WashinglOn, is entered into pursuant to the authorlt)' ofRCW 36.708.170 through .210, under which a local government may enter into 11 development agreement with an entity having ownership or control of rea! propert)' within its jurisdiction. II. RECITALS A.. Owner OWWl approximlltely 280 acres of real property. known as the Boeing Renton Aircraft Manufacturing Facility ("Renton Plant" or "Plant"), located in Renton. King County, Washington, as more particularly described in Exhibit I, anached. Since the early 194Os, the Plant has been used to manufacture military and conunercial airplanes. B. The majority of the Renton Plant site has historical1y been zoned for heavy industrial use and has, for several years, been designated Employment Area- Industrial by the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Since 2000, a parcel along the Plant's eastern boundary has been zoned IH and designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Employment Area-Transition (Interim) and a nearby parcel has been zoned CO and designat~4 by the Comprehensive Plan as Employment Area-Office. C. In 2002, Owner Informed Renton of its plan to consolidate its Renton Plant ope-rations to the site area west of Logan A venue, an effort commonly known as the ·'Mo\'e-lo-the-Lake." Move-to-the-I:.ake is, among other things, intended to releuse ·underutilized land as surplus for eventual sale and redevelopment. D. To provide certainty and efficiency to Owner with respect to further development of the Renton Plant for airplane manufacturing purposes, to encourage continued airplane manufacturing by Owner at the Renton Plant, and in anticipation of potential future redevelopment eflorts, Owner and Renton entered into a Development Agreement ("2002 Agreement") on June 28, 2002, by Resolution No. 3568 which, among other thing.c;, established baseline trip counts, redevelopment credit and vesting of land use regulations under certain circumstances for ongoing Renton Plant operations and potential redevelopment. ' E. Based on further dlscu:iSions between Owner and Renton regarding potential opportunities for redevelopment of the Renton Plant site, in phnses, over time, Renton resolved, by Resolution 3589, on October 14,2002, to conduct environmental review in the fonn of an environmental impact statement ("BIS") pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") of (a) potential alternatives lor redevelopment of all or a portion of the Renton Plant site and (b) relmed public infrastructure. Resolution 3589 also established a conceptual publiclprivate framework for the eventual mitigation of the impacts of Renton Plant redevelopment on transportation infrastructure and public services. . F. On December 4, 2002, Owner and Renton entered into an agreement concerning the funding and constnlction of the extension ofStrander Blvd. across Owner's Longncres property ("Strander Agreement"). Among other things, the Strander Agreement establishes a $ J. 7 million to:ansportation mitigation credit to Boeing that may bll used to pay for transportation improvements needed to support development of Owner's properties located in Renton. O. On December 16, 2002, Owner submitted an application to Renton for amcndmcni of the C\lmprehensive Plan designation applicable to the Renton Plant site ("Comprehensive Plan Application ") from IH to Employment Area -Transition (·'EAT") .. Renton elected to desi8J1ate the area under a new Comprehensive Plan designation and combirle the Comprehensive Plan Application with amendments proposed by Renton to the zoning text, zoning map and development standard for the Renton Plant site H. On December 20,2002, Renton imposed, by Resolution 3609, a MoratoriuOl on development in area.~ of Renton, including the Renton Plant, zoned III. One st.·lIed rea.'IOIl for the Moratorium was Renton's desire to "provide adequate time for Renton stafTto prepare and present proposed changes to the Comprehensive Ptan nnd zoning" of those arca~ umr.d heavy industrial (IH). I. On January 13, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing on the Moratorium. At the request of the Boeing Company, RenlOn M1ended the Moratorium to allow Boeing to consolidate its facilities within the Renton Plant. After the January 13,2002 public hearing, the Renton City Council adopted Resolution 3613 which continued the Moratorium in those areas of Renton zoned IIIIOFll'G I~'" ~gr"m"'III·24-01 doc! 11/24,\)3 PIBel heavy indu.~trial ((H), but also agreed to support Boeing's "Move-to-the-Lake" including any required building modification or consu:uctlon. J. On June 9, 2003, the City Council amended the Moratorium for a second time by the adoption of Resolution 3639. Resolution 3639 lifted tbe Moratorium over J-H zoned areas located within the Employment Area-Valley' Comprehensive Plan designation. The Renton Plant is the only I-R zoned property of any significant size that continues to be bound by the MoralOrium, which is scheduled to expire on December 2, 2003. K. On March 4, 2003, Renton's Environmental Review Committee (hERC") adopted a dctennination of significance for the Proposal. Renton Issued a Scoping Notice IlJId Scoping Document for the EIS on March 10, 2003. On March 25. :2003. a public scoping meeting was held to receive wrlnen and oral comments on the proposed scope uf study. A Drall Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) was issued by the ERe on July 9, 2003. A public hearing was held on July 30, 2003. A, thirty doy comment period on the DElS was closed on August 8, 2003. The Final EIS was issued lin October 21, 200l L. Portions of the ProposlIl were the subject ofa Renton Planning Commission hearing held November 12,2003; the Proposal and related modification~ to Renton's existing parking code, site development plan review ordinance, and binding site plan ordinance were the subject (lfthe City Council Hearing held on November 17,2003. The City Council adopted all by ordinance on November 24, 2003. M. Owner has detennined that the portions of the Renton Plant Site known as Lot 3 lind the 10-50 site will become under-utilized at the completion of Move-to- the-Lake. Consequently, those portiuns urthe Plant may be surplused and made available for sale, In the near future. IN LIGHT OF TIlE FOREGOING, and because successful redevelopment of all or portions of the Renton Plant site will be oflong-tenn benefit to both Renton and Owner. Renton and Owner do hereby agree as follows: HI. AGREEMENT 1. Dtlfln Itlons :.J Arterial Roads means the primary public roads supporting District I IIIId 2 Redevelopment, as diagrammed in plan and section and described on Exhibit 2 attached. with typical sections of the individual Arterial Roads shown In Exhibits 2A through 2E (herinafter collectively referred to as Exhibit 2). 1.2 Boeing means The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation, and related or subsidlruy entities. 1.3 Design Guidelines means the Urban Center Design Overlay ReglJlations established by Renton to supplement the Development Regulations with respect to the design of certain uses permitted within the UC-N zone. 1.4 Development Regulations means those portions of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) zoning provisions that govern certain aspects of site planning, building design, landscape requirements and other elements of development within a given ZOlle. 1.5 District I means that area of the Renton Plant Site located east of Logan Avenue, as designated on Exhibit 3 Iitlached. 1.6 District 2 means that area of the Renton Plant Site located west of Logan A venue, as designated on Exhibit 3. 1.7 Economic Benefit Analysis means the calculation of estimated one time and rccuning rcvenues and jobs gent-TRted by a proposed Redevelopment project. 1.8 Franchise Utilities means electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and other utilities not prOVIded by Renton. 1.9 Interchanges mean access points from Renton roadways to :md from Interstate 405. 1.10 Intersections mean the general areas where two or more roadways join or cross, including the roadways and roadside facililies for traffic movement within them. I. II Land Use Policies and Regulations means Renton Comprehensive Plan policies, Development Regulations and Design Guidelines. 1.12 LocQI Roads means nil on-site roads that are not Arterial Roads and that ore necessitated by Redevelopment. 1.13 Otl~Slte Intersections means intersections no( included within District I or District 2. 1.14 On-Site Intersections means the intersections shown on Exhibit 4. 1.15 Owner means Boeing find any transferee or successor-In-Interest of all or any portioo of the Renton Plant. 1.16 Proposal means, collectively, Owner's Comprehensive Plan Application and related zoning and Development Regulation amendments proposed by Renton. I. 17 RMC means the Renton Municipal Code. 1 . 18 Redevelopment means const.nlction of Improvements to the Renton Plant for uses other than airplane manufacturing or uses supporting or associated with airplane manufacturing. 1.19 Renton Plant Operations means airplane manufacturing and supporting or associated uses conducted on the Renton Plant Site. 1.20 Renton Plant Site means District 1 and District 2, collectively, as shown on Exhibit J. 1.21 Site Plan Process means the master planning and site plan requirements of the RMC applicable to Redevelopment within the UC-N zone. 1.22 Subdistrict IA means that portion of District I commonly known as Parking Lot 3 and the 10·50 Building as shown on the Subdistrict I A Conceptual Plan. 1.23 Sub.distriet I B means dIal portion of District 1 commonly known as the 10-80 site, Lot 10, and other Boeing-owned parcels cast of Logan Avenue and south of g'h Street. . 1.24 Subdistricts means Subdistrict I A. Subdistrict I B, and District 2, collectively. 1.25 Utilities meMS water, sewer and stormwater system improvement'! that serve the Renton Plant Sile. 1. Basis or AgreemeDt 1.1 I.teot This Agreement establishes certain roles and respot1sibilities for the potential phased Redevelopment of all or a poItion of the Renton Plant Site, including but not limited to Renton commitments for c<lrresponding potential funding and construction of certain public illfrastructure improvements benefiting the Renton Plant Site and the community at lug.; and Owner commitments to participate in the funding of certain public improvements, to fund all private aspects of Redevelopment, and to retjevelop the Renton ~Iant Site consistent with applicable Land Use Policies and Regulations. 2.2 SEP A Deelslon Dorumenl This Agreement is entered into in lieu of a SEP A "Decision Document" and .. as such. establishes all SEP A-based conditions necessary to mitigate potential adverse impacts of the Proposal, and Renton's approval of the Subdistrict) A Conceptual Retail Plan. 3. Redevelopmeot Planolng Redevelopment of the Renton Plant Site may 0CtUr incrementally starting with properties within Subdistrict I A. Conceptual planning for the possible surplus and sale of property will occur in three areas of the Renton Plant Site, Subdistrlet I A, Subdistrict lB. and District 2, as iIIus!nlted in Exhibit 3. ConceplUaJ planning. pursuant to the requirements of this A~menl, will be supplemented by master planning:md site planning pursuant \0 the requirements ofRMe 4-9-200. 3. J CPllftptaai PI •• At the time at which Owner wishes to subdivide. develop, sell, or othet'Wise alter any 1X'ClpCTty within the Subdistricts for uses not related to airplane manufacturing or supporting uses, it will submit to Renton a Concepb.181 Plan inclUding: 3.1.1 A narrative desctibing the conceptual Redevelopment proposal and its relationship to the Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North; . . , 3.1.2 The estimated timine and sequencing of property surplus and sale (i f applicable); 3.1.3 A description of the proposed uses Including the general mix of type.~, estimated square footage of each building and parking for each structure, heights and residential densities; 3.).4 The general location oruse concen!nltions (I.e., residential neighborhoods, office or retail cores, etc.); (IIIOI:lNO Po\ ,~SN'm'nllI.14'()3 doc' 11124.03 ..... 6 3.1.5 Vehicular and pedestrian circulation that includes 8 hierarchy and general location of type, including arterials, pedestrian-oriented streets, other local roads lind pedestrian pathways; 3.1.6 General location and size of public open space; and 3.1.7 An economic benefit analysis demonstrating the conceptual development's anticipated economic impact to local, regional and state governments. 3.2 Conceptual Plan Approval Owner will submit the Conceptual Plan to the City Council for approval. The Council will bllSe its approval on the proposed Conceptual Plan's fulfillment of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Vision and Policies for the Urban Center-North. 3.3 Subsequent Land Use Apprcwils Renton wiJI evaluate all subsequent development permit applications within the Subdistricts bIlSed on I;onsistency with the approved Conceptual Plan. The process for subsequent mllSter plan and site plan approval is outlined in RMC 4-9-200. 3.4 Modlficatloos to Approved CODer-ptual Plans 3.4.1 Modifications to on approved Conceptual Plan may be made after an administrative detennination of the significance of the proposed modification. 3.4.2 Minor modifications to an approved Conceptual Plan may be approved administratively lIS long lIS the proposed modifications remain consistent with the spirit and Intent of the adopted Plan. 3.4.3 If it is determined that a proposed modification Is Inconsistent with the spirit and intcot of the adopted Conceptual Plan, or If an entirely new Conceptual Plan is proposed, City C(,uncil approval is required. 3.S Subdlstrlet lA CODccl,tual Retail PlaD Owner has produced a Subdistrict I A Conceptual Retail Plan, attached lIS Exhibit 5, that meets the requirements of Section 3, outlining proposed Redevelopment of Subdistrict I A. By adoption of this Agreement, the City Council approves this plan lIS the Conceptual Plan for Subdistrict I A. 3.5.1 The Subdistrict lA Retail Conceptual Plan includes development of approximately 450,000 sq. fl. oflarge-and medlum·format retail stores and (!!lOllING llo.~ A.' ..... nllI·24'Ol doc) 1I/141Ol h,o' approximately 110,000 sq. ft. ofsmall retail shops, as willi as potential locations for structured parking and upper story multi-family residential units or office uses. 3.5.2 An Economic Benefit Analysis for Subdistrict I A of the Redevelopment, attached as part of Exhibit S, demonstrates that the Subdistrict lA Retail Conceptual Plan, which is forecast to produce estimated revenues to Renton of approximately $1.2 million in one-time, construction related revenues and an escalation 10 approximately $1.S million in recurring annual revenues to support Subdistrict I A Retail Redevelopment beginning in 2009, demonstrates revenues sufficient to fund Renton's obligation to construct public infrastructure supporting Subdistrict 1 A Retail Redevelopment subject to Section 4, below. 3.6 AdditioDal Planning Applicable Owner acknowledges that additional site planning basIld on the requirements of the RMC will be required for potential Redevelopment within the Subdistricts. For exampie. should Subdistrict I A be further divided by short plat, lot boundary adjustment or otherwise, master planning and site planning for each parcel and building site pursuant to RMC 4-9-200 would be required. 4. lormstrueture Required to Support Redevelopment Transportation and trunk utilities anticipated to be necessary to support Redevelopment and the manner in which each will be funded and developed are discussed below. Exhibit 2 senerull)' illustrates each segment of Arterial Roads. Exhibits 6A. 68, 7, 7 A. 78 and 8 illustrate supporting trunk utilitie.~; Exhibit 9 describes infrastructure components and corresponding anticipated cost. 4.1 Traasportatlon Improvements 4.1.1 Arterial Roads Required at Full Build Out The parties agr:e that the Arterial Roads diagrammed on Exhibit 2 and listed on Exhibit 9, will he necessary to support full redevelopment of the Renton Plant Site, including District 2, assuming an intensity of total site Redevelopment no greater than Alternative 4 studied in the EIS. 4.1.2 Subdlatrict lA Arterial Roads The parties agree that the Arterial Roads or portions thereof diagrammed on ExhibillO as District i, SubdistrictlA roads and listed by segment on Exhibit 9 are anticipaled 10 be necessary for fullSllbdistrict IA Redevelopment. 1'IIOt.1NIi 1l<\ l\ar<'m~lll.24.0l doel 11124/03 , r ... 8 4.1.3 Subdlstrlet IB Arterial Roads TIle parties agree that the Arterial Roads or portions thereof diagrammed on Exhibit 10, with typical sections of the individual ArterIal Roads shown in Exhibits . lOA through 10E (hereinafter collectively referred to as Exhibit 10) as District 1, Subdistrict 1 B and listed by segment \In Exhibit 9 are anticipated to be necessary for full Subdistrict I B Redevelopment. 4.1.4 Other Arterials TIle cost of required improvements to arterial roads not addressed by this Agreement will be paid by property owners or developers benefited by the improvement based on 1\ fair share a1locotion of total cost. 4.1.5 Arterial Road lind Otller Public Ininstruetnre Funding 4.U.I Renton agrees to design and construct the Arterial Roads and certain other elements of public infrastructure specified below at Renton's sole cost and expense; provided, that Renton will rely on revenues from sales tax on construct ion, increllSed sales tax from Redevelopment Improvements and the property lax and other revenues generated by Redevelopment to fund its share of the public infrastructure anticipated under this Agreement. . 4.1.5.2 Renton will retain one-third (113) of the collected tax and other revenues generated by Redevelopment, and will set aside the remaining two- thirds (2/3) for Infrastructure improvements anticipated In this Agreement as necessary to timely support Redevelopment within the Subdistricts. 4.1.5.3 Renton inttnds to utilize limited tax general obligation debt to ftmd Arterial Roads and other public infrastructure under this Agreement, to be paid for by revenues generated by Redevelopment pursuant to the terms of Section 4.1.5.1. For example, $12,000,000 in bonds wo:Ad require approximately $1.000,000 per yell1' in debt service lbr a 20.year bond at 5% Interest. Similarly, $7.500,000 in bonds would req1lire approximately $625,000 per year in debt service and $4.000.000 in bonds would require approximately $333,000 in debt service. 4.1. S.4 Should tux revenues fall short of those neces sary to timely install all infrastructure improvements required for a particular Redevelopment project, Renton may delay Infrastructure construction until the tax revenue shortfall is remedied. (IllOrING !loI,. A", ...... 11.14.03 doc) "fl.IlO) Pl8.9 4.1.5.5 In the event of an infrastructure delay, Renton will immediately notify Owner and (if OWner is a non.Boeing entity) Boeing ofit.~ need to delay and representatives of the parties will meet to discuss a cure, which may include (at Owner's or Boeing's option) the provision of alternative financing pursuant to Section 5 ofthis Agreement. 4.1.6 Arterial Rights or Way 4.1.6.1 Owner agrees to dedicate, at no cost to Renton, the land necessary for the rights of way described in Exhibit 2, at the tlme that land on which Ihe righlS of ways are located is sold; provided, that (a) Renton may request earlier dedication, which Owner may approvc in its sole discretion, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and (b) easements or license agreements will be provided by Renton to Boeing. as Boeing deems necessary, to allow continued operation of lncilities within the right of way that support Renton Plant Operations. That is, the panies intend that. I f approved, such early dedication would not result in additional cost to or dislocation of Renton Plant Operations. 4.1.6.2 Should there be Owner buildings located in the rights of way, it shall be the responsibility of Owner to, at such time as the road needs to be constructed. and upon Renton's request. (a) demolish such building.~ and (b) cap and abandon any underground facilities that would interfere with Renton's use of the dedicated property for right of way purposes. 4. 1.6.3 .. Park Avenue is constructed asymmetrically within the current right of way. Expansion of' Park Avenue anticipates use of the existing road. Some addilional realignment may bc necessary to connect Park Avenue to Logan. Owner will dedicate the necessary right of way to realign Park Avenue to provide symmetrlclil right of way and as anticipated for expansion under Exhibit 2. Renton will vacate any: excess right of way created by such realignment, at no expense to Owner. Should Owner have a building occupying property that would need to be . dedicated to Renton for right of way, then Owner shall grant the right of way, except for the portion clCcupled by the building. In such cas.e Owner will reserve the right of way for Renton, and provide the dedication at no cost to Renton when the building is demolished. . 4.1.6.4 Renton s.haU not vacate any right of way dedicated by Boeing necessary to serve Redevelopment. until redevelopment is complete or upon the approval ofRoeing and Owner. 1112410) PISO 10 4.1.7 Design Fund and Timing 4.1.7.1 Renton agrees, within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, to eannark $1.S million for funding of Arterial Road design and engineering ("Arterial Road Design Fund" or '·Fund''). The Fund will be utilized, as needed, to ensure that design IIlld engineering of the ArterIal Roads occur in collaboration with Owner and sufficiently In advance of Redevelopment project construction to produce needed Arterial Roads in time lO serve such Redevelopment. The parties agree that Renton shall begin the consultant selection process for design of Arterial Roads within 30 days of the date of this Agreement. 4.1.7.2 With respect to Subdistrict I A Arterial Roads, Renton will begin design, through its consultant, of the intersection of Park and Logan as the ftrSt task of the consultant selected pursuant to Section 4.1.7.1. This early design shall be completed as soon as reasonably possible for the purpose of defining the I~tion and extent of the needed right of way ofthe intersection of Park Avenue and Logan Avenue. Owner and Renton will consult on a right (if way definition suffiCient to penni! Owner to establish its property lines for purposes of sale. 4;1,8 General CODStruction Timing Construction of all or portions of Arterial Roads required for each increment of Redevelopment will occur based upon (a) need for that portion of the Arterial Road as demonstrated hy a SEPA environmental checklist prepared for that increment of Redevelopment, a traffic study, or other documentation agreed to by the parties, and (b) a construction schedule established by Renton and approved by Owncr to ensure final completion ofsuch Arterial Roads, for each increment of Redevelopment, prior to issuance of the first occUPIlllCY pennit for that increment; provided, that if such Artenlll Rllad construction is not timely completed, Renton shall identifY and construct, lit its cost, mutually acceptable interim access. 4.2 Intersections 4.2.1 On-Site Intersections The cost ofOn·Site Intersections will be paid by Renton according to the principles set forth in Section 4.1.5, except that Owner will pay (a) the cost of left tum lanes necessary to provide access to Redevelopment and (b) that portion of the cost of the traffic signal necessary to support left tum movements. 1.'1I01i1N<1 J)" AS' ...... , I 1·2~'()l doc) 4.1.1 Off-Slte IDterseetions The cost oroff-Sile Intersections will be paid jointly by the parties in shares proportionate to the amount of predicted traffic using the development and the amount of predicted uaffie that is general pass-through traffic. These traffic predictions will be made by use ofa mut\lally acceptable traffic forecasting mode\. Owner's contribution will be proportionate to the percentage of the tr&lTte trips using the development. and Renton's contribution will be proportionate to the percentage of the traffic trips that are general purpose pass through trips. 4.1.3· RoeioR Trip Allocatloo Boeing agrees that it will allocate up to 1,500 of the "baseline trips" established by the 2002 Agreement for Redevelopment of District 1. It is understood that this Agreement is based upon reallocation of up to 1,500 trips in order t(l mitigate or minimize the need for additional transportation Improvements. The method, timing and distribution of each trip shall be at Boeing's sole discretion. If. however, Boeing's rellervution of all or a portion oftbe 1,500 trips results In the need for transportation improvements that would have been otherwise unnecessary, Boeing will bear the cost of those improvements. 4.3 laterchanges The parties agree to collaborate on lollbylng and other efforts to receive state and federal funding of 1·405 interchange improvements that benefit Redevelopment. 4.4 Local Roads Owner agrees to pay for all Local Roads required for Redevelopment. 4.5 Transportation MltlgatioD Fees Renton agrees that Renton trllllsportation mitigation fees a.,sessed as mitigation for Redevelopment will be used to fund off-site improvements, required to support Redevelopment, in proportionate shlll'C of the cost of such improvements. Notwith~tanding the foregoing. transportation impact fees shall not be devoted to On-. Site Improvements or for site access improvements required by Redevelopment, such as left tum lanes on periphery street~. . 4.6 Straoder AgreemeDt Tnnsportation Mitigation Fee Credits The parties acknowledge that, at Boeing's sole discretion, all ora portion of the reserve account established by the Slrander Agreement may be utilized to pay for 11/14103 1'18' 12 all or a portion of Boeing's transportation obligations associated with Redevelopment, except thaI such credit may not be applied to reduce Boeing's share of the On-Site Intersection improvements addressed by Section 4.2.1. . 4.7 Water 4.7.1 Renton shall, according to the principles set forth in Section 4.1.5. install water lines to support redevelopment in coordination with the construction of Arterial Roads. 4.7.2 Water lines installed shall be consistent with the "Option I" plan provided by Renton's Department of Planning, Building and Public Works, described on Exhibits 6A ond 6B, attached. 4.7.3 Owner and Renton will work together to create a water plan to ensure provision ofadequate routine (non-emergency) water and emergency water. including fire flow protection, to the Renton Plant Site, for continued Renton Plant Operations and for Redevelopment. including but not limited to an agreement that water fur Renton Plant Operations will be ofadequate pressure, quantity, quality and have required system redundancy. 4.8 Stormwater Conveyance Renton shall. ac~ording to the principles set forth in Section 4.1.5, install a storm water drainage and collection systeITI to support Redevelopment, in coordination with the conslrUction of Arterial Ronds. The system to be installed is referred to as Option I B in Exhibit 7. which anticipates reuse of a portion of the Boeing stormwater dminage and collection system. Thc segment lengths. type of improvement, needed right of way, length oflaterals and estimated costs oftbcse segments is set forth in Exhibit 7 A. If all or a portion of Bocing's stonnwater drainage and collection system is used, Boeing agrees to grallt Rent4~n an easement for maintenance, repair and rephwcment of that system and title to the stormwater drainage and collection system . being used by Renton. 4.9 Sanitary Sewer 4.9.1 Renton shall. according to the principles set forth in Section 4.1.5. install sewer main lines to support redevelopment, in coordination with the construclion of Arterial Roads. ImUFINCi nc,' Aj.fCemcnc 11·201.03 doc) 11124..,3 PliO 13 • 4.9.2 Sewer main lines shall be installed consistent with the proposed plan provided by Renton's Department of Public Works, described on Exhibit. 8, attach.:d. 4.10 Franchise Utilities Provision for Franchise Utilities must be made, in conjunction. with installation of the Arterial Roads. Franchise Utilities and Owner shall bear the cost of any out-of- pocket design costs, extra trenching. conduit, sleeves or other installations to provide for Franchise Utilities. Owner and Renton agree to reuse existing assets, ifboth parties agree that such reuse is feasihle. 5. Alternative Financing 5.1 Triggering Eveatli Should Renton he unable to timely fund public infrastructure improvements or should Owner or Boeing (if Owner i:1 a non-Boeing entity) determine that it requires construction of all or a portion of public infrastructure for Redevelopment on a schedule more expedited than this Agreement provides, then, subject to the provisions of Section 5.1 hereof. the parties hereto agree that, Owner or Boeing may choose, at it~ sole discretion, to provide alternative financing for all or a ponlon of public infrastnlcture by one of the following means: S.l Potentia. Alternative Financing Metbods 5.2.1 Owner or Boeing or some other party may build all or a ponion of the Arterial Roads and other infrastructure improvements described in Section 4 of (his Agreement and sell all or any portion of the public infrastructure to Renton or other applicable governmental authority pursuant to a conditional sales contract, lease purchase or installment purchuse arrangement or similar method, the effect of which shall be to cause the lease or purchllse payment obligation to qualit/ as a promise to pay within the meaning \1fScction 103 orthe Intema! Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 5.2.2 Renton, or some other governmental authority, may issue revenue bonds if and to the extent that the property to be financed is to be included in u utility, ~'Ystern or similar enterprise with respect to which revenues are expected to be availahle for the ultimate repayment of the capital cost of such property. 11124103 Pale 14 5.2.3 Renton may issue such other or further debt or other obligations, including any tax increment obligations, which Renton is now or hereafter legally authorized to issue. 5.2.4 To the extent that any alternative financing may be structured in B manner which will permit nationally recognized bond counsel to opine that the interest on any obligation is excludable from gross income of the holder of any obligation for federal income tax JlUl'Poses, then Renton and Owner or Boeing covenan1 and agree to cooperate in good faith to structure the alternative financing in such mWIDer. 5.3 Repayment 5.3.1 In the event that Owner or Boeing exercises its right of alternative financing pursuant to Section 5.1, the parties shall cooperate in good faid! to enter into an agreement, pursuant to which the parties shall identify any and all tees. user charges, revenues, taxes WId other benefits wtiich are expected to result directly (lr indirectly, either from the public infrastructure so constructed or acquired or from the transactions contemplaled hereby, in order to detennlne the aggregate benefits [0 Renton arid any other funds that Renton may obtain from other governmental authorities. 5.3.2 The parties agree that they shall, to the maximum extent not prohibiled by law, directly or indirectly allocate two-thIrds (213) of such taxes, revenues and olher benefits identified in 5.3.), over time, to pay amounts due with respcct to IIllernalive financing, or 10 reimburse Renton or related governmental authority therefor. To the extent that such benefits are not permitted by law to be· directly allocated to pay debt service or similar obligations, the parties hereto Bgrec that such benefits shall nonetheless be taken into account directly or indirectly in determin ing the total amounts of public resources which shall be allocated to repay such COSls, so that the net benefits resulting from the transactions and public infrastructure are allocated or deemed allocated for such purposes, in a fair and equitable manner. It is further agreed that any costs of issuance of such public financing,s. any capitalized inleresllhereon or any similar fees and expenses shall, to Ihe exlent permitted by law, be included in the amount SO financed and shall be similarly repaid. I/OO~fNli 0.: •. ~~r.'m"" 1'·24.03 doc1 111240113 1'18.16 6. Vesting 6.1 Site-Wide Vesting to Comprebenslve Plao, Zoning 'lise Tables, and Site Plan Process for Term of Agnement Upon signing oflhls Agreement, the Renton Plant Site is vested through the tenn of this Agreement to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Use tables, and Site . Plan PraceRS in place 119 of the date (If this Agreement. 6.1 Additional Vesting to Development Reguladoll8 and Design Guidelines at Time of Conceptual Plan Approval 6.1.1 Generally V¢sting to Development Regulations and Design Guidelines shall occur at the time of Conceptual Plan IIpproval pursuant to Section 3.2 of this Agreement. Such vesting shall extend for three years trom the date of Conceptual Plan approval for Subdistri cts 1 A and I B. and extend lor five years from the date of Conceptual Plan Approval fur District 2 ("Conceptual Plan Vesting Period"). Development Regulations and Design Guidelines may be extended beyond the Conceptual Plan Vesting Period if a materially compl,;te application for master plan approval, pursuant to RMC, for all or a portion of the Conceptual Plan area is submitted to Renton prior to the end of the Conceptual Plan Vesting Period, in which case such vesting shalt be extended as to duration and area only for the master plan area according to the tenns of the master plan approval. 6.l.l Vesting to Development ReguladoDS and Design Guidelines ror Subdistrict IA Conceptual Plan The Subdistrict 1 A Conceptual Retail Plan approved pursuant to Section 3,:! uf this Agreement is hereby vested for three years as provided by SectioI' 6.2.1. 6.1.3 Additional Time Necessary to Finalize Non-Retail Development RegulatioDS and nellgn Guidelines The parties acknowledge that non-retail Development Regulations and Design Guidelines will not be in final form liS of the date of this Agreement. Renton shall consult with Boeing as it finalizes such standards and guidelines and make best efforts to submit such non-retail Development Regulations and Design Guidelines to City Council for adoption, no later than April I, 2004. 1I1l41O) P .. ,16 6.2.4 Changes to Applicable Land Use Policies and Regulations During any vested period, shuuld Renton amend its Land Use Policies and Regulations, Boeing may elect to have such amended Policies IUId Regulations apply to Redevelopment; provided, that the Development ServIces Director must agree to such election, which agreement shall not be unreasonr.bly withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Renton reserves the authority under RCW 36.708.170(4) to impose new or diflerent regulations, to the extent requil'\ld by the federal or state governments, or by a serious threat to public health and safety. such as changes or additions to the family of' building and fire codes. as detennlned by the Renton City Council. after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been provided to Owner. 7. Additional Development Agreements May Be Necessary The parties agree that other development agreements, in addition 10 and following this Agreement, may be necessary to guide Redevelopment over time. That is, should all or a portion of District 2 be surplused, the parties anticipate that this Agreement would be supplemented by one or more additional development agreemenls. addressing issues such 115 open space, and new internul public and private road network lind public facilities. For example, the parties anticipate that construction ofadditional water, slUIitary and stormwatl:r utility infrastructure, necessary for the Redevelopment of District 2. beyond thai associated with the Arterial Roads discussed in Section 4. IUId which have been conf:eplUally reviewed by Renton, as shown in .Exhiblts 6, 7 and 8, will be cllvcred by future development agreements, and that the cost ot'such will generally be the responsibility or Owner. In addition, the parties anticipate that District 2 Redevelopment will include public and private open space amenities. Such amenities may include one or more contiguolls parcels that provide recreational amenitics and public access to Lake Washington, create view corridors to Lake Washington and Mount Rainier, and serve liS focal points for Redevelopment. 8. Markellng Information Boeing will generally share with Renton marketing information for Renton Plant Redevelopment effons so that Henton will be infonned about the marketing l'UC IfISC, 1>< •. A,.-"mC1ll 11·14003 do.:l 1112410) Pa,e 17 process, and IIdditionally, so Ihat Renton can adequately respond 10 inquiries by prospecti ve purchasers, 9. Potential Renegotiation Bas~~d upon changed or unloreseen circumstances, Renton or Boeing may request renegotiation of one or more oflhe provisions of this Agreement, which request shall not be unreasonably denied. 10. Ternlinatlon or MoratonuQI Renton agrees that the Moratorium shall termirlate or expire on December 2, 2003 or on the date that the Proposal takes effect, whichever occurs first. II. 2002 Agreement This Agreement shall not be deemed 10 amend or supercede the 2001 Agreement, which remains in full force and effect. 12. Recording This Agreement. upon execution by the parties and approval oflhe Agreement by resolution of the City Council, shall be recorded with the Real Property Records Division orlhe King County Records and Electlon.~ Depqrtment. 13. Successors and Assigns This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of Owner and Renton and their succe~sors in interest, and may be assigned to successors in Interest to ail or a ponion of the Renton Plant Site; 14. CounteJ'parts TIlis Agreement. may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed lin original. 15. Termination '11lis Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2020. AGREED this I $f" day of. () t~ , 2003. I!OOf INCo 00:,. Ag ........ 11·2~") 4,00, I In.,,)] Pa,.18 • CITY OF RENTON ATTEST: ~. en ;;t..., .,..""..... __ Ily: Its .• -"~"""-"""1.W.I"""'---:;;JdII By: Bonnie I. Walton Its c: ty Clf!rk ~ City Attorney By: Its: Vice President By: CoIeItATommlpk Its: _-.AUIhOfIptd SIgnatory STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF k" '0-) On this li day of De c ,? ttL..:.,-, 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the SlIIte of,Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally IIppeared . TeO;; S; e. _ T Of ~ '" c-, to me known to be the person who signed as _ \-. -lc 0 r-of the CITY or RENTON, the corporation that execued the within and foregoing instrumcnt,and acknowledged soid instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said cprporation for the uses and purposes therein mentione~ and on ooth stated that r-t'... was duly elected, qualified and acting as said.offict.T of the corporation. that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal atlixed. ifany, is the corporate seol of said corporation. I!DOEING n., "11.,m<n,1I·14.IJJ docl IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above wriUen. (Print or stamp name ofNorary) NOTARY PUBUC in and for the S Ie of Washington, residing at . ( My appointment expires: --'-1-"1-''''--- 1I'1411l3 Pa,lC%O STATE OF WASHINGTON) oj ) SS. COUNTY OF ~~ ) On this R day of ~mhJ"'" , 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the StatrA of ashin~ duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared f1)\ dtk l!l . , to me known to be the person who signed as ' of THE BOEING COMPANY, the corporation that executed the in and oregolng instrument. and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voltmtlll)' act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oalh stated that. $f. was duly electc(~ qualified and acting as said officer of the corporation, that fie. was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, ifnny, is the corporate seal of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. I'BOEING J)c,. "r.r""""11.1~.ol d""l :--f).uJ~uu , (Signature of Notary) PP<rt'\W d. S((\'k-(l\- (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and f(lrthe State of Washington, residing at Nl~ IA),. My appointment expires: ,.." .. 01, , . Ilmlll) Paa·21 EXHIBIT 1 LEGAL J)ESCIUPl'ION Tracts A. B. C. D. E. F. G and " located In SectIons S. 6. 7 and 8. all in Township 23 North. Range S East. W.M • described as follows: IJV.CT-h (Tax Parcel Nos. 082305·9019. 082305·9209 & 722300'()105 • portion) Parcels A and B of City of RentoD of Renton Short Plat No 093-89. l\CCorJmg to the short plat recorded under KlDg County RecordlDg No 891114!lOO6. n:cords of King County, WlIShrOgton. TOGETHER wrm that portion of the nOl1hwest quarter of the southwest quarter of sard Section 8. 1)1ng southerly and easterly of Parcel B of said short plat Rnd westerly and northerly of Pl\rk Ave N. and N. 6110 St .• respectively J'RAClJ! (Tax Parcel No. 7564(i().IXISS) Lots I through 13. inclusive. Block 11 of Renton FRtI1l Plat, according to the plat thereof re~'Orde<.l In Volume 10 of Plats. page 97. recorda of King County. Washington. TOOEl'lffiR WITH Lots I through 12. inclusive, of Sartorisvillc, acconJing to the. plat thereof recorded IR Volume 8 of Plats. page 7, records of King County, Washington; BXCEPT that portion known lIS Lot 3 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 282-79, according to the shOll plat recorded under King County Recording No 7907109002, records of King County, Washington; and BXCEPT roads TRAct:.!;; (Tax Parcel Nos 722300·011S & 722300·0105 -portion) Blocks 3 and 4 of Renton Farm Acreage. nccordmg to the plat thereof recorded in VoJUI1Jt: 12 of Plats. page 37. records of King County, Washington; TOOBTIiBR WITH those JX'rtions ofthe alley vacated under City ofRenton Vacation Ordinance Nos. 3319 nnd 404 8 ·and the street vacated under City of Renton Ordinance Nos. 3319 and 3327 88 would attach by operation oflaw; and TOOBTHBR WITH that portion ofthe northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 8 Iylag southerly of the southerly right of wny margm ofN. 8111 St. easterly of the easterly right of way margin of Park Ave N. and north of the south 315 feet thereof. TRAC!' D (fax Parcel Nos. 082305;9220, 08230S·922I, 08230S·9222 & 082305-9011) Lots 1.2.3 arId 4 ofCtty. or Rcnton Silort Plat No. LUA.oI.o56-SHPL. nccording to tllC sholl plat recorded under King County Recording No. 2OO1J20S90()()04. records of King County. WashingtOll . TRAk!:Jj (rax Parcel Nos 082305-9037,082305-9152,082305-9079,082305-9204) Those portlonR of said Government Lots I and 2 of Seellon 7,Iymg wllhm the abandoned Burlington Northern Railroad nght of way (fonnerly Nurthom Pacific, Lake Washington Belt LllIe) and northerly oflhe northerly nght of way marg'" ofN.6'" SI.; TOGETHER WITH ~aid northwes: quaner of the southwest quaner of SectIon 8, .'ying northerly of the northerly nght of way margm of N. ~ St and westerly of the westerly rigbt of way mnrgin of Park Ave N.; BXCBPT Clly of Renton Short Plat No. 89..()1)3, as reoorded under KIng County Rccordmg No 891 I 149006, and EXCEPT !hat portIon of saId northwest quaner of the southwest qU3rter lYing southerly nnd easterly of s8Id short plat; and TOGETHER WiTH those portions of ~ald Govenunent Lots I, 2 and 3 and the southcllIIlljunner of the northwest quarter of Secllon 8, lying westerly and northwesterly, respeL'lively, of the wC8terly right of way margin of Park Ave N. and !he northwesterly righl of WRy margin of the North Renton Interchange (SR 405), westerly of a hne that intersects With said northwesterly nght of way margin of the NOlth Renton Interchange, said IInc ooiilg described as bcginrung at Stallon 6+50 on the A·Llne of the North Renton Interchange, SR 405, as shown on Sh~t 2 of 5 of PSH I (SR 405) North Renton Interchangll, Washington State Department of TranllJlOrtauon Right of Way Plan, and ending nonhweslerly, perpendicular tc, slIId Station, at Q point on the southeasterly Dlargin of the 100 foot maID track of Burlington Northern RaIlroad, easterly and southeasterly of the northwe.~terly fight of way line of the abandoned Burlington Nortbern Railroad nght of way (fonnerly Northern Pac·ltlC, Lake Waslungton Belt Line), EXCEPT from said abandoned rrulroad nght of way that portion Iymg northwesterly of a hne descnbed as follows Degmnlng at a point SO feet southeasterly, measured radially and at right angles to the centerline of tbe Burlington Northern maID track as now constructed, from Survey Station 1068+00, said pomt being On the southeasterly nght of way margin oftbe 100 foot Wide nghl or way, Thence northwesterly along IIlIld radial line a distance of 25 fecI; Thence southwesterly in a stn\lght hnc t(, a point 25 fect northwesterly, measured from the southeasterly fight of way hne at Stallon 1074+00. Thence continuing southwesterly at an angle to the right, to a point on the northwesterly margm of the 100 foot Burlington Northern Railroad nght of way, said pamt also bcmg on the southessterly line of the Spur Tract at Hr.adblock Station 8+85.5 and the end of said dcscnbcd hne and EXCEPT that portton of slIId Government Lot 2 described as follows: Begmning lit an intersection of the soulheasterly right of way margin of soid Burlmgton Northem Railroad and the northwesterly margtrl of vacated Mill SI (park Ave N) per Vacalion Ord 2513, TIlenee southwesterly along slIId southeasterly margm of the railroad right of way, a distance of60 feel; nlence southeasterly, at nght angles to sRld railroad nght of way, R distance of 10 l'Cet, more or less, to a pomt on the northwesterly right of way margin of satd vacated Mill St (parle Ave N). Thence northeasterly along said Mill St to the point of beginning' TOGETHER WITH porllon ofVacatoo Lake Washington BOlllcYlIrd adJOining. TRAer..!: (Tax Parcel Nos. 072305-1J046 & 072305-9001 -portion) That po",on of too SE 1,4 of the: SE ~ of 8R1d Secllon 7. Iymg southerly of N. 61h SI. westerly of Logan Ave N .• easterly of the Cedar River Waterway (Commercial Waterway No.2). and northerly of that certain tract of land conveyed to the Renton School District by Deed recorded under Kmg Count)' Recordmg No. 5701684 TRACT G (Tax Parcel No. 072305-9001 & 082305-9J87) Thai pol1l11n ohald NE 'A lIJld SE 1,4 of Section 7. NW \4 of Section 8, SW \4 of Section 5. and the SE \4 of Section 6. lying north of N 6110 Street, easterly of tbe Cedar River Waterway (Commercial Waterway No 2). wC$terly IIIld northwesterly ofthc westerly nght of wily line of tbe ablllldoned Burlington Northern Railroad (fonnelly Northern Pacific, Lake Wa.~hmgton Belt Lme) ood northwesterly of the northwesterly line of the raltroad sJlur track bcgmRlng at Headblock Stallon 8+85.5, wOlItcrly of Lots "A"lIIId "B" of City I)f Ronton Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-98-176·L1..A as l'tCorded under KlDg County Recordmg No 9902019014, and southerly of the LaJce Washington rnner Harnor Line; EXCEPT Logan Ave N TRACT 11 (Tax Parcel No. 072305·9100) That porllon of the Burlington Northem Inc. (formerly Northern Pacine Railway Co.) 100 foot railway nght of way in said SE 'A of Section 7 and SW 'A of Section 8,IYlOg north of the northerly right of way mmgin of N. 4'~ Street and southerly of the southerly ngll! of way margin of N. 6111 Street. All situate in the City of Renton. KUlg County, Washington. _w~ ._ ••• --•• --,.-......... -.-----.. --..... -.--,.---r'~----~ ~ ". .._ _. ... ww w. .' _ w • _ ._ ... 0.' " ... _ _ ---- ... . -.. .. . . __ •.•. _0 _ -. ---_. .". .ww __ ... -• • .... -'W' •• i \. I I ! ~ I _.. .w. --... 'O- ~ "Gil ~ .. -& %- ,; :> '" N 61h "F" 51 Z ~ « c: 0 0 -' "0" "E" z N 81h Sl 1------:::-1 ~ N 61 SI. <C ~ o z a.. "C~ <C fii (; (.!) "8" N SI L_---~~~~B8~~~~~r o 600 1200 I :: j I : 7200 :'" .. ... , '." n.U11 '!II! ........ \" . ........ \\ \\ \ .~ , ,\ \ \ ..... t1 \ \'. \ \ II '. ,., d, .. [1.---.. l,., L . t;-! ,_ ...... , [y .... - •• I Ll [] ...... -_ ... c::::J = :=-:~n -=~ .. ~=~. @ -- t --4 -..,- 1!IIIlI--. __ ... PROPO·SED ARTERIAL RlliHTS OF WAY TO SUPPORT DISTRICT 2 ~:=.._- EXHIBIT 2 (FUL.L BUIL.DOUT) TYPICAL SECTION 1: PARK AVENUE NORTH FROM. PROPOSED LOGAN AVENUE TO NORTH 8TH STREET 4 lANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MBlIANIT\JIlNIHG lANE - o If lS' 32" FUll BUILDOUT SCALE 1-.1Ii" ~ SECTICINS /!FE OR4WN IN ACCOFlDNCE W/1H 11£ KI'IG ccuny ROI'D STNDAROS AID 11£ CfTY OF FCNTC»I S1RCET STAtGNlDS AI.L ROADWAY SEC1IOI\6 /!FE UI.S7RA71\'E EXHIBIT 2A ..... ~~ a __ ~8UJ --""",.gsa I2D6J 3B2 I6ro Fex Il.\:l6) 382-0500 f) tOVB&l'I aJal TYPICAL SECTION 2: PARK AVENUE SOUTH FROM NO'"" 8TH STREET TO NORTH 8TH STREET 4 LAMES OF TRAfFIC WITH A MEDlANITURNIHG lANE o If 16" 32" FUll BUILDOUT SCALE ,--1f. JiQIE: SECllO'B Nlf DRAWN IN A()C()FI()NCE WI7H »E KIIG CXlUfiY RCA!) STANWIDS NCJ »E CITY OF I'IfM'CJ'I STF/fET STNOAROS. . AlL ROADWAY SfCTlGWS Nlf IU.IS1'RAmE EXHIBIT 2B ~~ III Sts..art _ sun. 8f)() s-tna. "~tIrU!D" 9Bl)J I2ISI 3S2 .... Faa: C/O!!) 382-Q500 (I N?ISfJER 2003 TYPICAL SECTION 4: LOGAN AVENUE NORTH 8 l.AtIES OF TRAFFIC Wl1H A UEDlANlTURNlMG LANE 5' BICYCLE LANES ON EACH SIDE OF ROADWAY EXHIBIT2C 1"1 lIT .... n-q-IZ' w; .. 'II .. ,., \: o;:ze:uc I~m:c ~= ~ ~D ..:. <~ ~ 7"_ ~D.-] 1 FULL BUILDOUT Y f '! ~ SCALE 1-_,S' l:DIE: SECTION9 N'I£ CRAMI IN ~ WIlli 11£ KHii co.HTY ~ STAAIlAIIlS NO THE CITY a' REHroH smEET STNDAfIlIS. ALI. ~AY sa::1lONS ARE I!.UBlRAm£ '___ CcrIsIA!IrII E.'lg/IWIs til smw.t _ SdtIJ BOO __ ""', sea Q!I5I 3B2 rBIlD Fa< _ 3B2 CI5IlO tI J\O\S&:!! 2al3 TYPICAL SECTION 6: NORTH 8TH STREET 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDJANI1'URKING LANE FULL BUllDOUT 1 ~ 1~ • ;; I SCALE 1 -la !$:2J1$ SECTIONS ARE CRAI\N W A:XXJFVAIa wnw n:e KH3 r::;QMJY RCW) STNOVICS AID nE CITY OF RENTal STIET STNOIRDS ALL ROADWAY SI:C11OIS AlE LUST1'!AmE EXHIBIT 2D ~iIII~~ rn Smwart _ SlIl8 Il1O _ Vn.shIl.-m lIIIO I2Jl6) 382-0600 _ I2!J5I 3B2:{)500 O~2003 TYPICAL SECTION 8: NORTH 10TH STREET ~ LANES OF TRAFfIC WITH A MEDIAMIT'UIIN1NG LANE ~ ~ q u « { Ie i ~. .., t '"I _t..-..: .-...- v..Aa .. IROQ flI' ca.y ....... _________ ~"';c;;'_ ..... FUll BUILDOUT o f 16" 32" I " I SCAL£ l-csnr b\2m SEC'TICIIIS AFIE llR.'\"" IN ACCORaNa WI7H nt: KlNl3 COIH1Y ROAO STNCNOS NlJ nt: CITY OF RENTO'I STREET STA/CWICS Au. ROAOWAY S!ECTICNS loRE lI.L.USlRATIIE EXHIBIT2E ClonsuIIk>Q ~ 01 ___ 800 __ 1i1QfQ' !lSCl1 C2l61 382-C6OO Fe>< C2l61 3S2-05OO rl~2003 . ._.' .. '-'" .. --" ... ~ _. .... ... -, .. , _ •••••• -•• -•• -_-_ •••• 0 .. __ ._." •• _ ••••• _1 ... : ... " •• _ .", ".: •• -_ .... , ,; .. ' -.. -..... _----.----.. -.-:-.... --._" .... '-.. '-" .. -.. :' -" .. -) . .... _. . -.. -.. , .. '" -. _ .. -_ ..... _ ....... _ .. --" -.... -.. '. _. . . .. ,. . ---.. . ..... ... .. . - o Urban Center North District Sub-areas Districts Subject to Conceptual Plall Approval I.,., o.lIttt __ .I".nc\ldodtdallcdR.().W e ,.._DlW ....... ~ ........ ,...., tR .... ,......-..... -" rl~=·., Exhibit 3 o o WIJIA --_ ... ® --<D .... ....,.. a flU!! YI'. lOU ..... , ._ ... ON-SITE INTERSECTIONS EXHISIT ., EXHIBIT " 5 " BOEING'S CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN Renton, Washington Submitted to the City of Renton Novem ber 17, 2003 . I Background CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN Lot ;) and 10-50 Sites Re"t~n, Waslllngton The !lOllIng Company lias been working With the City of Renton tor more than a year In tl\'alulltlng potential redevelopment strategies lISSOdated willi Its 737 faCIlity In Renton, Washington. ThIS Conceptulll Plan Illustrates the IIOeIng Company's VISIOfI for the redevelopment of tho first Piece or tho Renton Plant to be made available (or non-Industnal uses. The Plan Includlls tllat portion of the property commonlY referred to liS tha Lot 3 and 10-50 Sites, whICh have been determined to be non- essontlal to the ongOing airplane rnanutactunng activIties as Boeing completes It'S "Move-to-the-lakfl" consolidation plan. The Plan covers approximately 53 to 55 acres ot 9I'OSS land, of wtuch approximately 8 acms lire reserved for the deveioplllent nf four new arlenal streats that lire essential to the ulllmate redevelopment of the entire 280-qae campus. The remUiOIng 45 to 47 acres of land will be marketed to entities Interested In develOping an Integreted retail center on the $Itll, con5IStent WIth this Conceptual Plan. Included wIthin thiS submittal are II narrative descnptlon of Boetng's propDSIIl, a Conceptuill Planning Diagram With Slippolttng pedestnlln ~ sectIOns, and an economic beneRt analYSIS demonstrating a rDnge of potsntllll one-time and recumng revenues genereted by the proposed development. 80elng seeIts the City's approval of thiS COnceptua I Plan so that Booing clln complete the necesSllry tot line adjustments and b6gln IIctlvaly marketing the property to local, regIOnal and natlonlll developers and users. The aenal on the toltowlng page highlights the locallon of the proposed retell tilts In relation to BoeIng's remuIOing land holdings and the surrollndlllg North Renton netghborhood. Concoptual UltNln Iletall Plan Boeing believes that hlgh·quallty retell deVelopment IS essenbal to the successful transition of the area fnlm lis Induslnal roots to the Oty'& VISIon for t~ Urban Center·North A well·deslgned retail center VIlli proVIde employment, d,ve""ty the . O(tInomlc base~ offer a new source of mumapal revenue, and WIll attract other ,Rernahve and potentially higher and beltar USIS to the SUrrounding area. lh<! Conceptual Plan lor the Lot 3 and 10·50 sites, Iocaled on the 10110"""9 poge, .lIustrat •• the co"""ve radevolopment 01 the percale tnto an urban retail canter. The Plan contains I mix of large format "dalitlnatfOn~ ftttaller&, mtd·stzect retail anchors, as well as small shop r;pace concentrated along Parte A...,UG, envmoned as the S19l11flcont pedestnan'onented 51""" In the erea. The Plan responds to the presence 01 tI •• exlStII19 FrYS bu.ld.ng on the properlV to the allSt of Garden Avenue, end anllapat .. 'hat uRlmate redevelopl,,"nt 01 tho northern portlon 01 thaI olte WIll relate d,roctIy 10 'he development occumng on BoOing's properlV Thu SIte IS bound bV • comblnllllon of e",sdng and naw publIC roadWays, whl1:h Sfl\Iregale the proper!'( Into four quadrants rangIng _een 6 and 19 acres .n ...... Booln9 IS _icing bu'(ers lor Ih. 45'10 47·acre propatty to undortalto e coheSIve redevelopment. GanerallV, the larue format retail development (_rs WIth footpnnts 01 50,000 square feet an<llllf\jer end building leature helflhts up to 45 feet t.lI) " planned to oocur along 8", Logan and Garden Avenues, fllClfl9 Inward and .uppotted by well_nlzed portong areas Internal to the SIte. Theso desbnetlOfl retail US8$ will naturally locate thenlslllves elong the WIdest portions 01 the propetty, wllh good freeway VISlbtllty, much like the recen~y completed FrYs development on the eastern SIde 0' Garden Avenue. Medium format reta,lors (ranging baMeen 10,000 and SO,OOO square feel In area, with buildIng feature hel9hLs up to ~O leet toll) ere assumed tnflll between the I.rue formet lenants, WIth pnmal)' pedeSlnan entrances raCIng Inward or dllllCled toward .Park Avenue. Ageln, parkll19 IS assumed to be COIlcentreted within eadt segment or Iho .~., to allow for potenlllli 'SCUlnd·generaUon' redevelopment at higher densrtl8s, If achIevabl.. . . Thtl northwest quadrant or the jII'Opefly IS Identified as _ potenhalloc:atlon for • mid· 10 hlgh·me development, whldl could take the form III. multHevet podIum ' pOlk,ng structure, wfth mulllfom,ly rtlSIdenba. or oIflca u_ above. thIS ultimate development could Imbate the truly urban vlliKln for the area and, together VIlth pe ..... ".n scale treotmenti at the comer of Pari< and Logan, would idenllty IIlls as tho 'gataway' to lhe Urban·Center NoM. Small, specialty ne\all sheps and amenlhes would be conC8l1tr11led pnmanlV along Palk IIvenue. The scale 01 development Is more Inbmal8 here, wlU.an ectectle mIX of u.es, arcMectural styles and galherlng places In same mstancas, single 5101)' rel.,1 u.es may be lOPped with one to three 1"",,1s 01 aportmants or prelas&lonel omee uses, all oVtlf1ooklng park Avonue and the actiVIty along the.treat edg •. TD\Jether, Ih. larg.· and medlum·funnat users total app_1V 450,000 square leet of space; the smaUer shop spoco tot.ls opprox,maJelV 110,000 squIre feet, or 20% of the center. ." ,. \ CONCEPTUAL URBAN RETAIL PLAN .... "',-.... . ...... ""' ... " ..... -...... t1aIy---.. • ~t'"'''''''''''' --$I: .-_............... I ... -.. ".~ ..... -.. a CONCEPTUAL PLANNING DIAGRAM '"-'-FUUfR . SEARS ARcHiTEcTs r{J......II',IVD Hierarchy of 5t1'eets Key to the successful development (If the property IS the reconHguriltlOll and improvement of Park Avenue to serve as a entlcal pedestnan-onented street in the project.. To accommodate full redevelopment of the Renton Plant properties, the ultllnate bUild out of Pllrk Avenue Will need to aUow for four travel lanes and a center tum lane, de!lIgned for vehicular travel up to 35 miles per hour. To support the v.slon for the development of an urban natall center in thiS locatiOn, a generous Sidewalk with streettrees and on-street parklng for Park Avenue 19 being proposed to enhance the enVironment In the public realm lind encourage people to make Park Avenue a pedestnan street. An IlIu,trative street section fill' Park Avenue can be fOlln d on the follOWing page. The other major north-south connection IS Logan Avenue, Which extends from 6'" Avenue to the south and JOinS Park Avenue In the north. The constructIOn of Logan, prO'"d'ng direct acce.ss to )-405, Will be an Important alternatIVe through connection to ensure Park Avenue functions as a pedestrlan-onented shopPing street. At the out!mt of redevelopment In the area, Logan IS envIsIOned as II three-Iant street, With one travel lane In 8ach direction and a cenle .... tum lane. Ultimately, Logan WI" expand and function even more so 115 a higher-speed altenal. The east-west artenal roadways, 10" and 8'" Avenues, are less critical to the suc.:essful development of the urban retail center, other than serving as access pOints to the center off o~ Park Avenue. Connections from 10" and 8"' to Logan Avenue, if constructed, would be favorable, but the center would functiOn as well With access only orr 0' Park, the exmtlng Ito of 0'" and Genlen Avenues. Urban center-North VIsion lind Polk: •• This proposed Conceptual Urban Retail Plan meets many of the City's VISIOn and policy statements 'or the Urban Center-North, which call 'or "ret8l1lntegrated Into pedostnan-onent9d shopping dlstncts" and recognizes that: • At tho beginning of this transtbon, uses such as retalt. .may be viable wtlhout the office and reSidential components that ultimately will contribute to the urban character of the district." The Crty's VISion plans for the trBnsttion of the area over a 3D-year hanzon and antldpates that redevelopment WI" need to address the potential for future Inlill to aliOw areas to further grow to urban denSities. thiS site IS located Within District I, where the CIty Identtnes Its first objectIVe as follows' 'Create a major commercial/retail dlstnct developed with uses that add stgnlftcantly to Renton's retail tax baSIl, provide additional employment opportunities wtlhln the City, attract bUSinesses that serve a broad markal area lind Btl as a gathering place Within the commumty •• Boeino'S Conceptualllrllan Retail Ptan seeks to both allow for the near-tern' redevelOpment of Boeing'S underutlllzed assets while advocetlnll tor a mix of uses that 1II1proves the City's tax lind employment base. As IS Illustrated Within the aunched economIC benefit analYSIS, more than 1,300 JObs would be created In the CltV of Renton by a redeveiOpment 0' thiS scale The CIty would COllect more than $1.2 million In one-time revenues during develOpment and the City W\)\/Id receive over $1.5 militon In annually recumng tax revenues at full build out. , , " .. .. . .. .._ .. '. \, ~ .. , " ~ I '" ~ , I ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \., zi ,:~ \ .... \~ ~ I-~ , to , c.. :' " Summary BOCing beheves thet Its Conceptual Urban Retail Plan Illustrates the optimal development plan for this 45 to 47 acres of land III North Renton, The Plan offers the opportUnity to contnbute to the 1I1I115111on of the area fmm iI pnmarlly Industnal neighborhood to a higher Intel\5lty lind range of viable uses, pltlVldll19 both jobs and a significant source of new revenue to support the City's obJectives for the area, --.-....... '-' .. Summary City of Renton Economic Benefits SUMMARY CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC BENEFITS Retail Redevelopment on Part of Boeing' Renton Plant Site F..t'onomlc benefits to the City of Renlon of re-developlnll 46 acres of the Boeing Rent.lII, Washington planl sIte follow DerivatIon of these beuefit estunatcv IS based on II set (If reallslJe assumptIons that correspond 10 development of 451,000 square· folcl of re/ail big/medIum box space and 110,000 square feCI of re/all shop space. » At full absorpuon of the above S61,OOO square fect of retad space on 8 Hldeveloped ponlon of the Doemg Renton plant site, It IS estimated that 2,197 pennanent Jobs would be created throughout tile region. ~ Of this total, a projected 1,132 direct jobs would be created at the targeted 46- acre Boeing Renton site plus 266 additlonallndirecl jobs WIthin Ihe City of Renton, assuming a 25 percenl capture rate. ;.. It IS cslimatcd that these 1,398 dIrect and indirect Jobs In the City of Renton would generate an addll/ml4ll $45.4 million in recurring annual income earned inside the CJly once full occupancy of this new retall space occurs at the Boeing Renton plant slIe » The corresponding Increasel in property values by redeveloping this 46-acre pomon of the Renton Boeing slle mID retail UIICB is forr.cast to total nearly $66 million upon completlCln in :!009 » The Increase in amlua/ly recurring tall revenllCs to the City of Renton at full build-out IS estimated at over S I.S million staJtJng in 2009. » This is m addItion to over S 1.2 million in one-time City revenues collected during land redevelopment and the construction of 561,000 square feet of retail space on n pan oflhe BOCIDII Renton plaut sIte during the 2004-2008 period IIIUn,) . «&fl. fSfATP. ECOIWJ#ICS Thr ch,. IIlItc:.l ....... hClm pmorn,rli heltnIM .. I. nol ,u*n.II_ .. obtaIMd from sowm ............ .. -..... _ .. _---_.--_._-------" ._-_ .. __ ._------, PERMANENT JOBS CREATED IN 2009 1800.-.. ---.--____ Jl.llY. QE.Bf;NTON .... ______ _ 1200,-'''-"-- ... ~ i 800 1 ____ _ j 400-1---- O·f--- 580.0 1 $40.0 ~ $30.0 ~ ¥! 520.0 1---- :!! !i '10.0 1,,--- 50.0 .,. ••. ----. ----------.-- o -~-.. " .. --------.--- With Project Without Project NEW JOB ANNUAL INCOMECREATED IN 2009 ---------,,"-- o 'NIII1 Project WIthout PIIIJect n~ I!! 1',100 NEW CITY OF RENTON TAX REVENUES ... _--_ .... "'--, ..... =----- .!!I 1',400 t---·-----------8 'l.ID~ t------·-.... '0 1',000 +---------- ~ $fDC t---------.---.- ; 1600 o J400 ~ noo t---··- 10 I·--~ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ m3 [iI"Li';d·De~:._ • Building Dev. • POlmlnem TaX" CUIlRENT ~ONING SceNARIO 1IE,u, iSTA7Ii' ECONOMICS r i I I •• ! ..... I ..... I.OUD NEW PERMANENT JOBS eREA TED fI'( aooe -........ r------I I ... ,II NEW JOB ANNUAL INCOME IN ZOOt NO •. 1----... ~-.. --.-.. ,', ......... -... --~ .. -....... _ .... ... _PtajK. ..... tlt.IIM>I ........... fI1w nt1W) 1 ...... ~II/I'Jt'r, ...... _....-"""'~ ........ "'" ..... CoCII_fl .. ..,.._I~It"',.. ....' oIe."-prAl'Iie~ ._-_._------ PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES BY aooe ~PftItocC ,.71 SO '1' P! NO fa flO MO fro ,. '10 "00 li0ii ...... _ --_ .• NEW JOB CREATION .... .... ' .... 8 , . .. .... ... ... "" ... ... ... ... "" ... .... I ...... ~ ... """"p .. a ............... ) ...... u..-"" .............. 'm* "" .... .,. .. .a...-......,. .................. r.. ........... ~ ... _ .............. ..... MoU"r ... "~ ----........ _--.. _--- ,,,. , .... oaM I 10M .... .... I· ....... u.. .... '~f\oIIJI tlllW AO NEW 8TA TE TAX REVENUES - - -AI ... ... ... _ _ _ (i'[!'i!d DI¥ T ..... iUlfdt!!l on Ta .. , CJhnNMaI TIN'! NEW RECURRING STATE RI!VENUES 10114 ,104" II '10 "" .............. ' ......... -..... I11 ........... -~ ....... --I ........ III" .. III Assumploona ... ~r.-:: •• ' ... ~~, R_etopmon' Lond Tolal bUidallle lUdovolopment land "'00-"noI· ..... Tolal bUoidablo ,tldDvOIopment lone! ..... -"n01".q ft ~ond 00 •• 10_. Land llovolD_. ConsINoIlOn COlli U'" 'ml''''' .... nlcon.1oWtoon _bOIl' YO." Porcon' CIOO'J1\I. managomonl I'll"""" CGn_'lbo' Per""", mownal, lkild,ng _p .. ""P_ Change on tl!lIeUed va"'" """n' des9' one!l'IIItIIgOfnII\._ .... Percent con.1III __ • __ Pon:e". conslru_ nlllltnDla & __ • """"""'" IItIIIng "","",~"1Dr doIogn one! """"oem"", eeng mull~~or far COI\IItIIdIDn PIIlpttt( drlot_, du"lI00n • yeorI ReI.d-llllJoWtd Pol GRI" sq .... "'101 __ Load ,actD< ........ .,... IIu>Idwlg .... "lUlIoon coal/sq ft .... ,.'1 .,... ScI ft per omploy .. -bog .... rot" Ii_ .-pol' sq ft ~ bol ... 111 RNI-8Ioop8poct G, __ "'1 01 ,lI\8IIopaco tOld focfDr-_."- lIIIiICong...,.tNo;IoOn .... /Iq" """",II space empoyOO -Shelp 5paoO ~~~SE~~~CO~"OS 1<JngCo .. I ... rove rn WIllI """"""II ,01101"11, .. ,,,,_ KonoCG ."raQla""uaI_bsl_jOIIS IItIlIJ CG ."nIIJO __ blOlqGClda.,g,,'m __ A"lf1I9o •• 0110'_ far __ lObs ~~Dl iiiiiiOY'Od I RoaIo,,81o I.mover raIo T ... I ....... od ...... t·O ... IIIIQ·..... land I R"-.,...n VI'II'JO·P-FIN ... 1\I'SlDl I I , , ThcMtawwtw .. lOft.ptCllfl'lltd __ ..... I'CllOAfIItIMCI,N\IIIbICWI~""'tO&nM~IO ...... Pop' RI!AL nTA7I! ECONOIIffC$ Summary JOBS OtredJobs 61 73 1.132 Indlmcl JoboJ Total Jobs INCOME Owoct Inco",e IndlIec1lncomo TolsI incomll PROPERlY VALue INCREASES Not applicable NotappllC8ble $ 65.9116.267 TAX BASE INCREASES Assessed VulUllllOfl Nol aJ1PllCable Not_cable $ 65.9116,257 Retail Satas S 12.882.759 , 61.578,000 , 143.948.750 Real E6tole Solos Not applICable • 87.742.657 $ 6.599.826 Gross RUIII08S6 Recoll'ls $ 14.314.177 S 66,420,000 S 143.948.750 SEt£CTED TAX REVENUE INCREASES (Proporty. sales. B&O and real estate) StatoT .... o S 1.189.652 $ 5.143,41>1 , 10.356.729 Local TI.a. l00%mcty $ 24&.167 $ _ U,.." V"jI>oP-flN~. ""3103 . ',.. ..... _AkUllJIoCINI"""_ ............. ~ N¥ObHnOCiWNdlmllOUlClM .... lO .. ,.... BUSIII888 R_pts Lind U •• Nil RetailS.," AllmAI Amull SII!! P!t!9!! I!ollll_ !mI!!OVRllf'lt OI1lllII!!2.le" Relad-RIgIMod Box 428,460 $ ~75 S 11 7,823,7150 714 S 117,823,760 Rctad-SI1ce Sll!!co 104,1500 I 260 ! 2S,I25~ ~lg I 2811i51m! TOTAL 532,950 !'43,948,760 1,132 $143o!!!,760 -, R ..... ~ VoIagc_'NJd,l1nlm Pogo , ""_ ... __ .. ___ ....... _' ........ _IIvm __ ,. ... _ RfALESTAfel!CO_' Ona-tJmetl\toUgl1 LandOeYol nl 812009 Aaseaaed V.IU81lOn $ 65, ,267 Real Eolale Sak" $29,322,857 S 87,742,857 S 6,699,828 RBlIIII Stllas S 12,682,759 $ 81,e78,OOO $ 143,846,760 Gross 6uStnltSS RecelPls $ 14,314,ln $ 68,420,000 S 143,946,760 Rc.....,1JI1>.1o v_,P"Fthl, lmW) TMQI.endQlaU' ..... ~l'ItfIin"""ltnoc9W.,,~.hMiNon~MIm ... ~tolNl,...bIO Poge 1 REA/, ESTA ru eCOHotflCS .i"'Q\i.UOh'~ f Ron ... U_ VI rogo-P_FIIIJoI. 1tl1:1m '1M d¥J IW'I ~ .... ""*''" Mr""'" MIt M1I'*'CIlf ""'" betl,obertntd hm ... '*'"4IOM'~ Crmmarclal I Ron"'" U_ VI .ga.j>-fIN d, 11/13111) Pago1 lk dIC.1 olI\d c:abA~, pllIICo"*'" "'r~11n wi'" nol~. hwIolcCQ obtIlNd tromtIMA,,,,,,,,, Cobl""ObtcI REAL ESTATE ecONOMICS Onel1me JobS S 1,431,418 $ 8,&-42,000 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 2 25 42 $ Sn,667 , 2,736,800 $ 6n,567 $ 684,200 4 9 11 $ 5,1&3,104 $ 24,631,200 $49,000 $49,000 2 20 years 63 251 S 2,576,552 $ 12,315,600 construction wages $ 2,578,552 $ 3,078,900 duration 111 ye8111 4 ,obs Clealed 53 63 Now Jobs 61 73 tnoame lor New Jobe 3,149,119 3,763,100 Re_ UibOn \/illgo-P-fIN.i<I, 11113103' Pogo 1 ""''''''' ............. ,.. ..... ''' .... _''''guo, .... ''' ...... '''''' ____ .. ''' .... bI. Rf!ALI!UATeI!CONOIMCS Uf18lime Revenue WASW .. l.Ind Dt¥ Dlltld!nIiJDtW' lOOn .. Ono tUN! rownun ...... ' .. 8 ... , ....... 1114. ~ SafCl1 ra. J 12,112,159 S 61,178,000 I !lOll 1000\1 9&OTflI· : ' •. St4.117 I: 611.420,000 0.'114 1000'II IRHI [stAIO Tran''-'I_ nlZl.8117 Gl.7mlS7 1M 0- TO'AL CltyolR .. ", L .... Dtw aolld"gDtw 21102'" O .. _~_ ..... T"~ Halo ....... SI",1M S ''''12,719 $ 1\,_ 08$\1 1000'II e&OTi1.I S lUI.,m I: 98._ o-lD_ Rotl!!!!!!! ''''''l!!!! . s 29 ...... , 97.7 ..... ' D-.-TOTAl Renton U,ban v.n .. ,..p ... fV4 .... 11n3J01 . 11w~~fld~bilItIWI ............... n.lltnot~lIIMiINItI"..,.~~bII4'4II"lIafll"'* LlndDI., UIUIdlnu Dw R_ . ....; ... $1113,641 $ 1,1102,313 1aO,818 I: 290.on "'75,3:13 I,~~ $1,189,852 J 6.1_ LtodDtw, 811ddlllllDtw -. _0. 5118.153 $ 4n,On $0 : U .... ,4 "'''4 _,187 $ 115!17. Pagal REAL tSTAI1!ECONOIIfCS K,ngC_1lI l'IopoItyl ... St1lsT .. 860T ... _EI1aIDT_ TOTAl. R"cumng Revenue • ,..3,V48,nO 8 ~ ,,..,,848,780 0471 .. 21101 ..!!!!JII' 1115.1198,m 10 10 10 11013,948.780 $1013,1148.7150 $II,699,8a IIGU T."RIII 114800 100lI0 000lI0 0 ..... --. 195.895 10 JO JOi 18S,811li fZlI,0B7 ",223.11&4 JO $32,998 Rlnlon UIban v,nago-P-FIN xl , '1131D3 Pooal 111 ...... ",d """","no ",_, hI'''' "" ..... gu ........... hlW,_ .... onod~ ... ___ .. btrettable R6AI. ESTATB ECONO/IIIC, • Boeing CPA -Estimated Cost for Water Infrastructure Improvements 10/16103 Phase 1 Cost without Length Coat with street street restoration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LocatIon From To In ft. restoration ParI< Ave N. GardenAveN N. SlltSt 2000 $ 500,000 $ N. 8th St extensJcn ParI< Ave N LoganAveN. 1300 $ 325,000 $ LaganAveN. N, 8th SL N61hSt 1300 $ 325,000 $ 1-Pressure reduCIng statJOn at West Hill Putr1p $ 200,000 $ N. 10th St ParkAveN. GardenAveN 850 .$ 162,500 $ . SUbtotid 1 W 4 $ 1,512,500 $ Phase 2 Logan Ave N. Garden Ave N. N. 8th St 2700$ 675,000 $ N. 10th St _ Houser Way Garden Ave N. 900 $ 225,000 $ N.l0th St ParkAveN Logari Ave N. 950 $ 237,500 $ 2 -Pressvre reducmg .. stations at Highlands 3-200 ft water stubs to $ 200,000.00 $ properties west of Logan 600 $ 150,000 $ Subtotal 6 to 10 $ 1,487,500 $ ITotaI1 to 10 $ 3,000,000 $ Future ResetVOlr in Kennydsle 320-z00e $ 5,000,000 $ -Note: Ccst exc!udlng ~t patch:n; fa: 5 ft wide x 5-' t.'1iCk 3S;hh.a.'t a:atdi criei wat&r tine trench ",.thin streets where new water fines will be installed -Asphalt cost esbmate<f at S90/ton JlAbdouu:.oe"'lllbaetng~nfrastructure-co5t-est 01.x1s-1016/03 -4S9,SOO 298,675 298,675 200,000 149,338 1,408,188 820,325 206,775 218,263 200,000.00 137,850 1,383,213 2,789,400 J 5,000,000 Exhibit 6A , ~, .. -~~.-.......... . Exhibit 6e IMPI~OVl;M ENTS (j) Jl<IitiuoM ® ....... ,. _ .... ®!)tiouq.@ ....... _ " .. -.iiJm "" () \ \ ')1> ~ ® ~ ~. ..... <-~ jll,> ." .. a '/' ......... ,r_ ... _ .. -ta.. lIUI.* tt 10,A00 "' UIIII"J · .... • ..... -... m---....... '''''--. ...... ........... _"'..., PROPOSED WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR eoEING CPA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -- _ ... _._--_ .. __ ..... - --_._--------- :I~ i ~I ClQ I~I a ~ I i~ , I-H-H-H++++H+tffl SI~ilU~~ -.-.c :2 >< w J Jl II Ii 1\ " ! i1 I f ! li t~ ~ II .. J llf' : zl ~§ -t ~I I I~ Is It J. filii IhJ! J I ~,Jll'jHz. i J J I ~p'll 11 ihIJJi~~i ' j f j ... " (..,---;- / , I . I II. S-lOO' STUBS I FROM LOGAN TO THE WEST : AT $20,000 EACH TOTAL. $100,000 , '. il I. ie-.. 5. 1300 Lf: ~O 'Re~LA EX. S' WITlI t\EW 1 (AND LOwai"E) o $300 PER l :r (EX. CONe. '~A) . I TOTAL D $39,0, .... i __ _ . ' , . '; ... 3. 100 u: Of' 12' , . / tk .• . f.' @ $250 PCR FOOT TOTAL D 5250,000 eli 1"-.. EXIS11NG KING CO . ... , EASTSIDe INT1:"RCEI'TOR ! 4. 1200 LF Of 12" I; .(11 $250 PER FOOT TOTAL D $300,000 i i~1 , " i . I; • • • ~ 11, 171 .. • m .. ./TI .'" ,,. TOTAL COST I. WEST STU8S D 100,000 2. I.QGANIPAAK CONNECfOR· 125,000 3. N. 10lli -.LOGAII TO PAAK. 250,000 4. N. II'IH -LOGAN TO PARK D 300,000 5. GARDf!N R£P\ACEMeNT • 390·000 $1.165,000 OR $1.2 MIWON PROPOSED BOEING CPA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SewER EXTENSIONS EXHIBrr 8 .. • I I i r I . I " .. . l " ~ ( ~ , " " , \' 1 " \ '. \ , .... \ " ~ '. .\ 'j. \, , , ' . \ ''\ \. I .. ,. , '. 1lOIII> _ ...... u, r::::::::J ====-." _==:a-:." ® --I~ I t ~ i~ , -<!J ---- ""'I~" 1 .. , ... RQ 1-,1 . ... r.\ ".. .. .. «:1 ,-1:1, r \ \' ", .U ~.' .'\'~ JJ '&'1{' d, ,.' . ,.,·1 r'I .. , r" "" • ® T'S5z!l;;' ii=II!:'h;~r;;;#r ...ruJU1!!'_ ... , •••• t' .......... PROPOSED ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY TO SUPPORT DISTRICT 1 EXHIBIT 10 TYPICAl SECTION 1: PARK AVENUE NORTH FROM PROPOSED lOGAN AVENUE TO NORTH 8TH STREET 4 LA. .. ES OF nlAFFIC wmt A MEDIANITURtfINQ LANE o If 16' ~. 1-.'8* wm 3T PARTIAL BUILDOUT <SAME AS FULL BUILDOUTl SIl'C'7lQ'oS AI£ DRAM/IN ACCa!CWCl: W/1H TH; Ia'G cot.NTY RCWl STA/OIIRDS AM) TH; CITY OF RENTON S1lleT STANlAROS. AIL ROADWAY SEC1lON9I\RE 1LU.67l> .... 77VE EXHIBIT 10A k ff ~~s 111 srw.t ~ SlMIe BIXJ Sestt!a MSUIC/IW 98111 Il.'Il6I ")5(.l;) _ C105I 3IJ2-05(1J tJ N:li!Ml8'I 2IlO3 I i I TYPICAL SECTION 2: PARK AVENUE SOUTH FROM NORTH 81H STREET TO HOftTH 81H 8nu:£T • LANES OF TRAFI'IC WITH A MEDlAN/TURNING lANE EXHIBIT 10B ',,.. GIlti' .... \ < wt* 4 '!"' 4 1 -.tt="t.. 4--_ w:::e'---1:1: __ ~)r-'I.;--l ... o-------------------~.~ .... ~""__' .. -.r ..... -...IICI •• o 8' ,8' 3( I J J SCA1.[ '-.'6' M2m PARTIAL BUILDOUT <SAME AS FULL BUILDOUT) sec:ntf'S AF£ alAWN IN ACCXIRl:IAICE wrTH 7Hii KN3 CO(NT"( RCW) STAAt;WlDS NO 7}£ CITY OF ~ SmEET STAN:W!OS ALL RCW)WAY SECT1ON8 AAI: 1WSmA~ ____ ConsuItOV6 .... _. V! Sbwoct ~ _ BOO __ tilC/fOI 9SIl7 _ S82 06CI0 Fax C'061 3Il2 0500 rJ~2!lC3 TYPICAL SECTION 3: LOGAN AVENUE NORTH 2 LANES Of TRAFFIC WITH A TURNING LANE ~·-l:r-t.l -~~~~:,-.< ~ -:~~ ,I j, r= I Lp",..._=-.:....~-=-.--_=-:?-_~_ =-_T'!' .. - ~b -.... --:;-~--~-~---. EXHIBIT 10C l ----,--------1 PARTIAL BUILDOUT TO SUPPORT SUBDISTRICT 1A o f 16' 32' I ' ) SCAl.E I -lQ ~ ~ NIE llR.f.WN IN IIIXXJFIOA1a W/iH 71£ KIi'G CXJUlT'Y ROAD STAIOARDS NO »£ CITY OF ~ S11eT STAICAROS. AIL ROAOWAY SECTOS AI£ .!U.IJS7RAmE k off ~_iM'S C~_a.ue800 _ -."... 9f1(1I C2Il6I 38l1-OIiOO Fa I2Il61 ~ ., IIO\SI&R aJ03 TYPlCAl SECTION 5: NORTH 8TH STREET 2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH A MEDlANITURNlNG LANE ~'~.'l-• 'Ji. ,~ -~ ~ . ,.:i£ ~\ !~ , , Ii J ' 'l ~.= -= -::!:. = 11. q 11 rc1IIa/ • ,. .......,., _...c .-. u.~ -~~~ ~-=-...-ct. ------1 1--____________ ,,. wct ... _, ___________ -! PARTIAL BUiLDOUT TO SUPPORT SUBDISTRICT 1B o fl8' 3r I ; I $CAL! 1-·1.,-- llK2lE: SECTIC:NS ARE ORA_ IN ACXXlfDA1a wmt l'Jo€ IClI\O Ct:»ITY IIO¢ ST:UDARDS /lID 1H: CfTY a: fBITOH S71'IEET STNCWIDa AU AIWlWAY SECT/OoS APE ILltmRA7lI£ EXHIBIT 100 ~~ JJi Stewart _ &iII8 BOO Seama __ • 981)1 ca:l6I .382oQjOO Fax G!Il5J 382"0500 (J~alQ3 TYPICAL SECTION 7: NORTH 10TH STREET 2 LANES OF TRAme WmI A MEDlANITURNING lANE :J }-1' ,;~~'jr~!' -:s..~' . ~f .. -='"' , ----.; ;.- H , EXHIBIT 10E ;1, _ __ _ 1\ ~ l..-:==?i 11\ I ~ . ---~-----j ~ .~ ij ~-----I I 16 ... ____ ... ____ , __ --' ___ ..-:t.t .-.n~'" -------, ~-----------------w--~~ PARTIAL BUILDOUT TO SUPPORT SUBDISTRICT 1A Y f 't f SCAlE '-.18" tDIS SECT1a6 IIFIE DRAWN N ACCCl/lONICE WI1H 1lE I(IG co.pry ROAD STNOAROS NO TI£ em' OF R!Ml»/ S1RET STAIOViDS AU ROA!JVIAY se:;T/CNS AAE ILLUSn'IA TI\£ ~Eng.-s t:lI SIewlWt srr.t ailll 8()() SssIV3. _ •• 98IlI C!OOl 382-0600 Fax C!OOl 382-(l5()O o lO\S&11 2lXI3 s,.rr ~ WAS.",..;ro .. ) '" , -,"""., .' "' -----. ------- I AND SURVEYOR'S CrnDnQA 1(' LUA-04-0Bf-BSP ~O-J!I-OOIJ nr"·r. ... II) II" __ . r:!(fCI((D S1 c.s:< __ m~ .. 1+'N "t. ~.'!F.i£C~ .Ii'i"IUVCO ar.--'U&.- ,,''it ."1.'." ._._ ,j~~i' [lA'C' WLrJ/CI! -=-:-:' ~_' --=~":"''''--:-fF BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING BINDINO BITIl PLAN Nt! 1/4 & SE 114 SEC. 7, T.2lN., R Sf! .. W,M. " NW 114 II S.w, 114 SEC, 8, T.2JN. R.5E" W.M OITY OF RIlNTON, KINO OOUNTY, WASH/NOTON APPROVALS· ADMINISTRATOR or PLANNING I BUILDING / PUBLIC WORKS KING COUNTY D[PARTMENT or ASSESSMENTS hAIPo/ElI 4ICI 'P,",DofD fltS~ O~Y Of" §)Q<lkttoh .. / .. "';"'H-""h/" .i"". ·JffiJ1J,/<~ ~~~ OCI'tl'r"WC r.ou"fY~ss.rS5Olt 'CmlINT I/r;~~.r~ QBz..:Jq! JQ(lftllQ, S''ll )S:UZ1'iO~11 CfO,5I, CrA:::><! ~"1!52. ,,,.\-.,, .' ;. ~:\::;":"/: .~::: .. ;. KING COUNf'!.:: f!NA,qCr OI,'04SIOI't·'.G£R TlFleA T/ON :'~,! .• :. / ,r.," ,<,:,:_, .:.:::. "~rnm ~~~ 3!~,~·h~AA=ili!n~~HO'"'rff:,A1" ~~M:fRfJt=r H{~ o~:Nf~J, iftc~s '~~"f~rs COttccJIbN pIJ ANr or. fljr PROP~'r.j;jlil't""I'!WIOI .. l1b oCll!l:l\rro,,"~ SI/f 'l_,.IllCYS OR f"OR .NY OIll(R _~p LISt:: }JIC P~I(I ' .. IU!.I.. "ds...::Jt!'.2~_ 0.1' OF ~ .?O!:r ";, I""" ,r" \' •• " " , "" ' CAL., (!' ~L L "~"; g:rJt:~ ~G " .,' ~~&lI!;~r"'WCi ~rY ,?~. ':I:,~, ::"::' .. / ./.: . .'" " '.'::.\ i ., .... , .. ":. .;:"'" .' """ ::':'., . ":~.:: "., ':;' .. ,,' ".' ... ,' ....... DIVf$loN BOEINO REAL TY COMPANY CITY OF RENrO/li ., . . ;: LAKESHORE LANDING BINDING SITE PLAN .•.. ., I;;'"~:::"~", .c: "'"'""'----,·p;;;,"OCX"c".~,~N~o,----''''''''''''"'',;:;~'?7'1 J'~!l6 , , ..... :/ "", " ... ~.,,~' ~:; C()vDI'IIoIS (0 . ~., JJ,_IJO_IW "'At'lJl_I.llJ-I'III "" BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING alNOINO sIre PLAN NE 114 & Sf 114 SEC. 7, T,2JN. R.5E., W.M. do NW 114 do S.W. 1/4 SEC. 8, T.2JN .. R.se., W.M CITY OF RENTON. KINO COUNTY. WASHINOTON ;Wro '!rr '!;,"UiW! ~~~~r'l~9r!: IoI(WWtNT' ",:'.' .,': ~u ~Hln J fl" j • " ":/" J WI Q{SCfflPUQN' (PCI! rIoTSf '''fIl!CA>I I"H .. SUIIAllr~ n/tr COIf"''''fNI OfIOC" "0. 'tH7T-rl/ ~'IlCCL '" Ion I. t. J 4HIl t or PlY OF ~C"TON "IMr Pl.' 010. IOlA-Ql-O"_!"'''l, AS RfCOlfDfP ImOt!l ~fC""O"'O "'<I mOlflD'II0000t: SlTliUI ''I 11<£ ~Ht 01' ~£NrON. CO~Nrr or ~'I<IJ. 51All" or ""SI'INGr:lN LUA-04-OS1-8SP lHO-J5-00IJ ,'''';i':;NCO ". MMI ... · uY FItC!.~fii. t~,,' C:';: ~tuI ,a". T BOEINO REAL fYCOMPMY CI7Y OF RENfON LAKESHORE LANDING alNDING SITE PLAN C>ROJCCf 11:0. J1t156 WNOING slTr pI AN AWS' ........... CAST Oi' PUll AI'f 101 0If!r Of 1'.". ,tit ... so. fl. PROPOSED AR(AS £AST: SO. ff nucr., 21.9t "" '" ". l~m"""'"' ________ I--"C""-j __ J'"'"'~ I~m"".,",". ____ . __ ~ _~ "'Acr N VAe, '~ACT TOTAL nun A m.u:,. .. , IItA'1 ,. oro /IIACT mUt: " iliACI K (NOT A P,tllr) perM .," J~~ 001 141.110 " , .. ,tU' .. .. " .. , ". " '" ~~ ~., LUA-04-D81-BSP tNP-~-OOIJ r;:5."~"'i.' B' ,;l,-.r,,.,,,~,, E...."'W.C;PA lASf BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING BINOINB SITe PLAN Nc 114 &. SE 114 SEC, 7, r.23N. R.5E .. W.M & NW 1/4 & S.W. 114 SEC, 8, T.2JN., R.SE .. W.M. CITY OF ReNTON, KINB COUNTY, WASNINBTON LOTS 1,11.I6,012,~ I!. 21.46 0"01$ /,",~"""." rl55" (JOE/NO REALTY COMPANY CITY OF RENTON LAKESHORE LANDING BINDING SirE PLAN R(NfON KING SCAlf: PROJi:cr NO. ,"-200' J19!ltl TRACT P DEllNG LAKESHORE LANDING .. BIN~INCI BITe PLAN NE' 114 & .'If;. 114 SEC. 1. T.2JN, R.5E .. W.M . . :: & NI(I1I4':& S.W'.W4 SEC. 8, T.23N, R.!iE .. W.M. OF RB/fTOH, KIN.CI··OOUNTY, WABHINCITON .,',,, \~. 5C~·L[ a : roo .200 :: 400' t----! ---'--f :: (:,rcC1' ).:' -:'".1, JNO/ .. 10(1' 1'1 .:" ::[S'CN[D UV (;RA"'''I ,oY ;:-~/CCI,j , --, BOEING REALTY COMPAAY ClrY OF' RENtON LAKESHORE LANDING BINDING SITE PLAN PROJ[cr N(), J!958 20070314001933.:: II Pi .... prln! or !YIl.IDfo'lIIadOD WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER' SC over Sbeet (Rew 65.04) Documcnt Tltlc(s) (or transactions contained therein): (aU DTBas applicable!o your docu'mCDII!IlI!1 be filled in) ;- 1.().~c\M IR ~\~ ~~~. ). 4. Reference Numbcr(s) ofDocumcnts aSslgncd or relcased: AdditloD.1 reference #'s on page ,'(\ /I!J-. of doc~meDI Grantotjs) (Last nam!',:. fIr~":, Inilials), I.~ , . 6.X-w: '10 '00;,'1..'1. ~I:> ~\:)'t'51o 2. - Addillonal names on pago __ of document. G rantee(s) (Last name firsl, Iben first Dame and initials) , ~: f~~;;;; Oil~""'l yutk~ '£1.\:)~~ \ 'l.'I.')t;,b\::,S$l.> Additional name, on page __ of document. Lcgal description (abbrevlaled: 1.0.104 block, pial or seotloo, townshlp, range) ~\Q. '\I~ ~'Q.. '/ '\, ~~ "'\-,''''22:. 't\,:§~ \\,I()xY\ ~<L'lv. ~ 'I u. ~t.. 'e. , '1.:~ '(:\'t'i4~ \ 1.P"lY'I Additional legal is aD pago __ of document: Assessor's PropertY Tall: ParcellAcco~nt Nnmber o Assessor Tax # not yet a .. igned c"Q!o.~~ ~~"'& ''LI3;:,''''1.1.:~~~ ~~Qk~\- ~ , Tho AudilorlRecorderwili reiy aD theinfoimallon provided on tho form. Tho .taffwiU nol read tho documenl \0 verifY tho accuracy or oompleteness of the indexlng!nfonnaUon provided herein. , I am requestmg an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee as provided m RCW 36.18.010. I understand that the recordlng processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some art of the tex fthe ori 'inal document. ~~::25:.2..L;~:""::....J~ _______ :Signature of Requesting Party ,'1::'.' RETIJRN ADDRESS: W&HPacUlc 3350 Monte VUIa Parkway Bothell, W A 98021 AJlFIDA VIT OF MINOR CORRECTION OF MAP To: King County Audllor NE It. SE It. SEC 7, T 23N, R5E, WM NE It. SE Yo SEC 8, T 13N, R 5E, WM Gov. LoI, OLC,lmS, Plat or other: __ .....,.. _______ _ I, Christopher S. Royak, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 20070314001933,,:,,-, , Thall am a Professional Land Surveyor: that I made a survey ofland for Boeing Lakeshore Landing Building Site Plan which document was recorded on the 13,d day of December, 2004, in book 225 page(s) 83.86, Reeordlng Number 20041223000856, Records of King County audilors Office, Seattle, Washington, said documenl being a BInding Site Plan (Record of Survey, Plat, Short Plat, Binding Sit. Plan, J30undary Line Adjustment, Condominium, Large Lot Division). That there being a minor survey, spelUng, mathematical or draftIi1g error, or omitted signature which does not in any way malerially subvert the approval of the original dQ(:ument by changing lot areas so as to atfect zoning approvais, easement conditions of approval or access roadways, tho affiant approves the following changes 10 the aforementioned recordings as follows: To Wit: 1) Sheet 2· Note 5: 12" Line sbould read "Re-Reeordlng of 1976 Agreement". 2) Sheet 3· Monument In case at N:'8111 SI. and Garden Ave. N.: n. Change coordinate to . N 183798.116 ' E 1302863.410 b. Removo'" As Sbown on Ret 1" 3) Sbeet 3 • ~ Sectlon Corner Mon~ment Near Intenectioo Future N. 8111 51. Bnd Future Logan Ave. N.: Change coordinate to N 18347.4789 E 1300846.5866 4) Sheet 3 • shutb Line Lot 3: Remove 9.1' dImeosloti betweeo new and old RIW IInell. 5) Sheet 3 • South Une Lot 4: Remove 9.43' dimension between section line and soutb lot line. 6) Sbeet 3 -We.t Line Lot 3: Line no. 3beadngsbould be N 00'56'42"E. 7) Sbeet 4 -Detail for Tract D: Radius for ensterly curve on soutb .ide tract D should be 560.50'. .' Ucense Number SURVEYOR SEAL STATE OF WASIDNOTON, ) County of KINO ) . /1/. f) JL On this day personally appeared before me -:-::'-.>~~'..t;II'~I'"'?':""'-7/'\-:'::'O jd-~ltc.:.,..-:--:-:-:--:-::---:--_ to be known to be the indlvlduaVcorporation described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that (he/she) ,ht..signed the same (hislber).his. free and voluntary ect and deed for the purposes therein mentioned. 1J... MId 2 ./ Given under my hand and official seel thls::;-day of ~, ot7Pv Notary PubU. Seal """"\"\\\111 ~ .. " d WI' "'l §~ ... ~.~t\\\"llIlt.O!"" _ 4?"QfoIOIj~',,~~ f ff .ot"t", ~) ~. ~ S ••• ~ 4'-I: :: ~ ~ \ ·118\.'(, ~ a ~ ~ 'f: '"eS.05.1l1$''' AO :: "', ~ 11111\\\\\",.'" ~a· #' III 0" WAS~~ .$' III ,., ...... h\\I\\\""'" . ~f.h~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at ~~ ~, 11h1 ' NOTE: CoUntry AuditorOffi~e, Provide one copy per "WAC 332.130-050(3Xe)" to tha Wash. State Dept ofNatumi Resources, PubUc Land Survey Offica, P.O. Box 47060, Olympia, Wa. 98504·7060 20070314001933.:: Return Address: ~&,.\\ ~~~ Pi .... nrlnl or 1~.IDform.d •• WASmNGTON STATE RECORDER' s Cover Sheet IRCW 65,041 Document Tltle(s) (or transactiona contained Ibereln): (aU are .. applicable 10 your docUment I!lJI!1 be tuled Iu) r I, (),l'D~ ~ ~~¥:. ~~~. 3. 4. Reference Nnmber(s) of Documents assigned or released: Addilional reference #'. on pago !(\ I C!J.. of doc~ent GraDto,tj~I (Last nam:;. flrsrQlUc, initial.) " I. u.. . :.hulI.X- \k: 'to '010(\7 .. '1. "'tI '{)\:.)'t)'S\o 2.V\iU\<v .. Additional names on pago __ of document. Grllntee(s) (Last name first, then first oQlUe and initials) ~: i?~~4Of'> ~~ ~"e> iL?-\)'O\.I,\'2.7."iY~?$\o Additional names on page __ of document. Legal description (abbreviated: I ••• lo~ bloCk, plat or .ecdon, township, range) ~\Q. 'I~ ~'IL 'I .... M~ 1-,',,'12.. Y\.~g" I\.I:I'(Y\ fi<L'Iu. ~\7\4 "l>l.~'i!>, t·l.:~~\'(l.~ \ IJ.')"\Y'\ AddltionallegaJ is on page _ of document: Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number o As.essor Tax # not yet a,,~ ': ~~ \U~ \-o~~~ ~~'<>& lb..1..~"'\l1.-~~~~ The AuditorlRecorder will rely on Ibe information provided on lb. form. The .taffwiU not read lb. document to verifY the eccuracy or completeness oflbe indexing information provided herein. I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee as prOVided m RCW 36.18.010. I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise o?~orr~~",.inaldO. ~ument. -l,~~.Ft.~~~';:;e"~=c_=..J I~c.._~~_ ....... ~, _ ___.-------Signature of Requesting Party RETURN ADDRESS: W&HPac!Jlc 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell, WA 98021 AFFJDA VlT OF MINOR CORRECTION OF MAP To: King County Auditor NE V. SE V. SEC 7, T23N, RSE, WM NE V. SE It. SEC 8, T 13N, R SE, WM Gov. Lot, DLe, HES, Plat or other: __ ~ ______ _ I, Christopher S. Royak, being flnrt duly swom on oath, deposes and says: That 1 am a Professional Land Surveyor: that 1 made a survey of land for Boeing Lakeshore Landing Building Site Plan which document was recorded on the 23,d day of December, 2004, in book 215 pageCs) 83.86, Recording Number 20041223000856, Records of King Counly auditors Office, Saattle, Washington, said docum.nt being a Binding Site Plan (Record of Survey, Plat, Short Plat, Binding Slle Plan, Boundary Line A<\lustment, Condominium, Large Lot Division). That there being a minor surv.ey. spelling, mathematical or draftfug error, or omitted signature whlch does not in any way materially subvert the approval of the original document by changing lot areas so as 10 atrect zoning approvals, casement conditions of approval or access roadways, tho affiant approves the following cbanges to the eforementioned recordings as follows: To Wit: 1) Sheet 2-Note S: 12" Line should read "Re-Recordlng of 1976 Agreement". 2) Sheet 3 -Monument In case at N;'8" st. and Garden Ave. N.: a. Change coordinate to N 183798.226 .~ E 1302863.410 b. Remove' "As Shown on Ref. I" 3) Sheet 3· Y. Section Corner Monumeot Near Iotersection Future N. 81b St. and Future Logan Ave. N.: Change coordlnal. to N 18347.4789 E 1300846.5866. 4) Sheet 3 • South Lin. Lot 3: Remove 9.1' dimenslo.ti between new and old RIW lines. 5) Sheet 3 • South Line Lot 4: Remove 9.43' dimension between section lIoe aod south lot line. 6) Sheet 3 -West Line Lo13: Line no. 3 liearl0llshould be N 00'56'42"E. ~ , . 7) Sheet 4 -Detnll for Tract D: Radius for easterly curve on soutb side tract D should be 560.50'. .: <. License Number SURVEYOR SEAL STATEOFWASlDNOTON, ) . County of KJNO ). til' /J JL On this day personally appeared before me --:--"Y'"''='''...LI':",·I:..~~,.--'t\-C.O",ti:l-'-'/(''.,--'--:-:-:-_:-:-_-'-__ to be known to bo the indlvlduaVcorporation described in and who execDled tbe within and foregoing in9lrUment and acknowledged to me tbat (he/she) .Qe....sigaed the same (hislher) llis. free and voluntruy act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned. '1L I 2 ./ . Given under my band and oftlcialseal this q day of Afl ,ot Pv Notary PubUc Seal ""'''\\1\',,, ~ .. ", t\ Wil. "'I .!~~8~'~C:>~\ :: =1 +~'4,t ... ,\ ~: ~ I ..... I'~ ~tft\ .. c;, E"~ ~ ~ ~I. 0 "8\.~ .F S = ~ "'.11."",:5'-05-01,....-~ :: '1'1 -(! 'hll\\\\\\\\\""; ~~ .~. II/ 0" WA9"~ "'~ III .. " ....... . h\\\"",,'''' --;;Ff.h~ Notruy Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at ~ Lb, 11AA-' • NOTE: Country Audl10rOftl~e, Provide one copY per ';WAC 332-130-OS0(3Xe)" to the Wash. SIBle Dept of NaturaL Resources, Public Land Survey Office, P.O. Box 47060, Olympia, Wa. 98504·7060 ;, . i Wh~ll Recorded Return To: " GtjraldBresslour Office of tl)ll General Counsel ,The BoeihgCpmpany ,,/p,O. Bo)(3707; MC 13·0S "~" ,ii" Seattie. Washihglon'98j24 .~,' . ." '-. '.~, . :: ., .... ."''''.\. /.". ~" ;l:"';.J· fl' """"":":': .( .", . ~:,."."" DOCUMEN1'TITL6:Deolara\.ion Of Covenants;"C;onditions. Easements and Restrictions REFERENCE NtJrvIDERS OF RELATEy) DO¢UMENTS: GRANTORIBORROW;ER:i' Th~'BoC?,thg¢omPany',."", ? GRANTEE! ASSIGNEEfBENEFlCI.m W Nt A/"'Y LEGAL DESCRIPTION: cBurctinedProp~rtY)L9t~ 1.4. BoelllgLlIkeshore Landing. BSP 200412i30QbS~6. aW:lT)ore (ujJY4eS9rib~di!lE)(hibit A beginning on page 12 of this DeclAration i:" ",,,;i ,,' ,i ", A legal de'scriptionqf.lhe benefit~d pr6p'~rtybygins o'1iPl\ge \3 of ,.,i""",." this Dcclaration\", "::,:' "i , .. :' "'c""",i" "",:, \ ,J ,f ASSES~OR'S PARCEL NO(S). 082305·9220'OS,;,Og2305·~221.,G4j,08~:ro5·901J'·OS,; OS2305· 9222·03; OS,23pS.9079.07; OS2305·9204·05; 08230S.903HlS:,.OS2305;91S2itl'?i' ,/ """", ~", " ,/ " !.: ".,;",,:: ..•... . ,.. .. .""'.' ;: Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (ClOSing) 20041226 Parle 1 ,of 15-' ,,' ". .' .. " ... " DECLARA TION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS, AND . . .' RESTRICTIONS / ,:' •.... "', . ''.:,'' .;' ) .... , ,.",i ,.r TfuSiD13CLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDmONS, EASEMENTS, AND :iU~STRltT~6NS (hereiiillfter r.efe'iTe~ t.o as the "Declarati.on") is made, granted, declared, ":,establi~Jie4alld re~erYpd this,28th d~x:iofDecember, 2004. ,,". . .,." ,.' ,.' ''''~''., Win3REAS/;fh~B'i.leing gqrnp~~~"lpel~ware c.orp.orati.on (hereinafter referred t.o as "Declarant"))s tnf.ow¢r ()f ce!iai~"real Pt9Pet\y J~gally described .on Exhibit A attached heret.o and made a piirl"he~.of (the "Property"); alld i"","': I:"." :' ,.' ': ;:,~~{ .,' ":,!: WHEREAS, theDeblarallt als6 Qi.Vns/~ubstantial pr.operty in the general area .of the Pr.operty, described in Exhibit B".(the,}"Rc;riun~a Fr6perty;'), whic~lisJffected by .operati.ons at the Pr.operty; and ,/' .. ,./,'. ,,: """,;i' .",.,\ ' /' "", i WHEREAS, the Declarant ~i,~hes ,10 i~sure 'iii"; ;ihe~'se .oCt,he Pr.operty d.oes n.ot adversely !lffpet the use .of the Retained Propertyand'perrni!s th!i .owner .o((he Retai)i~d"Pr.operty t.o use an",enjoy,~~e Retained Property., .• " /" ",',,"Y"" "', i:, /' ,/ NOWi,THEREFORE, in c.onsiderati.on~f";h~be~efit{ tQ,~~"deri~e":"he~under, the DeclarAnt here~y m~kes, grants, declares and establishesthi's Djlclaf.~tjo;': ',,' . ." .' . . .' L :DEFINITIONS AND PURPOSE, .' :'. :'" .. , .. ' .. ~;, :' ;: . ".". '\~;''''/' pq;ie;;;: As uSed herein, the term "Project" shall mea~"th~qi~el.opmcnt of the " Pr.opef\Y; the ~eiiilne(Property .or any part thereof, the redevel.opment .of the Property, "th,,_,R~tairied:i)roperty; or"liii'Y'part there.of, .or the use of the Property, the Retained Property,:pr Ii~y,part ,thereof, ..••.. • ./}' , .. ·'·······i·: :: b. IntbntjonullY' 9mitied. ''',J i ....•. c. R.oad~~d Sireer"Designati~nl p::i·gnllt~.ons.of roads and streets in this Declaration shall be dc~med ,(0' applx.t.o t~e streets referred t.o herein as designated and laid .out .on the date here6f;·providcd ihat;fhis,DeClarlltion 'shall c.ontinue t.o apply t.o said streets and r.oads if called by a differerirnarne ~f any,time i~"theJuture and/.or if aligned differently in the future fr.om thefrl!l.ig~men£.oIl"the,·ilatd:here.of. .' {. ;: ," .:' .:' -"'\'-. d, Improvements shall mean andfefer",i.o all strhctu~s,) imJi~vemelrts, equipment, fixtures, .objects used f.or dec.orative or inciderital.,pu.wsCl!{ an,d coii,~tIucli9n of'fmykind .on any Lot whether ab.ove . .or bel.ow the land surf~, ~hetlier.p,¢rrnarien~· .onemp.o~ary, including with.out Iimitati.on, Buildings, utility lines; d~'vewil~, pa~~ pajking .~ii9:. pathways, fences, screening walls, retaining walls, plan(ing~; p.lanie?",~s and ,~~rubs,. . .. '" ." ",., " Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (ClOSing) 20041226 Page 2 of 15 -""'1,,·''" ,.1 ,,,,,, .... 2. == 'oc,,,",',", inigation and drainage pipes and fixtures, catch basins or other devices for the collection , . andlor detention of stonnwater runoff, lighting fixtures and signs . . ~>... Occupant shall mean and refer to, collectively, the Owner and any other Person or .' rersori~ entitled, by ownership, leasehold interest or other legal relationship, to the right to '. occupyall gI.lI!)>' portion of the Property. .-,;. ,t" .... "·"OJ'. (:'~.sh~i.l m,e,.!pi'~nd·~fer to the Person or Persons holding record fee title to the i'PrOpeny (iticlliding, ~ appl~eaI5le, ,Pecll,U'ant, but excluding any Person holding such interest ... merely ~~ s~l:uritY ·(or the'I~if'onna*~",.()f an obligation). lind their respective heirs, . ··succ~ssofs.arid as!ligI)s. , .. ": /," ("'/ /' .;- ." • \' ''!< •• ' :', " -,". ../., '/ ·i, ... , '} . ;:;,.,,f g.EmQ!{ shlln mtiln and referJq'iiny individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate or other legal en*,y .. ,.i ., ./"';' .", ./' ", ';':.. " :. .:(:. t' .... ,.~.""" "', ;-' ":';Il h. Lot shall melln and refer tq'iu!y,ieglillot intciwhichlilerProperty or any part of it has on the date hereof or shali heIeafter bedivide\i:·".,' " -':'. ····:;:i;· .,/ TERM. "-'., . '.", .... :" "':::" ":. "'.:;. ,;': "" .:': ... "~ """"', ':::" / ",::-.,' Thll restrictions declared, reserved, granted' andestablished,her¢by ,shal.f continue . in full force and effe.ct for as long as any portiori'Oftfi'e ~ftaiIiec!.,Piopertfis own~d, gCcupied, or used bi (a) . The B~eing Company, or (b) any direcfo~iin4irC\lt"sllbsidiary/of /fhe Boeing Comp.any. ot (c),any:~orporation, business, or other entity that is cOntfciiled.by,or under common control with T~e Bq~ing Company or (d) any corporate, busincSIl ... Pt:,otherentilY that supplies Th«iBoejfig c6mp~ny .9-r. .. ~ny entity identified in clause (b) or (c);~i!l1 gooc!i or services in supporLpf the avilltion indJslrY, including the business of designing, "pr(ipuc;jng, maintaining, rep~iring;·tir m~.difYing .. ai~craft or spacecraft. This Declaration may be tenru'nated or modified onliWith the c,ansent of T~'e Biieing.Gpmpany or the parties referred to in clauses (b), (c), or (d) if they ·are·th'/(ow6er?r o.fUP~ht.,tir the'Retained Property. 3. COVENAN:rS,' co~iTIONSi:ANb REsTRICTIONS -'\'11' '/::'.i ":,"..:' ,~' ,: The Declarant hereb;" ~~'~en~nts ii~h.lI\.the ~r6~y ~:ii(be~sed by D(~clarant and by all of its successors in title to the Property, and:by all ()ccupants:of,ciHe .. Property in compliance with and subject to the following: '."" ... , .. /.":' .:' :',' .:'-:" ". 'I., .... :: " ,-"'. 3.1. Pennitted Purposes; Prohibjtion pf Ceftai~ U~es.The P~Clpei}y shall be used solely for purposes pennitted by the'D~yelopment A.greemelltfgl' Renton Plant Development dated November 24, 2003 (i1sit fnay,.be afuel]dedJroll'i tinie'tiiti~e, the "Development Agreement"), recorded in the f&grds '1f Kjng QOUlliy, Was.~inglqn llOder recording no. 20031210001637, unless otherwise agr¢edin writil1!!:,by th~·gecl(iTan·i:'The Declarant may prohibit any other use, even if such usc 'is' pennitted under •. or WPljld b~:"'"'' allowed as a nonconfonning use under, the Cilyof Renton ZO!lfngCo~e 9ri'and.,i.lse ..... . regulations as in effect on the date of this Declaration or as they may be"luri6,nded ai any Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 3 of 15 ,'" , , .. ".: , ..... ' ,'" .. time hereafter. PROVIDED that the Declarant shall not object to any first-class .'. institutional quality mixed use development project comprised of residential. retail. ····office. hotel. and/or commercial uses . .. ' ,." '" ,,' ," .. jVith~a.t limiting the generality of the foregoing, under no circumstances shall the •.... . PropeJtY b~.usep in any way for or in connection with (a) the sale, distribution, or display of pqmogfaphic>obscene •. or·so~called "adult" literature, periodicals. movies. videos. pict~, phl)t<l$raphs"qithe liKe PROVIDED HOWEVER that nothing herein shall prghi6it ~lierS};Uc~: atBord~!f; B~rnes~ Noble. Blockbuster, or Walgreens who may sell .ordi~tril:J~te.,pne.9re··~ore 0!f~4rh pro¥9ts.~s ~n ancillary part of it~ primary b~siness; (b) the presentat,lonof sO~lIl1ed "aqu}t".,ent~alOment (c) the operatIOn of a stnp club. gentlell,l,en's club. o.t an ,¢stab\ishme9t ptiMding entertainment in the form of table or lap dancin,!i'ew{d) the.:·sale/disttjbuti9.l,Ii o.t dj~play of drug paraphernalia. The Property shall be kept and maifl'tained in a''[irsrrclass mimne.f:.... '" ,..:.' /' .,' .... " . Without li~tingJhe genetilityo(the fqlYgoitjg, the'fQ,Ii'owing uses are expressly prohibited on thePrpPerty: .i:, c·.... >.. .: .,,"": " .'; / ":':j; ,:: " (I) hos'[,>iials; .. """",', I. . . . ' .... :. "\, ,,;' :.' .,:'; ":;;::",.,:,\"'''''''',::: "'. .../"), , (2) schools. excepUhat p.ost -secoj)dary,v.ooationaJ, .. trad¢. y. .. prof~ssional, and technical educational insti.tuti¢ns:1ihall..be.aJlo~d /' .' "", .' ......... ~. .' .' .' ::' .~. .\': ;: \ .. f .• .:' (3) residential uses and pre-secondary schobldaycare facilities .ire prohibited entirely on Lot 1; residential uses afe'pr~hibjie<lon !he ground .... Ievel' or,.below. ground level on Lots 2, 3, and 4 of the PropeI1Y PRO VIDEO . \"."" , THAT development of residential units at grade level will be'pc;fmitted if the oW~er I1ses'.con$truction methods that will prevent any indoor air migration of 'materi(ds that Jn~Y IIdvers.ely affect human health (such methods to include, by ,." .. ,,' wa:y otexaiUpl~ btlt not limitation, installation of adequate vapor barrier and passiv~'6; ac~ive vel)tilation;syslems), '. ('," / ":;." . . .... '. .... .' (4) men;;cl~bs;.i /' '",': . •. '" (5) trajje(i:ol1~s wjthOliqt\~Ia,an\'s prior written approval; ",::.,,,, ... .",., ;.:. :: .{ .:;' .:: .':,/' (6) distiiJatiori6(bo~fs;. , ..... . '., . .' . ..". (7) junk o~~~i~~M Yards, .or dllmpiriitdisposal, incineration or reduction of garbage, sewage offal.deait alJlinals' or rilfu~; .. ',.,/ ..•. ::. ':./" ':.:: -:. (8) rendering of fat or animiil tissue$; (9) stockyard or slaughter of animllls;f: Renton Lakeshore landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page40f15. '., ... , . . :, ". "~. /.: "::,: I" '-,' (10) refining of petroleum or its products; (11) smelting of ores; . .'. "'. (12) raising or boarding of animals, except for animals kept within .' a auik1ing and necessary for onsite laboratory or research purposes, except for .' .retailers such as P\ltsll1art or Petco that may board animals as an ancillary part of ;.' /:·thei.p·busine~se.s;,/ / :.:' ::: ./,., /,;: ./ ~.t{ :..:.:',";:/ ,/ . :.~. . ;: i' .i·" (l~}rQtail or .Wllol.\lSale by any automobile, truck, camper or nfobile ~dm(}deale~9ips haxinR.pu~jae storage and inventory; \ ""."".,,, .. ' i:' (1;) op~l!iir.bi~~~~k truck terminals without Declarant's priOf wri !ten l\Pproyal ;/ /. i, .... ,;: .,' ,,' •... ".,\".,.,~. 'i(15lanyothe~u~~ thlit isfiazard6u~,to any Lot(s) on the Property or the Retained Propilrty:br cpnliguo\lii' PrlJpe(tiC$"hYreason of fumes, dust, noise, electromagnetic or nucl~ radiation.; therm~l':pgliution, liqHi,d or solid waste , pollution, or particular dliiI~er of fireor:!lxplosion;' .. i"'". /'" .;. " .... .:._, ., .".: '.:::. ,/ .. ,' .:'.' ":"''l"'''''''''''':~ ~:" :."./ . i2,. Desi gn Standards. In conileetiell with .the initial"dev'elopmc;nt ai\d construction of anyJ,mprovements on the Property or th(:!'corjstrti~tiol) .of any mattlrial'RIterations, renov!lfions;br ~dditlons to any Improvements on the Propehy,pr ap'y .rnateri~1 f6dey'elopment of the property, B~yer ¢ovenants that 0) Buyer shall utilize the services' of a diilyiiceiised arc!J'ltectYTaI fi.im e#Perienced in the design of retail shopping centers)indiiniXed,iise dt}velopinen~1i and(ii}tliiinh~ exterior elevations and design of all buildirig,lmpiovements and eliteriorsigtiage •. ,Hghting, landscaping and screening will provide for a lev61.pfmateriaIs, quality anil'lppearan~~'c9inp~b(p to:pther high quality retail shopping center/ mixed-use projects, lakin/nnlo.account the incorp.(:iratioii"of,lenants' or operators' prototypical architectural design features. ,'. ':' / ." .' .,: ... "..... ' ,f ::: """. 3.3. D~¢tm:P.".I tjl'bf H~id H~tmteS:i'fr~ Construction Costs, Mitigation Costs. etc. in Connection witb Develogment of th~'Pl3iperty:'rne owner or owners of all or any portion of the Properly shiillrol\l8s~;theow~er o{owners of all Of any portion of the Retained Property from{\nd s~alI ,indemnify and h~)d harmless the owner or owners of all or any portion of the Retaiil6d pro.perty from ~ndagainst any and all construction costs, fees, or charges associated with ihe devC1oPn.1el1(or .redt;veloprtiehtof all or any portion of the Property, whether such obJ'i'gatio'ii' ta~es the form .of C9.l1struc!ion of public Of private improvements, the payment o(ini!j~a~ion .or impacVfees odhe.payrn.ent of assessments levied by any improvement distri(;1 fbrm~d t9'fin.inci}'the' construption of any such improvements. The owner or owners of all or ~i1y port jon 9f.the ~etllineij Pmperty shall release the owner or owners of. all or any portibn.(}f th.e PrpJ?~rty,fi;Om and sllali) .... indemnify and hold harmless the owner or owners of all o~ any' pOltion dftj1e,Property from and against any and all construction costs, fees, or charges ~sso'Ciatetl'With Ihll·"" .. development or redevelopment of all or any portion of the Retaineq PropCity,:wh~ther: Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 . ", ........." . .i Page50f15 .' ,:' ;: .' ~\ '~. .,; .. ~: ... :: ..... ." such obligation takes the form of construction of public or private improvements, the , payment of mitigation or impact fees or the payment of assessments levied by any " 'ilJlprovement district formed to finance the construction of any such improvements . . :,,~./ .... ;. ,),,4. '::Use of Groundwater. No Owner, occupant, tenant, or other person on the " Pi'operiy shall.\liithdraw or use groundwater on or under the Property for any purpose other,th"o'environmentaI,lesting, monitoring or remediation. , .'" .,"'\',. " l~,J' ,/' .. /3.5,} ,/ Cg~emint No(tci' Object to AnyDevelopment on or Use of the Retained Property. i'. The Qwn~r of'!hePrbperty s~~u.,riot objiicqo any govemmental agency with respect to 'shy '!Ex~inpied l)evllioP91t#' on ~n'or.Any;,portion of the Retained Property, except to the e~ll:nt that,d) ~iich pevll19pmen\i ':llClev.elopment, proposal, plan or agreement would requireihepaym~itt bisaid,pwn~ri)f:"mltigation costs in connection therewith or (2) such development, re~cvelopment, PfopQlial, plan or agreement would contravene items 3.1(4) through (15) or (3)"stlch ctevelopm!iht,redt,lveiopinent, proposal, plan or agreement provides for low income .. or slJbsililzed'housingor (4) sucthj,e~elopment, redevelopment, proposal, plan or agreement,60ntraven~ th't,'De'''~lopm\!nt.~greement as it may be amended from time to time. "E:i!,el1).i>ted Dl7velopri'ieflqm~ans ~!1xdevelopment or redevelopment on, or proposal, pllin, 0)' ag~(!c.rnent fqt any pqrlionof.!hc RetRii're.4 Prqpe'ttythat is owned, occupied, or uSl,ld by"(a):r.rheBoelng'Cq,IllP1lnYior (bfa~§ direct or"lndirechubsidiary of The Boeing Cciinp.~nyA)r;(c) My ~ati6n, business;;' or other <;htity J~at is\:ontrolled by or under commoii"con,!fol witlf'rhe,l3.qeing ¢o¢paJiY or (d) ,any s6rp,orat~, business, or other entity that supplres,ifhe;B~lng,CollJi18n'y orany entity : identified in ciause (b) or (c) with goods or services in shpp6rtof thea'l!t\ti\lii industry, ing/uding the/business of designing, producing, maintainirig\"ref)airjng(or modifying i aircraft"or spa~oraft,'.,..',,..: .. " ;:6:' ..... Rlglits regnrding, Test Wells; Easement regarding Environmeni~i Matters. 0';. ".'.'./ .. :: ." ':', ""'" , ..... ,' T~~ ~cl¥hnt ,:/;lla1i' have"itnonexclusive easement to enter the Property for the purpose of oblllinin~!'¢adi9gs'Jroin '1l'lnitoring wells as shown on the Plan attached hereto Iind'llI.klng s;tiTiples,frorrt'$IJ<lh i'cll$ and for the maintenance, repair, replacement, renewal, decdmm:fssiQning, and ClOSIng .. of sUbh wells. Such easement shall terminate after the Washingtort', Stat6'Departinenl of'Ecdlogy ("DOE") lind the United States Environmental Protecti.on Ag~nC'y ("USEPAh,'re'illoye ali requirements for the continuation of such rti6nitofing;' l;Jporr th\!' reinov.ar of.,all such requirements, the Declarant, at no expense to thtl, owifer':'at ,Ihe,time .. of thti:.,Property, shall close and decommission all such test wellii'"in~ccordilnce ~Jth applicable regulations, and upon such wells being so decommissioned: s~ch .eas~merit sluill te'fminate: W.bil~ the wells are located on the Propeny, they shall be ma.trit~neddn a/good stilte c.ifrepairiii1~ operation in accordance with applicable legal requirementS byilhe/DeclaraTirat n9"exp~nseJo the Owner of the Property. Upon request by the owne{pf.:ihe:Propeiiy,!He.,pecliiraiii'shall provide the logs for such wells at no charge. The'owrter6(the/Property $halLrlo('.: construct any improvements nor allow the construction of 'any' iJ~prdY~m~iits; ~Othe.r . .\)1an ' parking area curbs and paving and drainage/landscaping bermsY:)"ithin qve,'(5) .. :Tee!,:of Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226""",,"" Page 6 of 15 " ~:t"." .. ' .. ' " any of the wells shown on the Plan, The Declarant shaIl provide the owner of the ,. .: ... Property with copies of all reports provided to the DOE and/or USEPA with respect to "slich weIls and monitoring activities and copies of any written communications received / •. ' b{ihe:peclarant from DOE, USEPA or any other govemmentaJlluthority over such wells ... (1\5 the·'case may be, an "Environmental Authority") with respect to such weIls or test . results;" If,an"Ilnvironmental Authority orders, or indicates in writing that it may order, tne irfutalfation ofaddlti9nal"m~nitoring wells on the Property, the Declarant shall give .ihe Owner ,.oL.the ::Pro~ity wjitten notice thereof as soon thereafter as is reasonably .. pos'sible, ,iSolong:a~"the pt.0pos~d'loc,!ltions of such additional weIls and the manner of ···.their,' ins~U~tfon ,shall not tihf(),ilsona~IY)~ferfere with either the business operations on the Property' oqhe planI)C~',pevelopfi1ept 0r;redevelopment of the Property, the owner or ownets.pf the"PropllrtY,_hall!lot unr,e~dl'lably withhold consent to the instaUation of such udditioriiihveIls, .iNolWiths\andip&itge 'f9regoing, if the owner or owners of the Property reasonably believes that the loCation Qf such additional wells will interfere with either said owner's busifl~SS 9per~tions 0(1;: th«'Property, or/the planned development or redevelopment of the ~roperiy,,.'said··owner .r,eservcs th~,,,right to contest the particular location of any such w~lIs."im~rwitli' respe91" tCi: .• B.uch c9Jites't, the owner or owners of the Property shaU hold the Declarljllt .. Jre~ and hamiJeSs.,Wit~' resp!(~t thereto, Such contest shall..be conducted by advising' the Decla.r.~nt of s,uchobj~tion's:""The D¢I<lfant Lots shall 'prQvide such objections to the Environmi}ntai Authority 1104 th~ DecJilra~'t and the owner or owners of the Property shaIl blle,!1lill~dio provide .rep.\1l~ent~tiv~s w,rio shall be prescnt wnelj such objections are discussed wit~'tne .• EnYlronn:l.(l!ltal ~utl)ority, Upon the ,"instailatlon of such additional wells, the Plan shalU;e "mended to indicate thcir locations by'~n ~inendment to this Declaration that shall 'be tcc~fde(i in.·thc.f Rl)tords and the easemeiit reserved to the Declarant pursuant to this paragraph':~ha)ib¢ deemed to apply to such!idditionaJ·wc!is. \. i .. ····: : ' .. -{ . ':, ~~;h tP~ •. bechlfant rind the "DOE" may enter the property'f6r the purpose of ·'-lQ,y'~sdgatfng.6r ~medIati.ng-'Ilny:.hazardous substance or dangerous waste (as such tenns are used in a)iipIi9'~bl~'law) or other substance regulated or governed by any law related to the proteiition':6f the.eri'virqnrfient or of.numan health, which substance is discovered after the date hCn;f>f tl?, e'~i~t OIlor b&lqf t.Jie s~rface of the Property, or migrating on or below the surface orUie Propetty, as the .Tesl/It o~.''prior operations by Declarant on or in the vicinity of the Property, PROYIDJi:D that any d~magc to improvements on the Property caused by Declarant in,. conduttirig stich inves'iigatio~ l!fld remediation efforts shall bc repaired by Declarant ai'l'ts··iiole.cost'and;ex~n~e, arld'PRQVIDED FURTHER that the foregoing does not apply to claifus agMilst I?OE; Which claiipsthll owner of the Property shall pursue against DOE directly,. " .. ,/ . . . ... .. .. ""'. 4, ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER M~TIE~S .• 'TheDI,l61~nt,~h.an·-h;~e.the right to enforce this Declaration by obtaining injunctive relief,:and.ieir by otjier lawful mQansr Hpwever, Declarant shall not nave any lien rights (other than as a judgment lienor,!n c()r\s~ue~ce'of'a suit or action to enforcc Declarant's rights hereunder) or secuiity iriterest:s in(and-,to.thl Property arising from the provisions of tnis Declaration, or any breach tnereo(or 6tllerWtsei)Uf~I.I!!nt to ':.' any applicable laws in connection with tne enforcement of this Declaration, :.>' Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 .... , .. ,.' Page 7 of 15 " 4 .. 1 Constructive Notice and Acceptance ····':;.Every Person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or .:·tQ.any portion of the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and . agtccdjo every. covenant, condition, restriction and provision contained in this Declaration, wheth~r.or not any;referellcc'to,tpis Declaration is contained in the instrument by which such'~ersOl),'8cquir¥ an,iitteres,tIin the Property. :.::::; ,;! /"':.,' '''',,,\,. /,4,2 D~lafant'pR\ghts t.i~~erO;her Documents .' . ":, '.'.:, .. ,,/ :/:. :.:.",:' :/,.,~/;.~,( , :(".:,~/ .. :} \"Nothil)lfherein ~6ntliined shilJ\ p,reju1lice or diminish in any way Declarant's rights under an9'otner documents that h~Xe qi:eh.'or that may be subsequently recorded against all or any portions qi'theJ'ropeity, /' .;' .... ;;.... . .:, J' .,' •• """" '~:. "" .:: 4.3 Notices i ,,;. :::i .,," ,." ,,,,,,. .' Except as otherwis~~4~ssi~ p;;ovjii~~ i~'th~ p'l~atio.!I,!?r required by law, all noti.ces, consents, requests, demands, apprriYQI&, 8uthorizatibnrimd oihllr communications provict6dJor herein shall be in writing an.d shall'~ d¢l,mect to':hqy,el~n\luly gi've~i if and when pc..sbTlally served or seventy-two (72),hOllrs !.itter.beil)g'serit,p.iUnited.Stat~s first ,classrn.!lil, pqstage prepaid, to the Owner of the P~peliy ~ftheJ'rQpertY)Il1Ii.'to ,the Declara~t at J30eing Realty Corporation, 22833 S.EJBh#;k ~u~gilt Road/Mq! 7W-60, Issliquah, WI} 98027,Atttention: Vice President DeveI6~~eht:,Ph<)iie,No .. 425-373-7550 . . ;. ,: ., ..... ';: ," ." , With ~espec'tt~ (i) any such notice, consent, request, derrl!l1)d •. apprp~aI, autlioriza.tiqrior c,?mmQnication and (ii) any document or instrument'gi.y~ii or made availa~le tjl any,O~nerhereunder and which might concern an Occupant of such Owners' :",LQt,.lrshllll bl;)'the sole:tespoll~ibll.ity of such Owner (but in no event the responsibility of the Declafantj;.to .. ihake;a~opy the~f available in a timely manner to such Occupant . . ,.,,' ./ .,,:. ,.:""':",', ' .• ; ,', ", .~.' ,.,', .. 4.4 N~:WalVC;l""":" /' "'''-''';'' .. """"" .:: :~. ..< .:,,: ,: ';:" The failure to:enf~rce"iinY p~vjsi~n 9fthi~'[)ec.llU'ation shall not constitute a waiver of the right to thereafter~nfon;esu,ch proviskm or t~e !iSh,tto enforce any other provision hereof. ".,' ", :" :, .," ,;' ;:: ,~/' .... ,,' .•.. ;;" 4.5 Effect of Invalidation .,' Each covenant, condition and res~cti6n O{;hisbeclara.iion,Jsin;~~d~d to be, and shall be construed as, independent and severable:froll)"eac,h other 9oyi:n8l~tf'l;:onditioJl"and restriction. If any covenant, condition or restriction Of this Declaratlon is held to~b({inv'lliid by any court, the invalidity of such covenant, condition or r~stripti9n s~alji1qt ~ff~ct th~/ ..... validity of the remaining covenants, conditions and restrictiOii's'hcrcoC:-:",,,, .. ,,,.; "", ,... . Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 6 of 15 .. ~. ," ", .,.' "'t",'",:' 5. ·_----_ .. _ .. _-_ ... ".-..... . 4.6 No Discriminatory Restrictions ., No Owner or Occupant shall execute or cause to be recorded any instrument that unpos~s a restriction upon the sale, leasing, or occupancy of his Lot on the basis of race, sex, .. marita(status, national ancestry, color or religion. ',,' " Ou~~'i;Ii\>~ Remeq.ies·'", " .' ',. ,._t· .'\ ~: ;l:"',r l .i' i Ea¢h reinedy provid\'tl'for in-thi~.Declaration shall be cumulative and not exclusive. ,. The failure to,exertis'6,any remel;lY provJB¢Jor in this Declaration shall not constitute a \"ai v~r ofsuth rc;meqyorofi;l!iIY'oth~'r'e~eqy provided herein or therein. ", . /".. ,: ,I:~.;. ,?' .' , ,·; .... i' 4,8 Attorneys' .Pees:and Costs, ",' / . .' : . ',\ \ )' :.:' :' .:.: ::: ,{ .... \. >;:'" If any Perso~:;cornrrieO(:is litlgationf6r' thejudicial ilJteipretation or enforcement hereof, or for damages for the,brel!6h h~r~iif th".prevliilingp~y shall be entitled to its reasonable anomeys' feehn~'coult arid6ther-60~,incun.-e(I: .• Y "':'" "":.,:;:" \ ::" :. ,.,"',,,, "':,::' " 4.9 .i"" Estoppel Certificates .. '" "i, .", ';': ,""'''-; .: <. >., ).. / :/ "':';:':';'.-:i"""'~;:. '~'. :< j' ," MallY time and from time to time'wi.lhln"twenty(2q}days IIft~r \\(ntt~h ngtice or r¢qucst,by anpwner, Declarant at no cost or expe~e t9th¢' reCJ.1I!l~9ng pll'itY,ish~H execute ,and cleliver to',:any mortgagee, ground lessee or purchaSer ~f th~ ~ro'perty 8.statt)inent .i certifying that'!this Declaration is unmodified and in full fcirce and effeCt or If )here have . bech m!lilific,~tions that it is in full force and effect as mo(lified'i~'thC:-lTIannci specified in .0' the sta,temeJ)t aJ1d·that~mong other things reasonably requested there ¥ists,:,ho default under thi~,DeclaJ:1iti6n other tlian as may be specified therein. If Declarant fiiil~ ,to deliver any such '" statemel\l\I'JtWn.,twenty(20) days lifter written notice or request by an o'wner, and if "oecll\llint further falis \(~:de\i.ver'sLjch statement within ten (10) days after a second written request frOm ap O~nerXwh'ich sectind written request shall specifically refer to the deemed estoppel uijderthi's selJtt;/lce) ,In-ell it shaltQe conclusively deemed that there exists no default under this DcclaratiG'n 6n the' partQf ~aid OWner. :.:,.,.,,,.,,., " .. ' "';' ,:,", }' .; GENERAL PROVISioN~:'''''':' .' .-', ... ~ " " " .\~. "\';:.. ,,/ ,/ ,\', \~: ,:' ,:" .,.,:: ,,>""". a. Runs with Land. The'burr;len a~d ¥nefits ,pf thti'covenants, conditions, easements and restrictions contained herein:, with"respe¢'t to the "Property; shall run with the land described in Exhibit A, The ':b~rdt)ns and" benefit~ of the c~venants, conditions, easements, and restrictions contained-h~reiil with iesp~ct tdthe RefainedI'roperty, shall run with the land described in Exhibit B: p~ovioEb th'at fbI' ~ii Icing as'The Boeing Company is the owner of any part of the Reuii'ned Property, ,The Boeing··Compal\Y. shall have the sole right to amend, modify, and enforce thispeClaratiQii./,: ',,.-, '-i/ .:::' .oJ Renton Lakeshore landing CCRa (ClOSing) 20041226 Page 9 of 15 ,.' b. Headjngs . Paragraph, Section and Article headjngs, where used in this Declaration, ., are inserted for convenience only and are not intended to be a part hereof or in any way to "'define, limit or describe the scope and intent of the particular provisions to which they refer . • ~,' . '::·Law. This Declaration shall be interpreted and enforced pursuant to the laws of . th& St~te o.f.wll~hington, without reference to its choice of law rules. • • If ' .: ;" " , .... "\~~\. d. .: /Sev!lfllbiliiy. J(/~ny lcrm or provision of this Declaration or the application .:theie9·f to,'imyiperson"or cij'Cu\nst;mce.~ shall to any extent be invalid and unenforceable, tl}e reml\i'nde,t ofihis.,Decliif,a~~9ri· or tliC ~pplication of such term or provision to persons '(ii-circumslli'nces'other than those as'lo.,wI1lch it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected therel>§, arid el\th'&j1lI anil.'ipr6vi~fon of this Declaration shall be valid and shall be enfol'ted·t& theex~iit pertnitt~ib/law. e. Constru2tiO!l:"'Thf{D~;~~~;o!l{:halrlie'liberaIlYC()nstrued in order to effectuate· its purposes. i" .... .... ..' .,:' .. 'i·' f. Singular InClude~ pi~ra{ W6etievett~e'~6i1tixvbf';his Declaration requires, the sing!,.!lar shall include the pluraJ,\ind vi~e vers~, and the m~culi'iie·shall. inc1udelh!l feminine and th6n~uter, and vice versa.,,,,,:: .... > '.., " .... :,"::.:.::', ..:,. IN W'Q'NE$S WHEREOF, Declarant has duIYiexe¢ut~iI this Declaritti9h as' of the day and yeiir first iierein~bove set forth.·"./ i :, ..... ) ,:.' i' .i :j .. ~.,."' .• " .:'" ,/ ,\' ,""I" ,,' '., . .... .... . ,' '",.' ,,: .. ' , J' ".,' . '. .~ ." ";'" ., ..... ··:t .' By: Colette M. Tcmmink ,..' ." ~;:: " Ti~le: Authorized Signatory .i: "::,., r ",i' " .' ".' ... ,' ':, .' ............. <y. .' < ..... . ".' .' Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 10 of 15 .. STATE OF WASHINGTON /f9~Tr OFJGNG l ss . .. ' ., /:,' /.' .,:.'I."c:·~~i;:;>t~at I lqlow"'Qr have satisfacto.ry evidence that the perso.n appearing :.:befOre .me an<,l'ma~n~ this ao~nowle9gment is the perso.n who.se true signature appears o.n this doCument"".. .: .' i .; i /":i .". :::' ( .. /:: :/: ,;:::;: ::>: ,1:"1//"" "'.~,?; :e::;;. ' .. ' '. dh .. t~is f7th4ay pfj~ecem¥ri~<>1;befo.re me perso.nally appeared Co.lette M. Te!"min~( to/me )<no.WJl to. b,l: ,!~ti': . .Autho.rized Signatory of the corporatio.n that executed the wlihin"andJo.regoing .. jnstJ;lIr1C:.ilt;·'~nd ackno.wledged the said instrument to. be the free and vo.luntary act lIjId d~d o(said;t;orporaJion, f!?r the uses an,g purpo.ses therein mentioned, and on o.ath stated that he.:Nas a!lihor,f~eclito ex~ute said instrumeri·~ .. and that the seal affixed, if any, is the co.rporate seal of sai9'Co.rpOra~o.n"i /. . ... " . ./ WITNESS my ~a~d'a~d ~f~;dal si~;':!~e,t IIffi~~h th~.gay and year first above written. .'.' .... '., ... " "';'.;' :: \:,"", •. ;. ,/' .:" ,,"',.. "'\1:\."., •. :,;" , 1.\""" "'>V,'::"fi!'C,'''''i \; if;.? '4&1J<U<d1. fLJ..~ =~rn~~liC 7~~~a~~ton M~ Co.mmissione~pires:7:::!re~:S , ,,'; ..sUtG&11 J.. a,rn <S.pL""'::Y'~er . .;. [Type or Print Notary Name] ::"" ,:- '::" .;:' i :'.'- "::.".,', .. ,,.,. .,'.< ..,' Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 11 0115 .. / .", EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of Property "I ..... """""'i~O!{ 1, 2, 3'~!ld"~', ,J.lQ,ei~gLa,k.e8~~;'jianding, a Binding Site Plan, recorded under Recording Np,2Q041223000856;' ,;,' /',} '''," .. ....;.;.: ,." .~':,. :':: .:." ::' ",'" ... / ';:".':; -; ",f,' ;:. ... /,' )" .~:::" Situate'in thi) Cit):"of R~tolJ; Co~q(i o'f King( Stat~'of Washington. "':," ".:-' ...... .,,:' ":.' ~:'~ ;:, .~~ !! "',.~ .. ' .. ' ./} .:: "'./ "":'" ,~ .-! '" ,,,. ",·, • ."'.Y .:"". " . ", .. :" Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 12 of 15 "'," ...... "",;': ,.-"', ... , .... , .... EXHIBITB LEGAL DESCRIPT[ON Of Retained Property "'/Parceli"msoo0105 1;2 4:&RENTON I;ARilfACREAGE ADDALL LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 4 TGW VACALLEY ADJ TGW ALL . LOTS 1 THRU.6BLK S OFSD PLATTmy VAC N 7TH ST(CALIFORNIA AVE) & VAC ALLEY .••. ADJTGW POR!OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4 OFSEC 8-23-5 OAF -E 100 FT lV N OF C/l OF SO N 7TH ST p\'iOJ WL yi.ess f!t'60 FT TIi~)'F & LI!SS W ,:10F.JOF POR LY SLY OF N 300 FT THOFALSO LESS POR DEse UNDER AUDrrORFILE ~25236 -TaW POR OF SDNW 114 OF SW 1/4 OAF -E 100 LY SOF eiL·OF ~D N;rrli STPROJ Yf~V~ESS ~a15,Ft.1HOF & lESS W 10 FT THOF (AKA lOT 2 OF RENTON llA#8-88 REP'1I881 1 16900n -TG\lIIPCl,AOF RENTON SHORT PLAT 1193-89REC 118911149006 SQJ~H9AT PLAT .OAF ;:POR QF.8Q JiIW 1/4 OF SW 1/4BAAP OF INTSN OF NlY LN OF SDSUBD wn'ffNLY pRODUCTION OI;.·WL,:VMGN OF PARK AVE N TH SLY AlG SO MGN AS PRODUCED TAP WCH IS 715.'FTN OF SLY I.N OF'SD SUBD & THE TPOBTH W PlT & DIST OF715 FT N OF SlN OF SO SuBQ.TO Nl;V PR.OD 9F cti. QF'~~LlY AVE (t,l Pi;Ll Y ST) TH Sl VAlG SO PRODUCED C/l TAP ON N'I::VMGN Of.'·N ~TH !iT (6'rH AVE N) WCHls ~o FT N OF C/L OF SO N 6TH ST TH ELY ALG SO NLY MONTO. WLy MGN 01=50 P~RK AVE N .TliNlY AL.G SO WLY MGN TO TPOB LESSS 185 FT OF E 107.50F.T L7SS RO.i· ,:"." "",' ,," 'i .' "''''"", '" "', .:'.1.:,. .,.' .::\ / .::~' .;",:,., .....•.. , ..... ". .:"' " Parc81:722~000115 3-4-5 4RENTONFARM ACREAGE ADD " .•... •.••.. ,: (' .... ,,,, .. ,, ~. i' Parcel: 7ii646oo06ii';... ". ' .. '. " ./ . i, 1 THRUi1218iSARTQRISVlllE ADD LOTS 1 & 2 OF RENtON,SHPRTJ!L,o,TII28~-79RE.C #7907109002TGW lOTS 1 THRU 8 OF BlK lSD SARTORISVlllE ACD L.E!SS ST TGWW 83.5 FT OF lOT ,11 SO,BlKj.ES$ N20 FT & TOW W 83.5 FT OF lOT 121N SD,BlK'TGW LOrS 1 iHRU 131N BlK'll O.F RENTON,'FARM PLATlESS ST SO SHORT PLAT OAF ;LOrS,g-10-1H2BlK 1 SO SARTOF\jSVI~LE ADD,,,,&S$~ 83.80 FTLOT 12 AND lESS W 83.80 FTOF.J3?FT~OT 11 ~rcel: 7224000~80/ ... ".. . '"./ 10tHJ~U 171"~ENTOt:l'FA;!'IM PlATLESS E 90 FTOF FOLG N 30 FT lOnO & LOTS 11 THRU 13 LESS srs lGW POR VACAllEY AD~OI"'ING . . ,.,.~' . \, ( :',' /' / .. ,,'" " . Parcel: 08230591lj2. ·."."i /' /""" ':. 082306 162BET AT .•. NXN O~,f.I,(N QF NW 1/4 O.FSW 1/4 WITH W LN OF PARK ST TH STO PT 716 FT N OF S LN OF SUBD,;r,I::!.w TO N ~ROO OF,elL OF:'PEL!-Y ST THS TO PT 660 FT N OF S LN OF SUBDTH W TO PT 586 FT E OF NI> RIW TONXN N'PRODOF MAIN ST C/l TH S 630 FT TH W TO E LN OF NP RlWBEL T LN TH NrO N tl'4 OF SOBDTHEiTO BEG.,lESS RD '.' .:.;~:' :" . P I 0823059209 '\,..... .• ' ): .......... . arce: ..... "..... . .' ::. '. PARCEL B OF CITV OF RENTONSHORT .PLAl'.NO'93-S9 FlECOROING{IIO 8911149006 SO SHORT PLAT OAF -POR OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 -QAAP OF INTSNOF.,r:!L;Y LN O~"SD.SUBWITH NlY PRODUCTION OF WLY MGNOF PARK AVEN.TH SLY ALG SO MIlN ~l! PROi;>UCEO TAP WCH IS 716 FT NOF SLY LN OF SO SUBO & THE TPOBTJ;I W ~.lT 8I'0IS1 O~715 FT.N OF.Jl.LN OF SO SUBO TO NLY PROD OF C/L OF PELLV AVE N PEt.LY ST.,TH ~LYAlQ$D ~R9DUCeDC/L TAP ON NLYMGN OF N 8TH ST 6TH AVE N WCHIS 30 FT N OF'CIt OF.,SD N 6TH ST TH ELY ALG SO NLY ~o~~10r:t~s~G:O OF SO PARK AVE N THNLY ALG SOWL t~r r,o T~B lE~~ 1 8~ FTOf. E "., .. ::.','.,/"" Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 13 of 15 ',', "' <"':::/" .,., ..... ' .. ~::. ::~.:.,:/ { .,,' .:Parcel: 0823059019 /082305 19PORTION OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 -BEGIN INTSN OF W LINE OF PARK STWITH THE N :' LINE OF SIXTH AVE N TH N ALONG SAID W LINE 185 FTTH WEST 107.50 FEETTH SOUTH 185 . FEEl'THEAST 107,60 FT TO POB LESS PORTION TO CITY OF RENTONUNOER RECORDING NO ,i2Q6090448 '&NO 9406070574 . i pilrce{oii2306~187 . ....•. 0823061a7POR OF GOV·\.OT 1 IN NW,1/4 OFSEC 06-23-05 TGW POR OPLAKE WASH SHORE .:LANDs ,BEG HE COR OFGOV L.ot l'tHN 86-51-05 W ALG N LNOF GOV LOT 1 & ALG WLV : PROOOF Sli L.N 9110:01 FTMiIiTO WL Y'MGN OF ABANOONEDBURLINGTON NORTHERN 'RAILWAY AiWTH,(:ONTG N 1J8-61-O$W 71i1,·S9.FTMIL TO EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMEHT SO MONIiM~NT;BEING¥l ANaL!: POI~:r,Q~'NLY,i),!;9FSHUFFLETON STEAM PLANT PROPERTYTH N 43-06:156 W. 66G.of)"FT tNL TO INNEI'! AARJlORlNPF LAKEWASHINGTON SHORE LANDS THS 46-52-27W 607.69 FTTHS 43-0a.56 Ii 717.n.FT TotpOB TH S 14-36-26 E 741.50 FTTAP ON NWLY MGN OF ABANDONI;DBUFiLINGTONiNORTJ;fERN'RAILWAY RlWTH S 50-51-48 W ALG SO ABANDONED R/W·129.32,'mtl N 2D-38-24.,w/700;81 FTTH N 46-53-04 E 215 FTTH S 43-06-56 E TO TPOB PER CITY OF RE~0~tOTLIN~iAO~NO.004:~.8,.I~ECORDIN9'~?8808309006 . , ,._.... ,':.i' . ~'., ;,'.f! Parcel: 0823059204 . .:' , ;:'. :' ,",'< /' 082305 204POR BN RR 100 FT FWJ IN GL1·2 •. 3 &'NWJ/4,OF SW 1//1 OF6-23·5 80 IN GL 1 80 2 OF 7- 23-6 ALL L Y BTWN PROD OF N LN6THAvE,cN .80 LtfEXTNtl.8EI;Y &::RAOIALL YTO TRACK CIL FR SUR STN 1088+00& LY SELY OF LN BAAP.26 FT S.ELY AT'RlNFR,SO STH.TH STRAIGHT SWLYTAP 25,FT NWLV MEAS FR SELY R!WL~ Ai'l?,VI'I STN,107~ . .j.0~:fH sWt:.Y TAPO!'lNV/LY RIW LN & SELYiOF··SPUR TR STN 8+85.6 & TERM',.. '<" i' .' "".. ..... ":. /'i ";' .;;, ",1' ,,:' ",1" ':', \; "./ Parcel: 0823059031',· ''':':"",., .. "., ,/ .. " ". " .. ,,)' .~i /,,: 082306,37N 11lI0.FT OF S 660 FT OF NW 1/4 OFSW 1/4 LYBET'CrA LNSOF PELLyAVEi80 MAIN ST PROO.LESS':RO·" '. ."./ " .: / .:: i i par~l: 0!23051'001 t' .... ? .':i:' 07~05 lPOR .OF E.1I2.0F$~C 7·23·05 L YEL V OF CWW #2 80 NL Y OF N,~T:H $TINSE 114 OF SEC LESS NP R/W LESS 8T TGW VAC LOGAN ST LYNWLY OF LN 30 FT NWLY QF GOVMOR LN TGW 2Np CL SHtosAQlisUS.~TO two 20 FT RIW ESMTS 80 POR OF SE 1/4 OF SE,:ii4 OF SECBEG NXNS MGN O~'l'HITH ,ST WITHW MGN LOGAN AVE TH SLY ALG SOST 995.34 FTTH S 89-16-45 W TO El.y, M.GNCWV/ #:!'TH ~ AI,(l SDMGNrO S MGN N 8TH 8T TH E TOBEG LESS BEG NW COR THOF THSELY ALG WLY .. LN 3.2&.75 FTTHN 89-45-45 E 368.34 FT TH N00-14-15 W TO S MGN N 6TH STTH W TO QEGbESS 13-':70 FT·,THOFTGW PORS OF NW 1/4 SEC 08-23-05 & SE 1/4 SEC 06- 23-05 & SW 1/4SEC 05-23-QS'L;V NWLYOF NP /Wi& SWLY OF LN BEG NXN WLY EXT OFN LN OF GL 1 WITH W MGN·SO.fVW TH W .783.39 'P:fTH N43·06,56 W 680.06 FT MIL TOINNER HARBOR LN TH S 46·52-27 WALG 80 LN ~i17.1i9 FJ TO Tp,OBfH S;43<116-56 E 713.87 FT TH 846·53-04 W 215 FT TH S20-38-24 W.TO NWL Y M"N SONP,R/W .SU~ Tet-SD 1I0 F.'I; ESMTS LESS BN OPER STRIP ADJPOR OF SELY LN IN SO SEP 08-23.;c)SCES$ ST.RO 1I,7TGW'VAC LOGAN STLY NLY OF SPUR TRACKS TGW BLK C LK WASH·SH,.LDS ~RD fjUPp,L,:' ,; ,,' .' "' .. Parcel: 0723059046 ':, .;" ... ,:: ./' .,./ ,," .. , I· ;;""-'., 07230S 46BEG AT NXN OF S MGN OF 6THAVE~NWrfH E MGN OF COM WW:# 2 TH S13-29-00 E ALG SO E MGN 328.75 FT TH N 89-45-45 E PLLot!:>.,& ~20 Fjs OF 61;frA.VE N'366,3~FT TH NOo-14- 15 W 320 FT TO S MGN OF6TH AVE N TH S 89-45;45 W AliG SO S MGt-!'493:02Fr TO' BEG " ,:' ,;' • • .1 ,:'-;', -".,.,.;' Parcel: 0723059100:' . ..':: ";:"\ ::'" 072305100ABANOONEO RR R/W OVER E 1/20F STR 07.23-()5&W 1/2 OFSW 1/4. OF STR08·23,05 LV BET N MGN OF NO 4TH ST & SOMGN NO 8TH ST .' .' ,. .. "'./ . ;: ..... : .. ' Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 14 of 15 :':"'! ,:. :: , ..... . ", /" "'1,.,.", ', .... '. ,/ ..... , , k, ....... ••• .:: .' iBUT'EXCLUDINO Lots I, 2, 3, and 4, Boeing Lakeshore Landing, a Binding Site Plan, .. record.ed under Recording No. 20041223000856. , .. , Situaiti'in the City of Renton. County of King, State of Washington. , ' : . ..... ' .... ' ,., ..... ; .. . / / ,. i: .. " .' ... :'.". .i • .. :;""" ;.; , ,,.., .. ,,. '" "/"".""""" . """"'''' ~ .. ' '.\ ,.,./ .' ;,. ,.' \ .~. ,'>' ....... / Renton Lakeshore Landing CCRs (Closing) 20041226 Page 15 of 15 ~"", Rf(fRfNCCS .... 0 Clfr (Y IIfOlIQly i'lo~t PIA[ 'V I/Pfl"~ P~IlC('1 JiI , " life, NIl lOCIII105IH',......,. BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 " ~, BINDINO BIT!! PLAN SE 1/4 seCT. 7, TWP. 23N" RaE. 5/:" W.M. sw 114 SECT. 8, TWP, 23 N" RGE. 5E., W,M CITY OF RENTON, KINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON '::, "".""'::" .i>' lOT SA :"/ {tlHI,Oll,f 1(1 II. ..... :,.;,~.'~.I <Ie, •• ' . .. ,.... ,(: "'h",.: flOEING RE~L TV COMPANY ClfVOF RENTON CITY OF RCNTQN SURyCY CONTROL' "fS ro CITY or IICNTCIPo $IJII"', COOoIIIOl. Nn~~ 1I00000001ItN'5. ~s SI'O~ (N'j S>l£rTS , Ajj(I J LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN , "_, I , "G' , .~ a' I I --J , I , , I LUA-07-0of8-8SP lND-J'·OOltl BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 .,"'-'''''', ,,," ';. 81NDINO 81T! PUN SE 114 SECT. 1. 1WP. 2JN .. RGE. 5E .. W,M, SW lIof SECT. 8. (Wp. 2.1 N .• RGF.. ,E .. W.M. CITY OF ReNTON, KING COUNTY, WASH/NaTON >. J > < is " , 'I ~ .:\ SCALf 100 • V 5D 'ro ~' (rEnJ I INCH. 100 rr ~ --Jo:I 70' aOE/NO REAL TV COMPANY CITY OF RENTON ",., LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN I?CNf(W /(I"IG SCAl t: ," -roo' PROJu;r NO J211'4 t)RAWlNC FILe NAME:; J2t\14-SURV-BSO!.OIro1l --;<> Clr.OF"("~ ClWI'ItOI. WCWIJ/4//T 'U7 f' ~ f' CQjojC, WC!>i '<II/ COPPU /'j// rou..o C.(ISTlHG W!lMJW(/VT 11/ CASf. ACCCPIlD .. , cPjlr~ or 5fC~OoI '-JJ-~ IV 'aJUJG'''' ~,'~::g,~rr-C0 A fier Record ing Retum to: ;J!?:~«5t'1 f.., .~ Ci-rlfl'l'l3 . :In C.-~~Y/~ y'lt.( fJ/. 1,,11 . . Eon-u:' /1 v0rl 1~;)../ CLAIM OF LIEN Grantor (Owner of property P-..~' CO Ct n d wbose property II being lIened): O~~ Pa'nfo r) Grantee (Name olJlenelalmant): S-;-r:..~! )hf LlfLC ,fll"<f21 t?f; .PI c... Ab~revlated Legal DeseriDtloa: -s.-: c: -h..,., e, ~ 'U.p' .:L:} NU R+, ,t2a~ 5 (eo&. IAlII.lIIoekl, ... 1: f!!A~ Assessor's' Property Tall Parcel/AccouDt No.: In .8,.306'" 10<t7 20080111001220.: : Notice is hereby given that the person named below claims a Lien pursuant to RCW Ch. 60.04. In support of this Lien, the following infonnation is submitted. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Name 0/ Lien Claimant: (5h..Cl.i"-irr Lt ne Str if} I nr. ]:yL I Address: ,9?<lI~ qffi p/vJ. 6:.-:;;;;}/1 u.14 tff();)~ Telephone Number: "fo}c:;: , IJ.j lp ~ 1 u~ Date on which the claimant began to perform labor, proliide professlanal services. supply material or equipment or the date on which employee benefit contributions became due: Ocl I, 2t)07 Name o/person or contractor Indebted to clalmant:!lJllte 17" u. //1 Description o/the property against which a Liel1ilt/&f:J;J?:) ct. . Name 0/ the owner or reputed owner: ~ '1'~ CO. 6. The last date on which labor was performed; pro/esslonol services were finnished: contributions to an employee benefit plan were due; or material. or eqUipment was furnished: Oct / "?: ;J-IJO 7 7. Principal amount/or which the Lien Is claimed is: $ 9,,71.;),,. 70 8. (/the claimant is the assignee o/thls claim so state here: [81 No o Yes. State name 0/ Assignor: _____________ _ Appendix 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF 16-rtf'} ) ) 55. ) 20080111001220.':"" . CLAIMANT'S ATTESTATION t.::\...rc:>h1 y ~. !\I) off', 1'1-, being sworn, says: I am the claimant or a person authorized to act on behalf of the claimant. I have read or heard the foregoing claim, read and know the contents thereof, and believe the same to be true and correct and thai the claim of II en is nol is made with reasonable cause, and is nol clearly exces,ive under penalty of peJjury. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMANT'S SIGNATURE On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual, or individuals described In and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that the abo"" claimant or person signing for said ctaimant signed the same as his or her free and voluntary act and deed, for tho uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this day of __ , 200_. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at: My commission expires: CORPORATE CLAI~'S SIGNATURE . On this / / -day of .A", ..... )' ,20 OR, before me personally appeared k_.--v.k(~ ,Af"'",,"--?TT to me known to be the ~t, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other authorized officer or agent, as the ~ may be) of the corporeilOii1iiiili:xecuted the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowiedged said'instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath slllted that he or she was authorized to execute said Instrument and that any seal affixed hereto is the corporate seal of said corporation. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this day. (SIgnature and 1I11e of ofJIcer wllh place of residence oinO/I1I)I public). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7~)V~ C;;"'IV iY .:> '/IS/ZGx:>6' Appendix 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION POR SECS 7 & 18.23.5 & POR TOBINS 0 C INCL POR PLATTED & VAC STS LY WLY OF COMM W W , 2 N OF N LN DIXIE AVE & ELY OF STATE HWAY' 5 & ELY & SLY OF FOLG LN BEG ON ELYMGN SO HWAY AT PT5 FT S OF N LN OF LOT 8 BLK 18 BRYN MAWR TH E 89.23 FT THN 05-16-51 E 438.90 FT TH N 4O-09~7 E 188.55 FT TH N80 FT TH N 29-00-40 W 197.07 FT TH S 88·27·28 E 90.83 FT TH N 01-32-32 W 40 FT TH S 88·27·28 E 234.53 FT TH 9 35-00-00 E 142.41 FT TH E 403.70 FT LESS LOTS 19 TO 22INCL BLK 4 RENTON REAL ESTATE COS 1ST ADD LEiSS PORTION FOR LANE HANGAR CONDOMINIUM After Recording Return to: Linville Ursich PLLC AUn: David Linville 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3850 Seattle, W A 98104 20080118001094.: : III AMENDED CLAIM OF LIEN Gruntor: Grantee: Abbreviatcd Legal Description: Assessor's Property Tax Parcell Account Nos.: Original Recording No.: THE BOEING COMPANY STRAIGHT LINE STRIPING, INC. THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS I AND 3 AND SECTION 7; AND OF GOVERNMENT LOTS I, 2 AND 3 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANOE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOR FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHMENT A 07·2305·9001 08·8660·0050 08·8660·0060 08·8660·0190 20080111001220 Notice is hereby given that the person or company named below claims a lien pursuant to RCW 60.04. In support of the lien, the following information is submitted. I. Name of Lien Claimant: Address: Phone Nllmber: Straight Line Striping, Inc. 23413 91h Place West Bothell, W A 98021 (425) 486·3765 2. Date on which the claimant began to perform labor, provide professional services, or supply materia/or eqilipment: October I ii, 2007 20080118001 094 .• );,. 3. Name of person or contractor Indebted to claimant: Millennium Building Company, Inc. 4. Description of the property against which a Lien Is claimed: IN THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 3 AND SECTION 7; AND OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1,2 AND 3 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOR FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHMENT A 5. Name of the owner or reputed owner: The Boeing Company 6. The lasl date on which labor was performed, professional services were furnished, or material or equipment was furnished: October 18th, 2007 7. Principal amount for which the Lien is claimed is: $4,221.70 CI.AIMANT'S VERIFICATION STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) David E. linville, being sworn, says: I am the claimant or attorney for the claimant above named; I have read or heard the foregoing claim, read and know the contents thereof, and believe the same to be true and correct and that the c/uim of lien is not frivolous und Is made wllh reasonable cause, and is ,!Ol c1e(Uly excessive under penalty of perjury. ~AAwJj David E. Linville, Attorney for Straight Line Striping, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMANT'S SIGNATURE On this day personally appeared before me David E. Linville to me known to be the individual, or individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that the above claimant or person signing for said claimant signed the same as his or her free and v~ act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given und7f~hand and official seal this ~ day of January, 2008. 11,,7 ',.' ...... III r.p.. R S" '::'0 II _"., ........ LA."" II ~"';"ISSIC'Iy"'" 'T,-:.. II •• ,.t' ~'. ~-:.. ~ ... ~o NO"r; ~ ... (\\ ~ ~: .I .. ii't.--~~r-~ ~: .... ,. m: ~ ~(fJ~ JO-"q (,,: ~ ~ ... q iJu"lIC : , "7'0 ., '-;'>-"f, .,~~ '":. «' .... '17-1<l .... 0 II ... 0 '. ." I -.". " .. "., ",' " ---_ ... WAS\'\\~ ///11 ........ ~.,.,~/~/'!I Pn N c: Inga R. Bachtel NOTAR: PUBLIC Residing at: Seattle, W A My commission expires: 01·17·10 2008011800109·L":' ATIACHMENT A f PARCEL NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION f 07-2305-900 I THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS I AND 3 AND SECTION 7; AND OF GOVERNMENT LOTS I, 2 AND 3 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND OF C.H. ADSIT'S LAKE WASHINGTON PLAT AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 8 OF PLATS, PAGE 79, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND OF BLOCK C, THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL MAP OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS, AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 5927582; AND OF CERTAIN SHORE LANDS OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHOWN ON SHEETS 3 AND 4 OF TIlE MAP PREPARED BY UDO HESSE UNDER KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 156371; AND OF VACArnD LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD (FORMERLY PARK STREEn; AND OF THE ABANDONED BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC. RAIL WA Y (FORMERL Y NORTIIERN PACIFIC RAILWAY) RIGHT·Of·WAY 08-8660-0050 LOT 5 BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING BSP LESS POR PER DEED 20061212000338 08-8660-0060 LOT 6 BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING SSP LESS POR PER DEED 20061212000338 08-8660-0190 LOT TRACT P BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING ASP LESS POR PER DEED 20061212000338 f I .. i l i : i : ! I , , , ~ ~ <l;j .:P / ~ j ~ :----.1-- IS, , ~ i ----:--P : -------~ ~~ ~ -----------~ ;; --------~-.! co,,! o ~ <1;)0 .. " un,"1 ... l I PCLA ,. J i PCl .• "" "" l ; • j " ·to I i ! ~ I I I --. • - . .. -....• co_ •• ~"L:= =::--:;:::,-~ .... --------""~ ----~ -, ----==t .. r-1 ili'l--"'l:TJ: r-r.r1l----.-~-.1 -------.,...,..........---~===---.,..,.i..-------,-,..,..,...,.---,I 1\ : ,: ,~, ' e:, ,I... '~~ i·1~~E=~~:===~~/.·~~~~~I~F=a,~~· .. A.~~.J.~~;'~~~~~~\ ~ , •. I)! ~ : ~;: ..... +.: .. ":-, ;~..... . ~ I" :!,_ ... _._:I i ~ i . I ./ I :-~,,:,--j , I J {;J ;" . ., ... , I 1 ; : l oS:,: :,: ._ ' .,. : I' .J" :' II···"" .. · ..... · .. , !, ! ff! : : ,i I 1,·.·· .. _·· .. · .... ·-1 ..... ~ ..... t.; .... ,~;J:, ..... L.... .. \, .... ~:-~.~::~ 1 .... J· .. ·i....' .. ~ '._-~~ .. _., _L.-'-~ . ..:...J . ". .. . ;-.:;";';;'';;';: .. ~. -r"'~"'~"~"""~"'r .~. i··· ... . l ! :' " ','--....... ~.. -Ii;! .... ·--...... -1 qr : I RE,!,~' fARM I ~ I I i " ............. _ .. ' I I .... (;) I·_ ....... j-_·,·G) .. ! ..... -f·..... (;) " •• _ ,,1-· ........... ,.. i!: I • '~" _' I I I I _. , •. _-. ,..... ! iii I'" _ ............ n .. · ~,I,,,; rr, _.' ' : I I ".; ri,:.~.I.1 , ~ •• ;'';:;:;;_:. ' .L._ .. -_ -I .. ~~ .... ___ :.: SW 08·23·05 + ...... , ... _ ... '- ~~ .' , , $ .. -, ~ I' ., . (;) • ,-II I i ' h , , . Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page , .' '\"'~;kl(, COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by File No,: NCS-356379-WAl t.\EKl' pLAJIINING oEV~ Of REKl'ON I SEP 222008 RECElVED FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to Issue Its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof, This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title Insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or poliCies is not the fault of the Company, This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws, This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date," First American Title Insurance Company By: PreSident Attest: Secretary By: ~f. ~ Countersigned A'rst American Title Insurance Company Form WA·5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NC5·356379·WAI Page No.1 First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121 (206)728,0400 . (800)526,7544 FAX (206)448,6348 To: Mike Cooper . (206)615·3107 mcooper@firstam.com Boeing Realty Corporation P.O. Box 3707, M/C IF-S8 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Attn: Jeff Adelson SCHEDULE A I. Commitment Date: June 04, 2008 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: National Rate Extended Owner's Coverage $ Proposed Insured: To Follow AMOUNT To Follow $ Donna Koerber (206)615-3021 dkoerber@firstam.com File No.: NCS-3S6379-WA1 Your Ref No.: Lot 7B Lakeshore PREMIUM TAX $ 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. A'rst Amencan 77t/e Insurance Company Form WA·5 (6/76) Commitment LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EXHIBIT 'A' File No" NC5·356379·WAl Page No, 2 Lot 7B, Boeing Lakeshore Landing 2, a Binding Site Plan, recorded under Recording No, 20080111000854, Situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, A'rst American Title Insurance Company Form WA·5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B -SECTION 1 REOUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.: NCS·3S6379·WAl Page No.3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be Insured. Item (B) Proper Instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be Insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us In writing the name of anyone not referred to In this Commitment who will get an Interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 GENEBALEXCEell°NS The Policy or Policies to be Issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims Which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person In possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disdose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, Including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, Installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, If any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First Amencan Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 ( continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS File No.: NCS-356379-WAI Page No.4 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2100 2. 10 foot wide Easement, Including tenms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 4, 1964 under Recording No. 5B19195 In Favor of: City of Renton,a municipal corporation of the State of Washington For: construction, repair, service, and maintenance of sewage pipe lines and any other public utilities and services Affects: a Southwesterly portion of Lot 76 3. 10 foot wide Easement, including tenms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 7, 1977 under Recording No. 770907059B In Favor of: City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington For: Public utilities (including water and sewer) with necessary appurtenances Affects: a Southwesterly portion of Lot 76 4. Easement, Including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 13, 1992 under Recording No. 9207130661 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation For: the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and enlargement of an electric transmission/ distribution substation and one or more electric transmission and/or distribution lines. Affects: an Easterly portion of Lot 76 5. 10 foot by 25 foot Easement, Including terms and provlsions contained therein: Recording Information: November 22, 1994 and November 23, 1994 under Recording Nos. 9411220523 and 9411230706 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation For: the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and enlargement of an underground electric transmission and/or distribution system together with all necessary or cnvenlent appurtenances. Affects: a Westerly portion of Lot 76 F,irst American TItle Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment 6. Easement, Including terms and provisions contained therein: File No.: NCS-356379-WAl Page No.5 Recording Information: May 21, 1979 under Recording No. 7905210642 In Favor of: The City of Renton For: Utllitles Affects: the North half of vacated N. 7th Street First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES File No.: NCS·356379-WAl Page No.6 A. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result In rejection of the document by the recorder. B. Any sketch attached hereto Is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It Is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon It. C. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Lot 7B, Boeing Lakeshore Landing 2, Rec. No. 20080111000854 APN: 088661-0070-00 Taxes for the Year 2008 have been paid in full. . D. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First Amen'can 'Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment . \ .\~,~. k I , ... '" (. , ., :~ First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-356379-WAI Page No.7 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security Instrument. - 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fall to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at Its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or PoliCies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated In Schedule A for the Policy or PoliCies committed for and such liability Is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby Incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American nt/e Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6176) Commitment The First Amorlcan Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial SeIY/ces PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer IntoRnatlon File No,: NCS-356379-WAI Page No, 6 In order to better serve your needs now and In the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain Information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or finandallnformatlon. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal Information you provide to us, Therefore, together with our parent oompany, The Arst American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personallnfonnation. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use Information we have obtained from any other source, such as Information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity, First American has also adop~ed broader guidelines that govern our use of pel'5onal Information regardless of Its source, First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.flrstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpubllc personal Information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and' • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of InfonnatJon We request informatlon from you for our own legltlmate bUSiness purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party~ Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties eKcept: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, Indudlng the period after which any customer relatlonshlp'has ceased. Such Information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis, We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic pel'5onal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies, Such affiliated companies Include flnandal service providers, such as title Insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and trust and Investment advisory companies, or companies involved In real estate servlces, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the infonnatlon we collect, as described above, to companies that perfonn marketing selVlces on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other flnandal institutions with wham we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customef'l Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. ConHdentlolity ond Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthonzed partles have access to any of your Information, We restrict access to nonpublic personal Information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that Information to provide products or serviCes to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your Information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and Arst American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electroniC, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personalinfonnation. c 2001 The First American COrporation· All Rights Reserved FlrstAmencan Title Insurance Company , iii fool 'Wi't ...... '"" I ~ 01 \III ,11\ !DO ftl\ of. \Ill _L OOOoqllll\or of thl .. "" .. " "'oqul\I, of _lea I, t .... 1I!f 11_, ..... S 1 .. 1, V. 11" 1114 pons.a be", ell_I .. lolIMl -"" , .. LbIr\J III looL of Lbo -If lO IML of IhI p"-IIoII .... ,,1/' or lUI , ..... lor\lI'(CaUtondo , ......... l'dIIIr Lo 'hi pbt no_I 10 '.1_ 2 or Flail, PI" 1I. Rt_ .r u., COO/ltJ, \II~) hI UII ""' .. u.. IKQfttII PI" to tI". rot lilt patpOIU" Clllllltvctlm\, rtpIII, ""', lUI •• 1IIWa111C1 of ...... pip! .. _11\1 oLlar "*" IUl\UeI , .. tmIcq DI W111f1III1t'KIUt)f' t.lMliUd,.",... hatt"""" '" '"" tIIl4I &MIlA ......... 11\. . . ... ,01 OOLobo', .......... 1* ... _ "'An or WMHDrOf'OIf I u. OtnIT ,. K.-. I, lilt WIdIf'IIINII • .., Mill '" aM for "" "''' of ......... IUdIaI ........ ".m~. do .... , .. 00_. ______ .. _ ... ___ ....... , .. -..... ~ ........ -------------- • • . ... . ... ----_ .. ---.. -.... --... .' .. ~.----- lAUHH THIS INSTlWM£ItT, .. de thh ~day Of_~A",u .. qu"",-.t,,-_____ It:zL: by and between HArry H Torrens .nd, __ ~A~owi~W~y~,_T~QrOCft~n~B~ ________ _ _________________________ ~aM ______________________ , ___________________________ ,and, _____________________ , _______________________ ~and, ___________________ __ her.lntft.r cilltd 'Grantor(s),' and the CITY Of RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of ling County, IItshlngton, hereInafter calltd "Crute.," NITNESSET1t: That Slid Grantor(s), for and In consideration of the SIll1 of ~~~: r:'ffi::: by Grlntee, Dnd other valuabl. sell. convey, and .. rrant unto the SlId successon 1"lgn., e .. _t for public utllittes (Including .. tor ._r) with neetsslry Ippurtenlnces o •• r, through, ICroSS Ind upon the"followlng de.crlbed property In KIng COunty, lIt.hlnglon, lOre particularly descrIbed as follows: A 10 foot utility OA68m8nt over a portion of the east 100 feet of the northwest one-quarter r:A the southeast one-quarter of Section 8,' Township 23 North. Range 5 EDot, W. Mol aald portion being described a8 follows: Tho aoulnerly ,10 feet d the northerly 20 feet of the producUon weste,.,y of 7th Averam North (CaUfornia Avenue Decontlng to the plat recorded In Volume 2 of' plats, page 37, ReCords or King County, Waohiogton) sir 1 9 34 r.a ';; RECORe<:; ~.: : Tog.ther with. !eIpor.ry constructIon •• s .... t described as: S,id teopor.ry con.tructlon easeoent .hlll reDIln In force during construc, tlon and until such tl .. a, the utllltl •• and app"rttna"ce, have been acc~pted for th\Bnratlon Ind "'Inttnlnc~ by the Gr.ntn but not liter than November 1, • --'-'-- S.1d .1Ie ... tofo ...... ntloned granteo. it< successors or assigns. shall hlV. the rl",t. without prtor notice or proceeding It 1 .... at ,uch tl"", IS DIll' boo n.cesllry to enter '4'on $lId abova de,crtbed proPerty for the puro ... of construct, Ing. maintaining .... pairing. alterIng or reconstrUcting ,.Id roadw.y .nd utilities. or lilting .ny connections therewl th .·wl thout incurring .ny 'oga1 oblf gatlons or liability the ... fore. provided. that such construction. maintaining. rep.irlng. g? altering or ... con,truetlon of said roadw.y .nd utilities shl" be accOII'IIIhhed In ~oo ,uell. manner that tho prlv.te Iqlrovelll!nts •• istlng In tile rlght(s)·of·.ay 'hill ._ not be dhturbed or dllDlged. they will be replaced in IS good • condition IS they ~ wore I .... dfate 1y before tho proporty was .ntered upon by tho Grantee. The Grantor ,h.ll full, Ille .nd enjoy the aforedoscrlbod preml •••• Including the right to ... taln the right to us. the su,'face of Slid rlght·of ..... y If luch UI8 does not interfere with installation .nd maintenance of the roadway or utllttl.s. Howe .. r. the grantor shall not .... ct buildings or structures ovar. lllder or across the rt",t·of·way durtng the axistenco of .uell ro.dway and utilttl~s. this e.s.",nt. shall bo • covanant running with the land and sh.ll be bind· ing on tile Grantor. his suc,"ssors. heirs and .ssigns. Gr.ntors cown.nt that they ~ .... tho 1 .... fu1 ownors of the .bow prop.rtles and that they hava a good and , .. ful rl gh t execute "thl s .grotnlln t. ______ ;~~7f~n~~fi~A~':dd-~_--"and 4-;Z r~. r ' ..... ___ ~r~ ______________ ~and ____________________ _ ________________ ~and ___________________ ___ _____________________ ~and_~ ________________ __ STATE Of WASHINGTON CWITY Of KING 55 I. the llldersigned. a notary public In and for the Stlte of Washington. h .... by certify that on this aday of AlIQUot 197L personally ",pe.red blfo ... III lAd RAJUtY H. TORRSNS ·l=~AN~I~T~A~V~,:T(!~IU!!!!!~~s~~~~:;;~~ .M i ud ; and ; to. known to be tndhtdull(s) dOstl1t1ed In ana iilio executia thi foregotng tnstr_nt. and acknowledged thlt .,..tb~""~~.".,..=,.,.... signed and ".'ed the II. IS their fret Ind vollllury act and deea,or tIiI USII .nd pUl'llo$es therein ... tloned, ~1~'" (!~ "/.' Notory "ublfc~~~or~ HIIAI '~'. WlSh'ngton. resr " at Auburn ·1 " " , ~: , '. •• • Tbi. ea.eaent srented t~ enable M.a. MaetTa to BerYico nev a,DTteeat cu.pl .. at 6th IUd Volla. Maatro baa raceived .a conatderlttoD fra. Torr.nl the au. of ",600.00 and rei levee Torreaa, hie auccaaaora OT .aal;aa of aay further char.a for vatar .. la lnatal1atloo with TO.peet eo dol fDUGdaa.l.,.u, ... L!!!Jb.!!I~~!,_, __ " ___ ,,_. __ ,.. L!!t 1" 'lam Ie fp!'!W) 'l'be Bast 100 fut' of the l1li 1/4 of the 811 1/4 of 8ectiOll 8,. ~ahlp 2] H, R. 58. II.M., BIt"lIP'l the SOuth 6]5 feet thecaof, IUld BIClIP'f the IIocth 300 feet thacaof. ....~:~~,; . : ::tl ::0 !:tH~r!:! Nli~:f f 'the SW 1/4 of SBction 8, ~al .. h? 2] R, R. 58 II."., " . \IXCl!I"I' the SOuth 315 feet tha .... d \IXCl!I"I' tllAt portll111 .$II8r80f 1y , acly of tho westerly product1Oll of the JIOttb liAe o! _ 4. Block 4, Ranton Pa .. Acroaqa, accord1oq to the plot tboreoit· rocordud 10 vol of plat., pq , record. of IU.D9 County. All sltuatu41ii'""i1oq COUllty, llaahiAqton. ! " • ! I / .. ~. ' , :, ,'&TATE Op WASH 1l«lTOII. , . , . ' • ," :, ',' ',\10"!"', of llaa l ), .. ) M.a. Maatro -;;l,.-<' 1Q"k, Jon It.MaBtra'~7"i1'''''_'!<'-'-'':J''''''''''''''''''''''''_ . ','; " . "-... ~'. " C". QQ:~b18 da, paraoaall, appeared before me M.a. "-8ero and Joan It. Mastro , :." "-\0". kncNp to be the individuals deaertbed in and who encuted tbe vltJl. 1a MId fore8otoa lnatruaent. and acknowledged that they elrned tbtl eame .. tbelr freo aod voluata-ry act aud dee4, . for the ua •• and purpo.8. th.t~tD .eotianed. GlVIM under .y band aad offictol Geel thle 2~th day of _usust, 1971. The City of leutoa acknowted&eB th18 tranaeetton betveen Torrens and Mastro &ad caaatder the 1.teca.erl .sr~t looper.tlve vttb re.peet to the tva 18pU, deoc:rlbctd p1'Operttea 0WMd by "r. TotTene. , I I , I I " f " 'I -. _ .... ----. -.. -_ .. --_ ...... _--------:-.. __ ...•.. - 'l I I I .. • : J :i ORIGINAL EASEMEN1' For and in considoration of One Oollar (SI.00) and other valuable c:ons idorat Lon, tho reCD Ipt of which 10 hereby acknowledgod I THE BOE mG COMPAN¥, e De lawarc corpocfltion, (·Orantor" hoeD in), horeby grants and convoys end warrants to PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Washington corporation ("puget" heroin), for tho purposes hereinaftor set forth a nonexclusive perpetual easement, ovec, across and under the following d~scribed roal property (the nproporty") : Soo Exhibit. C-I through C-9 lnclusivo 1. Purpose. Puget ahall havD the right to construct, operate, rna inta In, repa i r, replaco and onlargo an electr ie transmission/distribution substations and one or more electric transmission and/or distribution lines, over, under, and upon Property together with all nOCOBBUY or convenient apurtenanCDB ~ thoreto, which may include but oro not limited to tho following; g Transformers, power circuit breakers, and other electrical equipment,· concrete foundation pads. Ovorhead transmission and/o< distribution lInos Including palco and/or 1:owora with switches, crossarms, braces, guys and onchora. Underground transmission or distribution lines including conduits, cables, VAults, switchos, and manholoo. Ovorhead and/or undorground communication and signal linos. Accoss roads. Security fencing, retaining walls and rockories. Landscaping and lrrlgatlo~ systems. 1% EXCISE TAX NOT REQU RE Drainago and water rotentlon facilities. K' Co I 0 Control house. 109 . !Cords Di,ision fI bo r 0 p tic s , B' .... ""'..J!l.I4.d.¥-'::::!I.L._ ' , Depul, 2. Clearing, Grading and Maintenance. Puget shall h right to cut and remove or otherwiso dispose of any and all brush and trees prosontly existing upon the Property. Pugot shall also have the right to control, on a continuing basis and by any prudent and reaDonable means, the establishment and growth of trees, brush and other vogetation upon tho Proporty which could, in tho opinion of Pugot, intorforo with the exerciso of Puget's rights herein 0< creato a ha .. <d to Pug.t'. facilltlos. Puget shall also have the right to excavato tho property and modify the contour of tho land to tho limitod extont necossary to construct:. an electrical substation. 3. Complianco with Laws and Rulos. Pugot shall at all times exercIse lts rights herein Ln accordance with the reqUirements (as f rom time to time amended) and a 11 applicablo statutes, orders, <uleB and rogulatlons of any public authority having juriodlotion. 4. Exclusive Occupation. Pugot shall have the exclusive right of occupation of tho "High Sido" portion of the fenced substation and no other party, including Grantor, shall have the right to ~ntc< upon 0< occupy that po<tion of tho substation wlthout prior written notice to and permission from Puget. Grantor shall not grant or convoy rights of any kind to any third party for use of the "tUgh Side" without prior written approval .and consent from Pugot. Gr~ntor shall have the exclusive right of occupation of the n Low S ide" portion of tho foncod substation and no othor party, including Pugct, shall have tho right to onter upon or occupy that portion of tho Bubstation wlthout prior writton notico to and permission from Grantor. Howovor, that 1n the event of an emorgency requiring immediato action by Pugot and/or Crantor for the protection of its facilitios or othor persons or proporty, Pugot and/or Grantor may take such action upon such notice to Pugct and/or Grantor ao· 1s -1- 1\ Yl,51 "co'lol~ t1(.D~I-~l 9 DC 3552 a \ \, ., ,. • :1 : , , , , .. reasonable undet the circumstances. S. Puaetls Usc and Activitios. pugat shall oxercise its rights under €hIs Ag['ooment 80 80 to minimize, and avoid if reasonably posoible, interferenco with Grantor's use of the Proporty as sot forth in Paragraph 6, horoln. 6. Grantor I B Use of tho Property and Accoss by Grantor During Constr.uction. Grantor rOQorvoa t.ho right to use that portion of the Property outaido of the fenced Substation (the "Unfenced Aroa") for any purpose not inconsistent with tho rights herein granted, Including, but not Ilml~ed to, parking and roadway. Provided, howover, that Grantor shall not construct or maintain any building or other structure within the Unfonced Area and that no blasting ehall be done within fifteen (15) feet of the Fenced Area. At no time shall Puget I s access to and along tho Unfenced I\roa be blockod off or unduly restricted. Puget shall mako provisions satisfactory to Grantor for continued access by Grantor along, over and acrOBS the property during periods in which Puget ia conducting construction or othor activities. In the evant of an emergency requiring immediate" action by Pugot and/or Grantor for the protection of Ita CacilitloB or othor persona or property, Puget and/or Grantor may take such action upon such notico to Pugot and/or Grantor as Is roasonable undor the circumstancos. 7. Indomnity. By accepting the rocording of this easement, Puget agreeD to indomnify and hold harmloss Grantor from any and all claims for damagos, expensos, actions and claims, including costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Grantor In defeneo thoroof, asserted or arising directly or indirectly on account of or out of·acta or omissions of puget and Pugot's servanto, agents, employees and contractors in tho exercise of the rights grantod horoin. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that Pu at shall not bo responsible to Grantor or dam a os U ng rom n ur os to any person causod y~ctB or om 8S ono of Grantor. &~, 1 -...!"i'q\'3 ..... B. Abandonmont. Tho rights herein granted sholl continue until such time ao Pugat coases to uso said prop~rty for a poriod of fiva (5) Bucccsolve years, In which OVOflt this easement shall terminato and all rights hereunder shall rovert to Grantor, providod, that no abandonment shall be doemed to have occurred by reoeon of Puget'. falluro to initially Install it. facilities on the Property within any pedod of time from tho dato hereof. 9. Notices. Notices roquirod to bo in wrlting undor this Agreemont shall be given 4S followsr To Grantorl 8001ng Commercial Airplane Group divloion of TO Pugot. THE BOEING COMPANY, Attention, Facilities Director Phono, 237-8381 ~uget Sound Pow~r & Light Company Renton Service Con tor Phone, 255-2464 Notices shall be deomed effective, if mailod, upon the second day following doposit thereof In the United States Kallo, postago or upon delivory thBroof if otherwise.given. Either party may chango tho add ross to which notices moy be given by giving notice as above provided. 10. Accosn. Puget shall have tho right of reasonablo access to tho Property ovor and acroos adjacent lando owned by Grantor to enable Puget to oxercise ito rlghts hereunder, provided that Puget shall compensate Grantor for any damage to tho Property caused by tho Qxo,ciso of said right of accoss. 11. Successors and Assi~ns. The rights and obligations of the partieD shall inure to t e benefit of and be binding upon their rospectivo successors and assigns. -2- 9 DC 3552 " • I " DATED ___ day of _____ _ PUGET, • 19_ GRANTOR: :m Pugot Sound Powor " Light Company, it Naahington corpoC'lltion ! B'l: _= __ ~_~ ____ _ ITS: bIroctor Roal EBtato STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) S5. COUNTY OF KING ) , 197P,"'before me the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ to me known , roap vo y, of BaBIlle o THE BOEING COMPANY, tho ~ corporation that oxocuted tho foregoing instrumont, and cg acknowlodged the said Instrument to be tho free and voluntary Bet C"l and dO'ld of said corporation, for tho U808 and purposos therein mentionod, and on oath stated that he authorized to executa tho ~ Bald Inetrumont. WITNESS my hand and official year first above wrltton:..,~~~ .... STATE or WASIIlNGTON) ) 55. COUNTY OF KING ) explrBs _L:"!":::-"LJC- On this day of ,19 ,bofore me ths undorslgnod porsonBUy appearod to me known to bo tho Dlrsctor Reol Estato of PUGET SOUND PONER 'LIGHT COMPANY, the corporation that exocuted the foregoing InBtrumen~, and acknowledgod tho said inotrumant to be tho froo and voluntat'Y act and deed of said corporation, for tho usos and purposea thoroln mentioned, and on oath statod that iB authorized to executo tho said Histt'ument. ' WITNESS my hand and official oeol hero to affi •• d,the day and yoar first above writtt'tn. Notary PublIc In and for the 5 tate of liashlngton residing at ____ _ My commie. Ion oxplres _______ _ -3- 9 DC 3552 .. .' • .... .. , ,. " ESMlnc. .. RECEWED 1011\'" 0 :\1991 BlOC ENGINEER§" A. CIVil ENCINEERING, LANOSURVEY, AND PROjECT MANACEMENT CONSULTINC fiRM Boeing/Renton Ellsomonts I ,lob 110. 424'10'~10 Hay 2, 1991 D.IH fJlT C.-l LBGA~ DESCRIPTION FOR THE paGeT POWER PORTION OF SODBT~TION NO. 1 That portion of the Northwest quarter of section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.K., City of Renton, Xing County, W.shington, more particularly described .s followa: COMMENClriG at an Qxistinq monument on park Avenuo North shown 80 P.C. A D ... OO on tho 'A' Lina on Sheet 2 ot 5 of the Washington state Departmont of Hiqhway Plans for "PSH 1 (SR 405) North Renton Interchange" a. approved April 27, 1965; THENCE N 22"22'0811 E, 418.34 teet to an existing monument shown ao P.T. A 4+28.33 on said plano; THENCE S 70"58'29" II, 19B.52 feot to the 1'RlJ~ POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE N 10"52'51" E, 38.84 feet; THENCE II 39"24'56" II, 66.28 feeti THENCE S 87.01'5711 II, 13.47 feet I THENCE S 50'44~54" W, 40.52 fect; THENCE S :19'19'30" E, a2.50 feotj THENCE S 32'09'4711 II, 19.91 feet; THENCE S 39'19'30" E, 10.50 feot; THENCE N 50·28'30" E, 40.51 feet to the TRUE POINT OP BEGINNING. Cant. in inq 0.U3 acres (4.943 square teet), maro or less, Sae attached Exhibit Written by: C.A.G. Checked by: R.S.H. 18:129 9·11 f'ow~U A\'llnuc S.W. Sulle 100 IIA". • Remon, W.l1hln&lon. 98055 • .... ___ 1 ., • . ... ... EXHIBIT "A" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THAT PORTION OF SUBSTA110N NO, 1 TO BE CONVEYEO TO PUGET POWER A PORTlON OF THE NW '1/4 OF SECllON 0, IWP, 2J N .. ROE. • E .. W.M., cnv OF RENTON, t< NO COUNTY, WASHINGTOn EXISIlNG 7' HIGH CHAIN UNK FENCE WITH OVERHEAD BARD WIRE AS LOCATED ON 04-26-01 HORIZONTAL DA'I\JM: DWNERSHlP MAPS BY HaRlaN OENNIS ANO ASSOClArES, IHC. FOR lHE BOEJNa REIITON PWIT FACIUTIES, BO~NG JOB NO, JS0293. OR.4.WlNG NO. 5-0071 DATED NAY 12. 1980 (HOA. INC, JOB NO, .,390) E)(1S'T1Na MOHUME1IT, SHOWN AS P,C. A 0+00 ON TIlE 'A' UNf DN SHEET 2 OF 5 OF W,S,O,H, P!)HS FOR 'PSI! , (SR 'OS) HORIN RENTON IIITERcHANa.... AS APPROVEO APRil 27, 1965 Joe NO. 424-01-91Q DATE' : 05-02-91 DRAWN : CAG. CHECKED : RS" DRAWING NAME : EXH-A-D SHEET' OF , f.l(ISTlNG MONUMEIIT, SHOWN is P.T. A ·4+2B.JJ 0:1 lHE 'A' UHE ON SHEET 2 OF 5 OF W.S.O.H. PLANS fOR • PSH I (SR ""OS) NORTH RE1ITON INTtRCHANG .... AS APPRMD APRil 27, 1005 I / I I 'TRUE POINT OF' ! I BECtNNING / / I~* / iW I", I / I I )\ SCALE: 1" • 60' • . , ; .' ==== __________________ ..... ___ ;:-:-7·::·~:-'~··.~·:_-:':.: .. :,·,~··I:r.·.Tf.5t:":.;,::·z:::J;·.:., :';~'.: " • . . .... = -~ -, :>, ., , . ,' '" "" '" '" ~ b N \J' EXHIBIT elf PAGE 1 ESMlnc. .... CIVIL ENCIN[£RINC, LANDSURVEV. o\NDPROIECT MANACEMENT CONSUlTING FIRM Booing/Renton Eascmento Job /lo. 424-10-910 Revisod Hay 24, 1991 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THEIPUGET POWER PORTION OF DOD8T~~ION NO. 2 ('/.".18/T C· 2. That portion ot the South.ast quartor of soction 7, Township 23 North, Rango 5 East,··~.H., City of Renton, King County, washington, more partioddarly desoribed as tollowo: COMMENCING at an Qxisting monument on Park Avenue North shown as P.C. A 0+00 on ~ho lA' Line on Sheet 2 of 5 of tho Washington state Department of Highway Plans for UPSH 1 (SR 405) North Renton Interchange" as approved April 27, 1965, THENCE N 22"22'08" E, 418.34 feot to an Qxisting monument shown aG P.T. A 4+28.33 on said plans; THENCE S :n" 30' 23" W, 29~2.93 teet to tho TRUE POINT OF BEGIIINING I THENCE N 8p·l1'59" W, 44LOO feet; THENCE II 00·27'l8" E, 15:.53 toot; THENCE S 89·32'22;" E, 3 .. 1l0 feetl THENCE II 00'27'J8" E, 1l!l.DO feoti THENCE S 89°42'52" E, 40U50 feot; THENCE S 00.,,7':)8" W, ISJr.91 toet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGIIINING. Containing 0.143 acres (6,240 squaro feat), more or less. Sae attached Exhibit "0":1" Writton by: C.A.G • Checkod by: R.S.H. 10: 14 ° 1).1:1 Po-well ~¥cnLlO S.W. Suire 100 .. ..... RC!nron, w,uhinCfon, 98055 {106122a·161' ,,','=""·= .. = ..... -----------_a---....... ...~.,,~ ~--. .' .f • ... • EXHIBIT C2. PAGE 2 .'.~-~------=~:::::::.~. EXHIBIT "G" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRlP'llON FOR THAT PORTlON OF SUBSTAllON NO. 2 TO BE CONVEYED TO PUGET POWER • PORTION OF T\iE SE 1/4 OF SECltCH 7, twP, 23 H .. RGE. 5 E.. W.~., CITY or RENTON, KlrlC COUNTY. WASHINGTON £)CISTIHQ l' UNK rENCE OVERHEAD BARB WIRE; ON A ~ WIDe CONCRETE RETAItuNG WAll. AS LOCATED ON 05 .. 23-9 1 -.D -.D 0 S 89'42'52" E C"') ,...., 0 nJ Cl' tUI# ~ ~/,/, ~ ~ '" In ,.. ~ N b Q Z S 8~J2'22" £ J.SO· 40.50' ~"J' s .. ,~ '" N ~ ~ II~ In l" .,. ~ '" N ... '" 'PO is c'''' ~ '" N 00'27'J8" ~£'i::::;;;:;::1."':!:2.~J:--15.53' 44.00' N 60'1"59" 'w EXiSTiNG UDNUJoIEt«. SHOWN AS p,e. II 0+00 ON THE • "," UHE ON SliEEr 1 OF :s OF W.S.O.H. PI..Ni5 FOR ·PSH , (SR 405) NORTH RENTON INTERCHANOE" AS APPROVED APRIl. 21, 1 !l65 JOD NO. 424-10 .. 910 DATE : 05-24-91 DRAWN : CAG. CIiECKCD : RSY DRAWINC NAME : D<H-O SHEET 1 Or 1 / / £)(lsnNG MONUMENT. SHOWN AS p.r. A. 4H8.JJ ON THE • "," UHf ON SHEET 2 OF 5 OF W.S.O.H. PLMS FOR ·PSt{ I (SR 405) NORTli REmON fNTERCHANCE" M ,l.PPROVED APRIl. 27. 1965 D mu( POINT OF BECINNING SeALS: 1" • 50' I I / HORIZONTAL OATUM: OWNERSHIP MAPS BY HORTON DENNIS AND ASSc~n:s. tNc. ':OR THE BOEJNG RENTON PLAHT F'AClunES. BOEING JOD NO. J5629J, DRAWING NO. 5-0071 DATED MAY 12, 1980 (HCA, IHC. JOB HO. "'390) ESY inC. ,.-------- .. , JOwIU. ~r ..... IVtrC 100 ,,~. ''''':1 • I.. i .. -''', '--'-... -., ... -.. ~,,,:,;., ....... -, .~..-.-., .. - .' • ... • . : . ESMlnc. _jElOiIBIT C3. RECE\\!ED t/l1W 0 31991 aEC ENGINEERS /I PAGE.l It CIVIL ENCINE£RING, lANOSURVlY. AND PROIECT MANAC£MENTCONSULT1NG FIRM Dacing/Renton Easemonts Job No. 424-10-910 Hay 2, 1991 E..YJI'ISIT C-J -D LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR POW&R Lllle EASEMENT That portion of tho Northwest quarter ot Section 8, Township 23 North, Rango 5 Eoot, W.M., city of Renton, King county, Washington, being a 30 foot wido strip af land, lying 15 feet on each .ide of the following desoribed. centerlir,e. COMMENCING at an existing monumont on Park Avenue North shown as P.C. A 0+00 on the 'A' Line on Shoot 2 of 5 of tho Washington State Department of Highway Plans for IIPSH 1 (SR 405) North Ranton lnt.archangel! as approved April 27, 1965/ . .Jl THENCE N 22'22'OB" E, UB.34 feat to an existing monument ~ shown as P.T. A 4+29.33 on said plans; 8 THENCE II B6'50'43" Ii, 248.80 feet to " line which bears C\I II 50'44'54" E, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. !J' THENCE N 39-15'06" W, .29.02 feet, more or lODS, to the Narthweotorly boundary of Parcel I-Bo of tho Boeing Commercial 'Airplano Company-Renton Plan Facility, being a line which boars N 49-53'02" e and tho end of this centerline doscription. Seo attached Exhibit "0". Written by. C.A.G. Chocked by. R.S.H, 16.132 ~1 Po ..... ell "venue S,W. Suicc lDO R(!nlon, WlthlnSfOn, 98055 f2D6) llll·5fjlO • . , .l' ........ -.. -.. ~ .......... -... -.-...... "... .." ',. ' . . ' • I "" • EXHIBIT el, PAGE 2 EXHIBIT "0" TO ACCOMPANY I.£CIAL OESCRIPTlON FOR POWER I!ASMEHl' AT SUaSTATION NO, 1 • P0RT10N Of TliE NW 1/4 OF SECllON S, lWP, 23 H" Ret. 5 £O, W,N" CITY OF RENTON, KINO COUNTY, W.sIiINOTON 30' POWER EASEMENT (15' E'CH SlOE OF CENTIRLlNE) CL -N J9'15'O!J"w 29,62' -, \, .. ~ ~',fl ./ txlSTlNG 7' HIGH CHAIN/" ' / UNK fENCE'. WITH OVERHrAO BARB WIRE loS LOCATED ON 04-28-91 HORIZONTAL DA'NM: OWNERSHIP UAPS QY HORTON OENHIS ,AND ASSOCIATES, INC, FCR TliE BODNC RENTON PlANT F.CIUTlES, BOEING JOB HO. 356293, DRAWING NO, S-0071 DATED lliAY 12. 1980 (HDA, INC, JOO NO, 44J90) D<ISONO NONUNEHT, SHOWN ,AS P.C, • OtOO ON TliE ••• UHE ON SHm 2 Of 6 OF W,S,O,H, PLANS FOR ·PSH 1 fSR 405) NORTH RENTON NTERCHAHCE" loS APPROVED APRIL 27, 1B65 JOB NO. 424-01-910 CATE : 05-02-91 DRAWN , CA.G, CHECKED , RSM ORA,WINC NAME : EXH-A-D SHEET 1 OF 1 EXlSONG MONUMENT, SHOWN l AS P,T, A H20.J3 ON TliE • A-UNf: ON SHEET 2 or 6 Of' W.S.O,H. PLANS fOR ·PSH 1 (SR 405) NORTH RENTON fNTERCI-WlGf.'" AS ,f,PPROVEO APRIl. 27, 1965 --!! 06'50'43" W 2'8.80' ----- SCALE: 1" • 60' • ., .' " ", . j • , , ; • [YJ.fIOIT C'4 Guy stub Anchor Easement 14 An eaaement tor guy atub anchorinq purposos overt under, and acroso 8 portion of LOt 4, Block 3, Renton Farm Acreage a. recorded in Volume 12 of Plato on pago 37, Records of King County, Wa.hington, more particularly described as follows. COMMENCING at the ooutheaot corner of .aid lot 4, thenca North 1'05'34" Eaot along tho Mot Uno thereof 103.60 feat to tho POINT OF BEGINNING, thenoe North 80'5412611 Host a diatance of 18.00 feet; thonce North 1'05'34" East a distance of 10.00 feot, thence SQuth 88'54 1 26" East a distanco ot 18.00 teot to the east lina of said lot. thence South l'O!P34U west a distance ot 10.00 teot to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing an area of 180 squaro feet. 91570/4 W.O. No. 9009044 : i , __,~._"l " .. .. - ; ? ! ! , > > , . . -'O\..ocl(... :!J -.D cg ("') 2 -b N Cl' I I 3 . S 88'5.'26· E",\ 18.00' \ H O,"S·J.· E.::ft ...... g 10.00' • '. :;! / N 8B'P-4':O-W 18.00 4 ----------------~ 5 RECORD OWNER TOTAL PARCEL AREA EASEMENT AREA 180:1: S.F. DATE I Z ~ < w ~ Z UJ In 0 p I B 0:: '" < I (!) N 8TH ST 1-------- 5 ( SCALE '"=50' PUGET POWER WO NO: 9009044 .' • 11m , , , ~. EXIt/BIT C.-5 Guy stub and Anchor Easement .5 An casemont far guy stub and anchoro ovar, under, and across a portion of lot 1, Blook 3, Renton Farm Acreage aD recorded in VolUme 12 of Plato on page 37, Records of King county, Washington, more particularly described as follows, COMMENCING at the northeast corner of soid lot 1/ thence South 1'05'34" WeDt along thD east lino thoreof 48.24 feet to tho POINT OF BEGINNING/ thence South 86'59 106" Wost a distanco of 34.16 feet, thonce South 3 ~ 00 154 tI East a d.istance of 10.00 teet, thence North 86159'06" East a distance of 33.44 feot to the east line of said lot 1/ thence North 1-05'34" Eaot aionq tho OBst I1no thereof 10.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing an area of 330 square feot. 91570/5 W.O. No. 9009044 B ".' . ( .. • I , ' ' , -- 5 69':17'25" E N 8TH ST r , VACATED 0 1 I VACATED I "'I 1 "!.J 5.QI~~"06" W\'Q,2"_ "----- - -I--- G 03'00'54-E--i-·:.·.'···.····,· :_,o,oJ' 10,QO' ••. fI 80'S9'OS-; J ~ 1 33.44' '. G p 6 '" P.C'{I..£.(>.G£. r (>.'{I..w, -..0 z ~\O~ :1 ..0 j '{I..£: ,\7-/',) 0 1") 'O\..,OC'f.. . I~ -\lO\'" f..v... 7- "" 5 '0\..,0[,' 4 0 I I N I 0' 2 Z I w I I a I ~ " a:: c( '" J 3 .' 5 • Cy. /, '/,:7 c-~-SCALI: 1'~5D' RECORD OWNER PUQET TOTAL PARCEL AREA EASEMENT AREA 338± S,'. POWER I· I DATE we NO, 9009044 PROPERTY MAP -EASEMENT AREA 91570/5 HAMMOND. COLUER & WADE -lllllNGSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC, .------= __________ ~_----....... --.. :'" ":""C.::.:;;:'·"''':;:'''''''''.'''' :-. ..,...,.,.,.;:.,1.::., ." ., eXHI'B1 T c.~~ GUy stub and Anchor Easement '6 An easement for guy stub and anchors over, undor, and BcrOBO a portion of the BouthoBot quarter of tho northwest quarter of Section 8, Townahip 23 North, Rango 5 East, H.H., mora particularly described as follows I COMMENCING at • point on the south lino of said subdivision at the intersoction of the northorly oxtension of the centorline ot Gardon Avenuo North ao shown on the Plat of Renton Farm Acreage DS recordod in Volume 12 ot Plats, on paqe 37, Rocords of King County, Washinqtonr thence Bouth 89'27'25" East 810nq the south line of said Bubdivision 42,00 reot to the POINT OF BEGINNINGr thence North l' 05 I 3411 East a diatance at 41.59 feet: thonce South 88'54126n East a distanco of 10.00 feotJ thenco south 1'05'34" Hoot a distance of 41.49 feot to the south line of Baid sUbdivisionr thonco North 89'27'25" West alonq said south lino 10.00 foet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. containinq an area ot 415 aquare feet. 91570/6 W.O. No. 9009044 ____________________ -, ... ,-___ . '~'-'-'~"""_'':''''':'"'';'~:'~'-;-:~~~'.r..'~r.o.-..• ~-•.• ~ .. ,,:: . .. , .' • ", • , , S 88'54'20· E PORllON OF sE, NW. lO.OQ' SEC, 8, T2lN. R5E, WM N 01'05'3'" '"" 41.50' .',' '/ S 01'05'34-W ',': 41.4;' ..•.. . :': . <12.00' . :,', ," 10.00'-- I '" I I'l N 8TH 5T 5 89n:2~" £ , I I "0 r-i..J I I I'l I VACATED 30' lO' --- --- -I---- - it 1 ~ 6 '" tp..G€' -r ",~v. p..C~ -.i) -.i) z ~€.'-\\a~ 'I ~, )1 0 (") I~ -\la\.· '{-~ t; N I « I 5 'O\-aF 4 \1' 2 I I I z w 0 (t: « (!) l ~,,;;,/'d C. , SCALE 1 'a50' RECORD OWNER PUBET TOTAL PARCEL AREA EASEMENT AREA 415t S.F. POWER DATE WO NO: 9009044 PROPERTY MAP -EASEMENT AREA I , , , 91570/6 HAMMOND, COLLIER & WADE -LIVINGSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC, ._ _ ____ " .... ".~_' _ ..... ', , .. ·~cr_,~,. _ .......... ,.t :J" ... ," " " • . ' I • ,-' ~XlfI6IT C-7 Power Polo and 'transmission Line Easement 17 An casomont tor power polo and tranomiooion line oyer, under, and across a portion oC tho Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter oC Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., more particularly d09cribDd DB follows: BEGINNING at a point on tho south line or said subdivision at tho cast margin of Cardon Avonuo North, formerly known 86 Gardon Street; thence North 0'36'07" East along said east margin 253,26 Ceot to a point ot'curve to the left of said east margin! thence North 82'07'34" East a distance of 18.18 feot! thenco South 7'52'26" Bast a distanco of 258.68 teot to the south line of said subdivision! thene. North 89' 27'25" Wost along sald south lin. 56.11 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. containinq an araa of 9,445 squaro toot. 91570/7 W.O. No. 9009044 .. ' I I I ~ " • , , I ... i ." --4J -4J 0 C'1 -I"-~ cr- . , PORTION or SE, NW, SEC. B, T23N •. R5E, wt.I ,-N B2'07'J,' E ~ 10.IB· '::, I.n ;.:.>.~ w . :':':-:'.~ I I-"'ij ::.::,;. ~ I P .. ". ~' ':::::. \1. z ::::}:::::,i. 30' 30' '::::.-:::\ ------------------~~~----b _-,---,-~--_N 8TH ST 5··"S B.~7'25',g _____ -'" , -: VACATED .,.. .,..,...,.. _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ .;:.._-1-_-_--_-_-_--i-----ir-----i-- ,. 1-' b I '" I -------------- 1 --Z ~ 5 4 2 <C 'z' I 3 Gt.. 2 I I "..C~t..~\ I \'\ r'''''~''' 1~1 I 'W I 1-0 OC <C (!) 3 6 - RECORD OWNER TOTAL PARCEL AREA EASEMENT AREA 9,455± Sf. DATE ~t.\'\'\O 'IIP\.." '2. 2 7 B 9 PROPERTY MAP -EASEMENT AREA 1 I I I I 10 SCALE 1'=100' PUGET POWER WO NO: 9009044 91570/1 HAMMOND, COLLIER Ie WADE -LIVINGSTONE ASSOClA TES, INC. -----~ " , • , . I HAMMONO. COLLIER e. WAOE -LIVINGSTONE ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTlNG ENGINEERS c~I+IBIT C.-8 Booinq/Renton easements W.O. 9009014 April 24, 1992 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PUGIl'!' POWER LINE, SNUFFLETON STEAM PLI\NT PROPERTY TO BOEING 12 SUBSTATION VIA LOGAN AVENUE ..0 TIIAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 AND THE EAST HALF ..0 OF SECTION 7 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., CITY OF o RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE PARTICULl\RLY DESCRIBED AS C"l FOLLOWS: ~ A 50 FOOT. STRIP OF LAND BEING 25 FEEl' ON EACH SlOe OF THE FOLLOWIIiG .~ DESCRIBED CENTERLINE, 0' AT II POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THe BOEING COMPANY SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, (AS ESTABLISHED BY RENTON LOl' LINE IIOJUSTHENT 004-88 IIF NO. 8808309006 VOLUME 62, PIIGE 143): DISTANT 30.91 FEET NORTH 14' 36' 26" WEST PROM THE NORTHWESTERLY IlARGIN OF THe ABAltDONED BURLINGTON NORTHeRN RAILWAY RIGIIT-OF-WAY: THENCE SOUTH 51'06'51" WEST 405.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40'39'41" WIlST 745.15 FEET: THENCE SOUTH O' 22' 48" WEST 699.24 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY IlARGIN OF LOGAN AVENUE: THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0'22'48" WEST 12.44 FEET TO THE EAST WEST ceNTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 7 DISTANT 71.15 FEET SOUTH 89'52'15" WEST FROll THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 AND DISTANT 0.l2 FEET SOUTH 89' 52'15" WEST FROM TilE EIIST IlARGIN OF LOGAN AVENUE WHICH IS THE SAKE AS THe WEST HARGIN OF SAID IIBANDONeD BURLINGTON NORTHERN UIIILWAY RIGHT-Of-WIIY: THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0'22'48" WEST 525.59 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT DISTANT 1. 99 fEll'!' WEST OF TilE EAST HARGIN OF LOGAN AVENUE, TIIENCE SOUTH 4'06'44" WEST 200.40 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89'00'26" WEST B1.40 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF BOEING 12 SUBSTATION DISTANT 124.50 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBSTIITION SITE AND TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION. EXCEPT ANY PORTION OF SAID 50 FOOT STRIP LYING WITHIN THE LOGAN AVENUE RIGHT-Of-WAY. • .' • = .. BOEINC 12 SUBSTATION 50' SO' I III II N01'OD'2S"E 1026.S4 ABANDONED B.N.R.R. CO. 100 R.O.W. ~26~4~S~.6~1 _______________ ~ S8S'30'32"E V -D POWER UNE AUGNMENT UNE I DIRECtiON I 1 2 3 4 5 NS1'OO'S1'E N40'3S'4"E S00'22'48'W N04'OS'44'E SSS'OO'20'E DISTANCE 405.46 745.15 1237.27 200.40 81.40 TWP, 23N" R,5E"W,M. 1· a JOO' RECORD OWNER BOEING COMPANY PUtJET POWER TOTAL PARCEL AREA N/A EASEMENT AREA N/A DATE 4-24-92 WO NO: 9009014 PROPERTY MAP -EASEMENT AREA '------HAMMOND, COLLIER & WADE -LIVINGSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC, -----~ • ... EASEHENT OF OVERHEAD TRANSHISSION AND UNDERCROUND FACILITES EXHIBIT C-9 Except as may be otharwiso Got forth hQroin Grantee's right shall be exercised upon that portion of the property described as follow: That por~iDn of the Southeast 1/4 of Saction 7, Township 23N., Rango 5 EWH., City of Renton, King county, Washington, baing a portion of Government Lot 2 of Court commleaionoro PlAt 8S lying between the Burllnqton Northorn Rail Road on tho woot; Park Ave N.on tho cast; and Lake W •• hington Blvd. en the north. Grantor grants A right of way Ten (10) feet in width having Five (5) foet of width on each side of • conterlin. described as follows: -.D Boginning at the most Northorly proporty caner af the above dOBcribod -.D proporty I thenco Southwesterly along the lIesterly proporty 11no ~ thereof 400 teet; thence Easterly at a right angle to said Westerly " line to the Northarly margin of Park Ava. N.; thance Northerly along ,..... paid margin to the intersection of Gardon Avo. N. I thence tlortherly ~ along the North pr.operty lino thereaf to the paint of beginninq. 11' i . I· I . , I ,--------------.... ...--_ ....... ,.",.p ... -......... . _J,~;.' .• .' ' . . ' ,. "r, .. £XHIU/T Co" s-~~~ _______ _ JIll '" ';! .i > => ., ., ~ ~ " ~ -, ~ . J " .. -" " ... • • ~p cOttllllOl' " I HOUI .. \ I COloN 1100l0I S· • O[Ull I~ \INO SULU . .. ...... _':' ..... """ C8:I 000 IIIIC" , ... u{fHon"o-flt'2 10 COIL W' or ~Tti I ('ILl 1i11l·IAI .. CGRUUI 0' COuT~OL HOJH. \ I SItUHurOIl 11\« ... SLID / Ill' PARK AVE N. .' .' ::: . .' " .' " • I o 'J! ORIGINAL I , • EXCISE i~,X iiOT RE0UIIlEO EASEMENT I L .1 J:S/I; neeera, 0;',;,;" .J!l 1.6 ~f . O.pul, For and in consideration of One Dollar (SI.OO) and other valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, THE BOErNO COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, acting by and through its division Boeing Commercial Airplane Oroup, ("Orantor" herein), hereby grants and conveys to PUOHT POWER & LlOHT COMPANY, n Washington corporation {"Puget" hcrein~ for the purposes hereinnflcr set forth a non-exclusive perpetual easemen~ as described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B (the "Easement Area"), over, across and under the real property in Kine County, Washinglon as described in Exhibit C, which such exhibits are anached hcrelo and incorporated herein by this reference. 11l1s casement is granled subject to and conditioned upon the following terms, conditions and covenants which Puget hereby promises to faithfully and fully observe IIIId perform. I. ~. Pugel shall have the right to conslrUC~ operale, mainlain, repair, replnce and enlarge on underground electric transmission andlor distribution syslem upon and under the Ensement Area together with all necessary or convenient appurtenances therefore, which may include but are not limited to the following; underground conduits, cables, communication lines; vaults, martholes, switches, and transformers; and semi-buried or ground mounled facilities. Following the initial construction ofits facilities, Puget may from lime to lime construct such additional facilities as il may require. 2. Coroplinnce wilh Lows and Rules. Puget shall al all times emcise its righlS herein in compliance willi oil applicable lows and regulnlions. 3. Remgynl of Fill MOledal. In the evenl thai Pugcl encounlers, or suspects that it has encounlered any hazardous subslllllees in the Easemenl Area in furtherance of its righls sci forth in parasraph I, Pugel shall cease nil operations and notify Orantor. If the eneounlered or suspecled hazardous substances arc nol the resull of the OCIS or omissions of Puge~ Orantor shall, 01 its own expense, dClermine if the malerial is hnzardou~, as delennined by applicable low. If the malerial should prove 10 be hazardous, Ihenlhe Orantor shall, al its own expense, remove, dispose, or otherwise handle such hazardous subslanees, as netessary,ln accordance with applicable law, or rcroule the Easement Area, if possible. If hazardous subslances arc removed, Oranlor also shall provide substitule nonhazardous maleriallo rcplnee the removed material for ICS/ACCOI . I - lG4IO"'DS ,-: a " .~ 1 ., .'!. .' ~' a: "'''''''' ... o ORIGINAL Puget to usc In its operation, if necessary. Should the encountered or suspected material prove not to be hazardous, Puget shall proceed with the operations at its own cos~ with no recourse against the Grantor for the cost of schedule delays incurred due to the delay in operation. If the encountered or suspected hazardous substances arc or may be thc result of the acts or omissions ofPuge~ Grantor's characterization ofthe substances involved and any removal, disposal or other handling eosls incurred in cOMeetion with the removal, disposal or handling of the hazardous subslances will be 01 Pugel's expense, and Pugel shall have no recourse against Granlor for the coSI of schedule delays incurred due 10 the delay in operation. 4. puoel Use Rnd Actiyjties. Except lIS provided in Paragraph I, Pugel shall nol use, or allow the use of, the Easement Area for any pUipose whalsoever. Puget shall eKercise its rights under this Agreement so as to minimize, and avoid ifreasonably possible, interference with Grantor's usc of the Easemenl Area as set forth in ParRlJI1lph S. Puget shall, at all times, exercise its righls hereunder in a m8Mer so as to prevenl bodily harm to persons (whomsoever) and dlUR.ge to property (whatsoever). Puget shall maintain and repair the ElISement Area (and improvements Ihereon) lIS necessary 10 keep the slURe in a neal, clean and safe condition. S. GrnDto(s Use oft"e Easement Area ADd Access by GmDlor purina Cgnstructign. Grantor reserves the right to usc the Ilasement Area for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights herein granted; provided, that Grantor shall not conslnlct or maintain any building or other SInlCturc on the Easement Area which would Interfere with the exercise of the rights herein granted. Puget shall make provisions satisfactory to Grantor for conrinued access by Orantor along, over and across the Easement Area during periods in which Puget is conducting construction or other activities. In the event of an emergency requiring immediate action by either party for die protection of its facilities or other persons or property, such party may take such action upon such notice to the other party as is reasonable under the circumstances. 6. IndemniJy, Puget agrees to release, indemnifY and hold hamtless Omntor, Grantor's directors, officers, employees, agents servants and repn:sentatives from any and all actions, liabilities, demands, claims, suits, judgments, liens, awards, and damages of any kind or character whahoever (hereinofter refelTed to as "Claims"), including claims for death or injury to employees of Puge~ costs, expenses and reasonable aHomcys' rees incurred by Orantor in defense thereof, asserted or arising directly or indirectly from, on account of, or in cOMectian with Puget's operation, maintenance and control of tho ElISem,nt Area (and improvements thereon). With respect to all or any portion of the foregoing obligation which may be held to be within the purview of RCW 4.24.1 IS, such obligation shall apply only to the maximum extent permitted by RCW 4.24.1 IS. As between the parties and for pUiposes only ofd.e oblig.rions herein assumed, Puget waives any immunity, defense a'· other protection ·2· IOUOMOS ,~:.-. --.';' 'I , .. i; i '. ....... " "''''' " - ORIGINAL that may be awarded by any worker's compensation, indusuial insurance or similar laws (including but nOllimlted to, the Washington Industrial Insurance Ac~ Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington), 7. Abandonment. The rights herein granted shall continue until such time as Puget ceases to use said Easement Area for a period of five (5) sllccessive years, in which event this casement shalilerminate and all rights hereunder shall revert to Grantor. 8. ~. Notices required to be in writing under this Agreement shall be personally served or .ent by U.S. mail. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been received when three days have elapsed from the rime such norice was' deposited in the U.S. mail addressed as follows: To Grantor: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707 -MIS 75-66 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Attn: Manager of Plaaning & Leased Properties Phone: 237-1945 with a copy to: To Puget: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3101-MIS 76-52 Seattle, W A 98124-2201 Attn: Group Counsel Phone: 237-2682 Puget Sound Power & Light Company Renton Service Center 620 Grndy Way Rentan, WA 98055 Attn: Phone:-2;:';S;;'S_-=27.464:7'"-- Either party may change the address to which notices may be given by giving notice as above provided, 9, &¥W, Puget shall have the right of reasonable access to the Easement Area over and acmss adjacent lands owned by Omntor to enable Puget to exel1:ise its rights hereunder, provided that Puget shall compensate Gmntor for any damage to the Easement Area caused by the exercise of said right of access and the cost of any repairs ICSldting therefrom at the actual customary cost of such repair, -3- I04l0MDS I' I , , , :'. "" '~' :'" • ~', • ~. ',' • , ,,' I ... -......... -, ... __ ... _,--_ .......... , ....... , ... t··· I" ' ".1' " ~.: " .• '" . • '.. 'j .' , " ~ o , ORIGINAL 10. No Wa(J'Dntie&, The rights granted herein nrc subject to pcnnits, leases, licenses, IUId casements, iflUlY, heretofore granted by GrMtor affecting the Easemenl Area. Gmtor docs nol WlllTllllt title 10 its property and shall nol be liable for defects therelo or failure thereof. Any plans, specifications, or drawings (collectively, "Submittal") provided by Puget 10 GrMtor pursuant to this Agreement nrc for Grantots informational purposes only. Any analysis, review or approval by Grantor, or GrMto~s failure to analyze, review or opprove such Submittal (including failure 10 discover any error or deCect in such Submittal) shall not relieve Puget of any orits obligations under tltis Agreement GrMlor hereby expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implicd, with respect 10 any such Submittal developed, reviewed or approved by Granlor as 0 condition of this Agreement. II. SyeemoC! and AssjlIDs. The rights and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon their respective sueeessoC! IUId assigns. 12. IeIDljnoripn' Relocotipn. 12.1 Granlor may require Pugel to relocate the easement granted hereby at any time IUId from time 10 rime to anolher area of the GrlUltots property, provided thai ony such relocation shall be at Granto~s expense, and provided that any area 10 which the easement is relocated shall be deemed the "Easement Area" for all purposes oC this instrumenl from the date of such relocation. 12.2 In the event Puget breaches or foils to perform or observe any of the teIDlS and conditions herein, and foils 10 cure such breacb or default within ninety (90) days of Granto~s giving Puget written notice thereof, or, if not reasonably capable of being cured within such ninety (90) days, within such other period oftimc as may be reasonable in the circum,llUIccs, Grantor may tenninale Pugel's rights under this Agreemenl in addition to and not in limitation of any other remedy of Grantor at law or in equity, IUId the failure of Grantor to exercise such right at any time shall not waive Granlo~s righl to terminale for any futuro breach or default. 12.3 Upon termination of this Agreement IUId if requested by Grantor, Pug.~ 01 ils sole cost and expense, shall remove from the Easement Area any and all improvements thereon IUId restore the Easement Area 10 a condition as good or bener thlUl it was prior 10 construction of said improvements. ·4· 104IQ"'IDS ;. 1.1· ~,-;;' " f " t· I ,. ," , " ' ii ' ~. I ....... '. . . Il .-. ORIGINAL 12.4 No tennmation of this Agn:C1Dcnt shall release Puget from any liability or oblisation with respect I y mattcr occwring prior to sucb Icnnination. DATED. ;r<::i'j\IIt!-.=o<......> 1994. PUGET: Puget Sound Power & Lighl Company GRANTOR: The Boeing Company, by and through its division, Boeing Commercial Airplane ~«f(:![ ~~ Its.~ Its . ....:. ______ _ STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. JJ, ",Ison Dlreml, Flclliliel and Servfeel BOling Commerd~1 Airplane GfVIIII On this ~y of 1994, before me the undersigned personally COUNTYOF~O ~ RppellIed J. J. NELSON to me wn to be the person who signed as DIRECTOR OF FACn..ITlES of Boeing Commercial AlrplllPe Group, a division of TIlE BOEINO COMPANY, the corporation that ClIeculed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said ins1rumenllo be the free and voluolaly acl and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath staled that he was·duly-au . d to execute the snld instrument , "':.' '.' ;;. ~ .5· .\ - o ORIGiNAL I WITNESS my hand and official seal~et9-lIffJJ!I!!J!ltI!Jl wrlnen. STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) 55. COUNTY OF KINO ) On this..L day of ~, 1994. before me the undersigned personally appcl1l\:dA.", .TQnn to me known to be the bmt.. ~f PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. the cOlpOmtion that executed the foregoing instnll11en~ IIDd acknowledged the sald Instrument to be the free and volunlaly act and deed of sald corpomtion. ror the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath Slated that he was duly authorized to execute the sold Instrument. WITNESS my hand IIDd official seal hereto nffixcd the day and year first abovc wrlnen. "-~ NO-bho in and for the Slate~gtonre5lding . at 1!!119-. My commission expires Ji:.iI. 'Ii _. o ORIGINAL/ EXHlBITA (legal description of Easemenl Area) Excepl as may be otherwise sCI rorth herein Pugers rights shall be exewised upon thaI ponion of the Property (the "Easemenl Area") described as follows: IOUOMDS The Wesllen (10) reel of the South 2S reel or the North 9S feel orthe Property described in Exhibil C. . '" : ."" ", ~. ' , ,.I·i :" • '1:.:-\ . ~~ CI . " ORIG~NAL r EXHlBITB (drowinS showing Easement Ar •• ) . '" ," .. \: ': .... ' '-" "",,:"'" --" ~ I , , o -F='f' .... ~=11 ••• ' .... tI"'----'io " :t:-'I ;' .... '_. -1 , .. -'-. .. ":~, _ ................. , .......... _ ................ _ ............ e., _ ................ . .... o EXHIBITC (le8a1 description of real propenyl The NOM 300 feel ofth. EnsllOO feel of the NDMwesl qullrler ofth. SDuthwesl qullrler of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range OS Eas~ W.M.; EXCEPT the Wesllen (10) feel then:ofconvcyed 10 tlte City DfRenlDn for road. I0410MDlI • ,. .. " ,.. .. ,.1/::' .. : :; ,:;' :;~·~.)~r;,;~ r;,:;:TI:1H: i:'~~;~~~~1 :7-,':: "i:\::;:'::;:.:I",}\'; (: ~;:i --:~ I ., ·1 ., o • ORIGINAL NOV 2 11~~~" ! EASEMENT ,', . For and in consideration of One Dollar (SI.00) 6I1d other valuDble considerotion the receipt of which is hereby Dcknowledged, THE BOEING COMPANY,. Delaware corpomtion, .cting by 6I1d through its division Boeing Commerci.1 Airplane Group, ("Grantor" herein), hereby gmnts and conveys to PUGET POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Washington corpomtion ("Puget" herein), for the purposes herein.ner set forth a non-exclusive perpetuol easemen~ •• described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B (the "Easement Area"), over, across and under the real propelty in King Counly, Washington .s described in Exhibit C, which such exhibits are attached hereto 6I1d Incorporated herein by this reference. This eosement Is gmnted subject to 6I1d conditioned upon the following terms, conditions nod covenants which Puget hereby promises to foithfully nod fully observe 6I1d perform. 1. ~. Puset sholl hove Ihe right to construc~ operote, mointain, repnir, replace and enlorge 611 underground elecllic transmission undlor disllibutionsystem upon and under ~IC Easement Areo together wi~, all.necessnry or convenHmt oppultenonces tlterefore, which moy Include but nre not limited to the following: underground conduits, cobles, communication lines; vauits, manholes, switches, and IIBnsfonners; and semi-bnried or ground mounted focilities. Following the initiol construction of its facilities, Puget may from time to time construct such additionnl faoililies as it may require. 2. Complinncc wilh Lnws nnd Rilles. Puset sholl ot all rimes exercise its rights herein in complianc. wi~1 oil opplicoble lows and regulations. 3. Rempva! offill Materinl. In the event that Puget encounters, or suspects Utot it hos encoulltered any hllZardou. substances in the Easement Area in further6l1ce of its right. set forth in parograph I, PUget .hall cease oil operations and notify Gmntor. If the encountered or suspeclCd hllZDldoU5 substances are not the result of Ole acts or omissions of PUBet, Grantor shall, nt it. own expense, determine if the material is hazardous, as detcnnined by applicable law. If Ute material should prove to be hazardou., then ~IC 01'6I1tor shall, ot its own expense, remove, dispose, or otherwise handle such hazardous substances, a. ncccssnry, in DCcord6l1ce with applicable law, or reroute ~,c Easement Aren, if possible. Ifhazardou. subst6l1ces arc removed, Grantor also shall provide substitute nonhazardous material to replnce the remo,'ed moteri.1 for ~ :;. B '., • Puget to usc in its opemtioll, if neceGslU)'. Should the encountered or suspected material prove not to be hazardous, Puget shall proceed with the opemtions at its own cost, with no recourse againsl the Granlor for the cosl of schedole delays inculTed due 10 the delay in operation. If the encounlered or suspecled hazardous subslances are or lnay be tho resull of the acts or omissions of Pugel, Gmnlo~s characterizalion ofthe substances involved and any removal. disposal or other handling cosls inculTed in connection with the removol, disposal or handling of the hazardous subslances will be at Puget'. expense, and Puget shall hove no recourse against Gmntor for the cost of schedule delays inculTed due to the delay in opemtion. 4. Puger Use Hnd Activities. Except as provided in Paragraph I, Puget shnll not usc, or allow the usc of, the Easement Aren for an)' purpose whntsoever. Puget shall exercise its righls under dlis Agreement so as to minimize, and avoid if rensonably possible, interference with Granto~s usc of the Ensement Are. os set forth in Paragraph S. Pugel shall, ainU times. exereise its righls hereunder in a manner so as to prevent bodily hnlTOlo persons (whomsoever) and damnge to property (whalsoever). Puget shalt maintain and repoir d.e Easement Area (and improvements thereon) as nceesslU)' to keep the same in a nea~ clean and safe condition. 5, Gmnlo(s Use p[the EAsement Aren Rnd Access bv Gmnt0[ purina ConstmctiQ!l. Gmlllor reserves the right to use the ElISement Area for any purpose not inconsislent wid. the righls herein granled: provided. that Granlor shall not construct or maintain any building or other struclure on the Easement Are. which would interfere with the exercise of the righls herein grnoted. Pugel shall make prOvisions .atisfaclory to Oranlor for continued access by Oranlor nlong, over and across the Easement Area during periods in which Pugel is conducting construction or other nctivities. In d.e event of an emergency requiring immediate action by either ptU1y for the proleclion of ils fncilities or od.er persons or property, such ptU1y may take such acrion upon such notice to d.e other ptU1y a. is reasonnble under the circUmslances. 6. Indemnity. Puset awees to release, indemnify and hold harmless Grantor, Granlor's direclors, officers, employees, ngents servnnls and representatives from any and all actions. liabilities, dcmands, claims, suits, Judgmenls, lien., awards, and damnges of any kind or ehameter whalsoever (hereinafter refelTed to 8S "Claims"), including clnims for dend. or injury 10 employees of Puget, cosls, expenses and rensonable anomeys' fees incUITed by GOUltor in defense thereof, asserted or arising directly or indireclly from, on nccounl of, or in connection with Pugel's operntion. maintenance ond control of U •• !lnsemenl Area (and improvemenls d.ereon). With respcel to all or any portion of the foregoing obligation which mny be held to be within the purview of RCW 4.24.11 S, such obligation shall npply only to the maximum exlent pennined by RCW 4.24.IIS. As belween the parties and for purposes only of the obligntions herein assumed, Puget wllives any immunity, defense or other protection • 2 • IIMIO~IDS • :\ i ;. J 1 I ,~ It. • that may be awarded by any worker's compensation, industrial insurance or similar laws (including bUI nollimiled 10, tlte Washington Industriallnsuranc. Act, Title 51 of tlte Rcvised Code of Washington), 7. Abandgnment. The righls herein cmnted shall continue until such time as Pugel ceases 10 use said Easement Area for a period of five (5) successive years, in which evenl tltis easemenl shalilerminale and all rights hereunder shall ",.ert 10 Granlor. 8. ~. Notices required to be in writing under this Agreemenl shall be personally selVed or senl by U.S. mail. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been received when tltree days have elapsed from tlte time such notice was deposited in tlte U.S. mail addressed os follow,: To Granlor: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707· MIS 75·66 SeaUle, WA 98124·2207 Ann: Manager of Planning & Leased Properties Phone: 237·1945 witlt a copy 10: To Pugel: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707· MIS 76·52 SeaUl., WA 98124·2207 Ann: Group Counsel Phone: 237·2682 Pugel Sound Power & Light Company Renlon Service Cenler 620 Gllldy Way Renlon, W A 98055 Ann: """'''''''''.,..,.., __ _ Phon.: 255·2464 Eitlter party may change tlte address to which notices may be given by giving notice as above provided. 9. ~. Pugel shall have tlte righl of reasonable access 10 tlte Easemenl Area over and across adjacent lands owned by Gmntor to enable Puget to exercise its rights hereunder, provided tltat Pugel shall compensate Granlor for any damage 10 tlte Easemenl Area caused by tlte exercise of said right of access and tlte oosl of any • " '. '. g • 10. Ng WO)I!lDties. The rights granted herein are subject to permits, leascs, licenses, and casements, if any, heretofore pted by Grantor alfectiog the Easement Area. Grantor does not warrallt title to its property and shall not be liable for defects thereto or failure thereof. Any plans, specifications, or drnwings (collectively, 'Submlnal') provided by Puget 10 Grantor pursuanl to this Agreemenl arc for Granto~s infonnational P"''Poses only. Any analysis, review or npproval by Grantor, or Granto~s failure to analyu, review or npprove such SubmiUal (including failure to discover any error or defect in such SubmiUal) shall nol relieve Puget of ony of its obligations under this Agreement. Grantor hereby expressly discillims ony and all wnrranties, express or implied, with respect to any such Submittal developed, reviewed or approved by Grantor as a condition of this Agreement. II. Successors Rnd Assigns. The rights and obligations of UI. parties shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon their respective successors and assigns. 12. Tennjonrioo' Relocation. 12.1 Grantor may require Puget to relocate the casement granted hereby at any time and from time 10 time to another area of the Granto~s property, provided Ihol any such relocation shllli be Bt Granlor's exp,nse, ond provided thaI any area 10 which the easemenl is relocated shall be deemed the "Easement Area" for all purposes of this instrumenl from the date of such relocation. 12.2 In the evenl Pugel breaches or fails 10 perf ann or observeony of the lenns ond conditions herein, ond fails to cure such breach or default within ninety (90) days of Grantor's giving Puget wrinen notice thereo~ or, if nol reasonably capable of being cured within such ninety (90) days, within such other period of time as may be reasonable in Ule cireumslances, Grantor moy lerminate Pugel's rights under this Agreement in addition 10 and nol in limilation of any· other remedy of Granlor allow or in equity, and Ihe failure of Granlor 10 exereise such righl 01 any time shall not waive Oranto~s right to tennin.te for any future breech or default. 12.3 Upon lermination of this Agreement and if requested by Grantor, Puge~ ot its sale cosl and expense, shall remove from the Easemenl Area any and all improvements thereon and restore the Easement Area 10 a condition as good or bener than it was prior to construction of said improvements. ·4 • IOUOt.!DS " . .. o • 12.4 No termination of this Agreement shllli release Puget from ony liability or obligation with respect to any maner occwring prior to such termination, DATEDS{,t2-~ .1994. PUGET: , Puget Sound Power & Light Company STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) 55. GRANTOR: The Boeing Company, by and through Its division, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group ~~ ;;7 _____ _ IJ. Nelson Olrvctor, flclll«1S Ind Smllit~ Doelna Colnnhlrci,'1 Airplln. GIIII'jI On Ihls'ii!fay of • 1994, before me the undenigned penonally COUNTY OF KING ~ appeared J. J. NELSON to Ie wn 10 be the penon who signed as DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES of Boeing Commereilll Ailplane Group, a division ofTHE BOEING COMPANY, the corpomtion thai execuled the foregoing instrumenl, and aclmowlcdged the said instrumenllo be the free and volunlBly acl and deed of said corpomtion, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath staled thai he was duly authorized to execule the said instrumenl. '/ : . . , ' .. ,', -- • WITNESS my hand and omcialseall'ei~,afti~~~~~~~lIIf!jove written. State ofw~on re~ at ~n~,.4. My commissiou eXPires/"l'8' STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) s •. COuNTY OF KING ) On,s"'t..: of ~. 1994. before me Ibe undersigned personally appeared' to me ImOWII to be thel'J/fIJ..1MI6io!!Eof PUGET SOUND POWER &. L1G T COMPANY. the corporation that excculed the foregoing inslnlment, and aclmowledged the said inslnUDent to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation. for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath slllted that he was duly authoriud to execute the sold inslnUDenl WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first obove written. No ubi c in and for the Slllte of Washington residing at ~t . My commission expires -ia.,;lII-4f ..... : :.'.":: .:. ,:~', ~ " .. ~.' . . / '," ". ~. ,., .. ' .' . , .6· ......... lo.tlClMDI .":" .. , ~,' i e, : . ~-.:; .. !jj. - ... , r - I " o • EXHIBIT A (legal description of Easement Arca) Except as may be otherwise set forth herein Pugers rights shall be exercised upon that portion of the Property (the "Easement Area") described as follows: The Weslten (10) feet of the South 25 feet of the North 95 fe.t of the Property described in Exhibit c. I' IIHIOIIDS • o • • ---. ~ I EXHlBITB (drawing showing Easement Area) .. , 10410"'D5 == .. ~ I. }. f \ , ,;"',",,, ~-. .' II .. , o • ...... ' ............................ _., ............. _ ...... -.............. -. ~,m: I.T II ft." • LWJ.&. ____ -v-._Z ,~ . . ,'" II .. :: .,..:' ·w • , • ',. '" • - " I • ~I , : ' , ... ; -- , . . . ~ '" • EXHIBITC (Ieslll description orreal property) The North 300 feet ofth. East 100 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Southwesl quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range OS'Eas~ W.M.; EXCEPT the Wesllen (10) feel thereof conveyed 10 the City of Renlon for rood. 1G4IUIdDS ----------,,--------------------- !'n-Y OF RENTON, WASHING-rON ORIlINANl'C NO, ...llU.. AN ORPlNANt:r. OP Tile CITY OF RENTON, WASHINOTON VAGAl1NO A PORnON OP CALIPORNIA AVENUR (N_ 11'111 AND ALLUY nP.'1'W~CN CALIFORNIA AVENue (N_ 7TH) ANn N_ 8TH S'fREET (VAC 4.79) WHEREAS. propel' petillon tor VlcaUng a portion of california Avenue (N. 7th 9t.) and oUey betwoOn CaUtornla Avenuo (N. 1tf'! 'n.' and N. 8th Street Renton, KI", County, WO.fhlnrton, 1'14' duly fflad wfth tho cJty Clerk on 01' .bout Pebru,ery I, 1919. and laid petlUon hlvlns bean stanO(! by awnora representing mOJ'o than two--thlrctJ or tho property abu"'n, upon suoh rtroet Ind aUo)' SQUlht to b" tceated; and WHP.RBAS the City ("..ounell by Rosolutlon No. 2241 pusod and approvort on Pebru8r~' t6, linD, tlnd dtet due Inv4IItlgation, did fill and determine the 16th day or March, 1919, at the hour of 8tOO P,M. In the City Counc:JI Chamber.t or Ute ,crry or Renton to be the time and place for • p~bUo heDtln, thereon, aM Ibe City Clerk having gtven due notice or .uch heerinlln the manner provided by law, Qnd sald t\earlnc having been ctontlnijod to April 8, 19111 lind April IB, 1979, Inei IU pentons having bet!n .,; ~eArd appearlnc tn favor or In opposition thontol and WHEREAS tho Department of PubUo Works and the Planning PopftI'lment ot the City ot Renton hayi", duly con.ldered Hid petition for cald vacation, and having round aame to be In the pUb!lc Inlerest am ror Ihe public benefit, and 1,0 injury or d"mage to ony pel'lOn Dr properties will rOlull trom .uch vocations, NOW THERHPORS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASKINOTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS, 8ECnOH h The lollowlng 4 ... rlbe<l porUon 01 '''eet 4n4 alley, to-wit< Sec Rxhlblt "At! attaohed hereto and mode .. patt her ~of AI If tuUy tot rorth herein. BB AND THE SAME 18 "BRUDY YAOATBO ~UPJBCT to an II:lI5ement ovor, oor3Sll, under and on All of Caltrornla. Avenue (N. 7th St.) In rovor of the City ror utlUty and related purpo!l'8I. 8HcnON p, Tho City Gounell hereby olo.ta to • ...,. •• I ... 1 $21,868.21 to PeUUoner-Own,l'II, said ,m""nt .ot ••• ...,1", ontHIall 01 tho City" approl .. 1 01 De~oription: King,WA Do~nt~YOA;.MQnth.PaY.Oo~?9.521.642 Pa e: 1 of S' order: 1 Coalmont: - . '.' tho ri8'ht"'O(·WR~ Interest h,rein vle"ted, aM IlIIeh chargo being reQonnb.c and proper. ~N 1110 Thl. Orlll.o.o. ,haU be .1I .. tI .. upon 1\. p .... ,., appro.1lI nnd live day. oller It. publication. A •• ,tlIIOCI oopy of Ihl. Ordl.o.ce ,hall be ruod with the 011100 .f H •• ora. and RI~tlom, Kin, COllnl,V, lind a. othcl"wict' prov!'!d by Jaw. PASSBD BY TIIB CITY COUNCI" I, 14 thday .f May, 1119. APPROVED BY '1'118 MAYOR Ihl. 1979. Approyed .1 to Corml /' ...., ." , "1 {.l"I~",,; .. .J \i~V1, v' "'\, .. Ciwrence I. WQrMrt, tlty Attorney Date 01 Publlcall... 5/18/79 ~8ariP'tion,' KinglWA oooument'-Year:Month.Da:y.Dool'D 1979.521.642' Fa'ge: '2 ot 5 i' ,oF :..~. "i.:'~ order: 1 Comment: _ .. __ .... _-,-.~.--.. ~ ....... ~ . ..:~ .. ;;, .. -... • UHIOIT A VAC 4-19 (revised 4-23-79) Ordinance *:"319 That portio" of the north one-half of the 60 ft. 5Ir •• t rlght-of-w.y known IS ~. 7th St. os dedicated .Ithln the plat of Renton fa .. Acreago, iCcordlnA to ttle plat recorded in VolullMt 12, Pl1ge 37 records of KlnoCountylluhl'nton; Ivl'9 .e.t of the ... t margin of (i.rdon Avenue H. e.terwtdj Ind 1y.n9 lISt or the weH boundary of Slid plet. Tegether with that portIon of the 16 ft. dedicated .lley lyfng .dj.cent to and abutttnJl thereon the west line of Blotk 3, Rlnton Fern .cr,a~e, according to tho pl,t thereof recorded In Vol."" 12 of pl,ts, pog_ 37 records of King County Wtshtngtunj e.cept the north 30 feet thereof conveyed to the Ctty or Renton ·~"r street PUt'P0leS under Auditor's file No. ~180889. Deacription: King;wA DoCumont-y~'ar.Month:o.1Y.Do~.!p 1979.521.642 page: 3 ot 5 .... 4;~:~' .. , ... _""' .... Order: 1 Comment: ry ----_._-------------- J -.1 EXHIBlI B VAC 4-79 (Revised 4-23-79) Ordinance H3319 An Chuement for uti IIty purposes over that portion of the north one" half of the 60 ft. strflt rtght·of-wIY known as H. 7th St. as dedicated wtth1n ttle pht of Renton f'ann ~rlllC}e according" to the plot recorded In YolU1118 ll. page 37 records of King County Washl''9ton lying west of the west margin of Garden Ayenue N. extended: and lying list of the west boundary of uld plat. -1),d..:,1:: Or lH:;; CITY CLERK. "l'II;8h liidlhOIiAt dM • . __ -.ii2~00i'rii"'p;'U.::;,o;·' .. VEm·.:SOU .... TOiH:,...._ ilEN I UN, WA§A. 'lidSI ._------- .' . De~crj,p·tion: Kt~g,WA vOaumont ... :roar.Month.DaY,D<JcIO 19?9.S21.642'ea e: 4 oe 5",·' Ordor: 1 Communt: ..• .: ~:. .. .. ;' 'll · I .-... oJ .~ · " .0 .<.1 .:,--4 ... L;', · , ~, 'r- ·:0 ... '" .~ ........ ----'-'--' ... --_ .. -. ___ n._ .... ·.·._··· :i,~f' ,"/ . ~ .• ~" ".1' 'I' I~·'.U"/I: . 1>,. OoAlcr.iption: King/W'A OoO'tJ.U1Snt-YQflr.~nth;DAY.DoaID 1979:521.642 'page: 5 o~ .; .. ;l':ji .. ::,,, Ordor: 1 Commontl WHEN Rfcororo Ae1VRN TO 0II0t d fie CIr1 CIwI< Re'*lII ~ 111111 10115 80uIh QrJdVw., R.<IIQn, WA IIIIOP BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 I:",?·, 2-.""'--_ ~ .. , .,': APPROVAl S· t.UA-07-048-0SP LND-J5-0016 .....sfL A"I'~O""'-I) RY, __ _ "'101 n.HF· SINDING BITf PLAN SE 11" SECT, " TWP, 23N_, RClE. Sf., W.M. SW II" SECT, B, nYP. 23 N., RClE, SE., W,M. OITY OF RENTON, KINO OOUNTY, WASHINGTON tCOM p[sCRIPnON ill-fXISnNG PARcelS' W:~A~~f~f~~Q~,1e ~~~Jt~f ~o.:.:~NtY ;~t'4~~c~r,,:, ~;'!:~?'!p:~'51~: '!t'AN PARr.t~ A_' la'" pr. OF IIfIlION ~I Pl.'" N(N/J(~ 08J_It, fiCCOIIIXII O/Ov["~fJI If. "'~ \I'IoX~ ~,,,a CotJ"TT oIItc<:lfIOWC "0. ''''H~ ()I' ornerlol. PCI:QIIO" UWI /WA I "OIfllOrro CON"I"VfO TO mr 011 ()I' "CHItIN "OI.IIr Q,oI."'" am IItt'OItIXll ~O"l"I4S{~ .. IHI ~"0£~ oII1COMt1NO 110 "IIDIO'~J rJF Ofi'>QAt IlfCQltOS. '" "1I«l COIJOITT, ot"oISIfIOjar!ll>' 4UIl f.<t'U'rwG r>offItfJIOOl' II<AT 1'OIt~ COHvrrt"O TO fI;f: t'lf" 01' I!f>jTQH ,r OUO ~,00ItLJ£D Al/G<ISr ". tooc" "","'II II£COIlfJ/IIC ~O. 10011Po!1I00,m ... onotG CtIl.Wr~, "As.<IIOC~ PARCf1 '-1 LOI5 I, 1, J, • "'0 ~ BLOC~ J .... u/,~ 1.t~14 "'~l"",l", ACC'I.MOJHG ro /lie "LA r 'HCIfCOi' ~rr:o~!lfO IN \oUi.lJlI£ 11 or !'LArS, .Act' H. IN ~'/OG ePIIN'Y, WA$l<l>jorOO(· !tCfN Il;fllltHDI/ 1>/1' II""'" JOOO Uf' !)t' SAIII LOI • CONv["¥fp '0 .... r C.TY Of' ~'Nrcw 1"1)01 S"'fCl ..... ~pOsn: lJI/DC~ ~CCD~OIl/C II(J 51B!IIliit ()I' ()I'flClAL Rl"C'tlHPII ... 50 OCf~1 iliA' 1'(1#1_ COO/I(\"tD '0 'H( cn, ()I' ~t'llC»j ,. fhH "'SIll~ .. fNr f«COIIX£; Q{"CUlllfll ,i, 1D011 UI«lU IIfC'Ol<DlHG I/O 1OOI111:1OOOJJ4 IN KING etlIIf/rr. WASffiJltil'OH. 'oacl"Hf '"' ... '1<{ NOII'H HA(r or VACAI/./) O;OIH .. "" SJJI£H 1oQ.!/JINlIYG'''''' ",AI .",,~ 01 .... ,ty AOJCIIOIM) (11/ IHf 1It"Sf H VACAf(O 1Jfo'D(~ CI" fY ~(IIIQN Ool"D.",A .. cr 'I(). JJ.t .~!l RCCI)IIOfO "A~ 11. ,,1f ..... DC" KWC COU~fr ~tCOllOW(; 110. "0'110,,., 01' OI"flIllol. IfiCOllos. 1/1 % (:Cl.nIf" ... ~fI)Oo_ D BOEINQ REALfVCOMPANY CITY OF RENfON ~~L.!A~K,-C_5_H_O,RruE"Lc;AN",D.,I"N;;-G_2_B_IN_D_I,N",G~57.:IT",E,..Pc;L!!;A~N~~ ."" , o SCALE o ~o 1:'>0 E 1 ; ( F~(! ) , i'I:;.'" _ '00 n BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 " ". BINDING BITB PLAN se 1/4 secr. 7, TWP. 2JN., ROE. 5e" W.M, SW 114 SECT. 8, TWP. 23 N., Roe, SE., \IV M. Clry OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHING rON ",.'.'.':;. :~;/ LOT·~~·';'''·/· ;; 619,004 ''1_ It . ·\,~,~.'~,I 0.,... ./ ':. .:: "'~. "::.'" ,... .. :,:, .. ,,,,.,,,,,,,, BOEING REAL TY COMPANY CiTY OF RENTON C/ ry or BeN TON 5!IRVfy CON TROt ' ~CS TO Clrr or jf(~fON $tI~\{'r COI>'IlIOI. .. (!'lI!)II_ >IOI<U",rHf', A~ SHO"'" (l~ s>tCns 1 AHQ J LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN ,,,,' .~ " I .~, i LUA-07-048-8SP lND-J5-00IB BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDINO BITe PLAN 56 114 SECT. T. TWP. 2JN., ROE. 5£" W.M SW 1/4 SECT. B, TWP. 2J N .• ROE. Sf .. W,M CITY OF RENTON. KINO COUNTY. WASHINOTON '00 0 !!?5-..i (rcn) I INCH. roo rr 200 ! .... BOEING REAL TY COMPANY CITY or RENTON .ors:" '.0' 5. ,"':. i:~T JIll ':: . ~; lor J£:: :,or ,,' :,,,,.,':. 'lor • ltir. 'e ,t' III~Cnl .. /.,' LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN '" " , .ClI(U ";.00. 11," l~.r~.· ':!,l' IIf!.D",' <.II ,,, i, .... Jf,!1 ". 11.r~' ,"''''PI? ,JO;I1J J D~: .:"0'.1":: I'hiEN flECOROED R!l'1JRN 1(.1 011''''' 01 till ell}' CII<\< ~nIIl~CityHall 1005 Ikl\IItI Grady Ww f!en\I:lfl,WA 01'lOI5 BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 IZ"I?~ LOf'L-. n~fI .' .,': APPROVAlS' , .. ':, KING CDUNTY O[PART/,fCNT DF' ASSeiiS.,fNis· .. · BINDING BIT!! PLAN SE 114 SECT. '. TWP. 23M. ROE. 5ri .• W.M sw 114 SECT. 8. TWP, 23 N" ROE, 5E" W.M CITY OF ReNTON, KINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON , .. , WORKS ""_.2<ll!l!!.""",'--w.o:J .~. bOMb D[SCRIPUDN Df CK!SUNG PAReaS' (n~fT O"f~O!;4N ~nf INSlJI!AotU CO>O.II/OH. cOla/m.! .. , ~Q ,;c.;. 2~~IQ!~\"'. ~"/JD 'rBIIII~~~ 1 •. 1W1J ~'IfCI:LS 8. C AN{} [ ARf "0' • ~'~I Of ,..,S 11111)"'" $HC PLAN ~4IIcn 0·' 10' .... ~" Of RHO(ll< SHOIIT ptA, "1J1I~l!t OU.li. Rlr:tJljl/Ul Nll\f:OIIICI I~. 'f.U ~HCIC~ "Na COI.oNTY ~Ct'OIIDWO 010 lilllUOO5 or ()IT'I(:I.~ "'~OIIo-s. f-"tV'r 1110. ~OOInoo.' COH\'£I'£O It! Il<£ CITY or IfCNTDH It OIJIr Q.A,'" ocro ItccWOCD ~O>1:1oI8!lI ~. 'HII ""N~ "fCOIIDoND ~ IJaIlC9QHJ or orf'CIoll. IIft!)l!Of. '" ~'>«i ctII!I'In • ... SHlf/CIOH ' o~ro ft~l.IIl\N(/ INfItfFllCllol ..... r "'oorllOl; COO<o('lD) 10 /)if CITY Of ~1tlN .t DCttl ~fCORlltD AIJMf ". 10(1(1lJ1OO£ff R£COIIOWG 010. ZOO5I¥'1Q(101I'1N IOfI'll Q/\/Pjrr. "AStlI/oGTtW RAlIcn '~1 ~~1r~ l.,,/to:r:oC ",J,:~ t ~~~is.4IIf,.tl"N~ ~.{O ':~'1:riw; CLCCPT /'I;(IIrf/f()ll II;l _IN JOQ() fur or $.l() (or' COIo'I>CmI TO '>tC orv OF ",,,,roo. 1001 SlIIerl I'!)I/I'OSCS, V04If~ lIfc:tll'OlMl NO ,1t()M. (IF (lFro", _!CORDS- ACSO £l'cr~' /If.I /IOIII!CW COO<I'I"I111 ro rHl orr or .t(lifOH ,r IJiH INIIIWIIC"T "CCOI'IlI(tI OlCfIllf[H '1. 100. II<'fIICR II{COOOff(1 NO lOOIItl:roooJJ4 IN 'W(: toIIliff. W.SHIMi~ 'OIIHMril ",IN I", NOIITI1 1<." Of ,'.c.rro N()OIIN I/tl !lIIal 4D.GMIt!i'.,o;o 'I<H ~OqnOH (J( .lour ~O OH TI<f IICSf.S v.C.rcllIMO€.II CIT< Of /ft·".ON O'WI/>IA/IC{ 110 »'9 AIiO UCVROCO .... 11, I~}II ~"CCR j<IIjC ~OIJNlr ~£COIlOINIi NO '1I1)~l'I¥U Of OfflCf-tl RfCDIIO!l: III KIIOO ~DV"rr, IIAJ><IfI'llrtW '::;. _._., .. ··,1 .• ~:~!lctt "~J /;: ':;. /. ~._'" JIIOOO InT or.'fI<r tAn '1»00 nH f» II<f _ll<tIf"f' QUA~If. OF 1>1£ ::~~~ O;:!~~fY~ ...... ~':m~~ 1J /j~~ H4tKL J cur. "'LI . .lMCrn '. CKClI'r THCI/{fHP/I 'Irof "MIN .000 ncr 1I<f'CIIf. aJl'M'l'f'1I 10 "'" CITY 01 ~C/j1tW ...... \:~ ~o~g:~r'f>.~W~<Mlr!:,H$&~~=tJ·,~8'!·J! ~~TH~gc:Oftn or ",. .:. n..,1k/IInON,·'Of ~~I/M'" JOO,/IO ncr r YI.W SllIJJ;jCH(f ()I IN( orv 01 S(ATIl£' . ··\¢:,~;c':abI!~-.. ~~::um~ ~f = :c:rof'rv 01 .CHMH 'Y OITO ," .::so.'c",(l:r o.c~ rnA I POItrn:w IIHCH .AI D(tom TO P;c CITY '" Itfl//()I>I " ')fro "CCI)IPOCD ....,.r 7. "et IHU'II; IlCCOIIOI'IC"O 1100II010."; or omoO( _(COOIO:5-Ai.50 r¢C~' """,_ POIIIIOlI'COO<I'I"=.tplfll .... ClI~ DI" "CHI()Oj.,. ",or ",,,"1>01("" 'rc~ •.. :, ...... :. I)i'CfIolllr' 11. 1~ ~ "tCflll/l1l«O "'(i':~"117OW.1J4 ,..(~.('(X.Wrv .... ~''''''TtW. ':":'.:" ~;;:f.':~' ::01" LOI C.J.'.')i s;~, ~o ·.'~-u, R(Coll;~D Hfllll.cq II. 11118 .,0"' u~1It'R ~CC~tt;C ~O d.!II'~1 or <'I<'ncJA.l II{C(lRP!, ~ '-INC ;:D1.wr.-. W4SH,I.rGItW. r~~cn .. ~j' _,;.' .... ".''''' .... '.,'' ... .:: ). .il· .,,::: :~W~~: ~~~ ~~~~t;ffr "fr:,r:' ~~·.~s,:,fI'll'f;.! I>C"IICO' .=~" "'1II'1>jr:J!f!l M .... fdf, wc~ri€ ND<I'\i l1>f I~' .0J0fHII{G. ~s VAC~mI ~lSO~.;g,r-r:; ~~~ ~r;o:'A liON 'W-tiM AO.i;m1Nt) oirHt wm. "AC~mI UNOCff CIIY or "(I/r%l OtIOlfjoUl(;{.,~ fO~" .uiP /lCcq.tMll ... ..,.,rJ-t fl. II" I!~OU "rCO/fDlHC 010 81DJlIO!Il~, or on'lC1Al 1Ict"0I'1IS" , ' • ... ·~cn ~~, ,'; ~!lr J, P'OCO f, .. P;'itiI,."i-~,A; Ac .. ci=z ~1ION. Acto.o<o,tG fO IIjf PlAT IIoCIlfDl" ~Ct'OIW(lI1N \Q.1Nf 11 OC'oPi.AIl. Jo.~c Jl. "~II/D COIP>'Tr; W.S,"'«HOH. rocrll<Ol 11M'" "'., po~I1oIt-,o" 41icr 4Z\..()IO;INO,1fH ,I<! ",sr. ~OC.1fl) lJIODU C!!l' or .CHIo.. IlI!OIN4~Cf 110 4Q4a..,4'-'O ~~COIlOCfJ or~"c .. II, IN~ I.!NCC" ~l'CO'l)iHO NO. ,7/lJ!lO'" W OfroCl~! IIrC(l~DS ,i: .;: rull"K11 A"" A~a"'l"O ....., _l~ lin "l,ll<~""''I'--.j.-ii-- .s:o.tt.._t,IoQ!L._. ___ ~'fr#<I4i~~~i.....1_ «,~o COl; .....• ~SlHf'" ,:';':'" occnUN. NUIIII'" O#IIOI.a 'PO!III, 'U..IIlIl-OIO' LUA-07-04B-8SP ~,~s:m"l,i iJT. "~"M< !iY WO-JS-OOIII :,,[CI«:1 BY iI","i>(llifn RY __ _ "::J: !i41,' 1.2La1LlZl ReVISION C~'!i 4~ ;." , .:',\ \ " '.:, .:. " D aOC/NGREAtTYCOMPAN'f CITY OF RENTON LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN I~"·")·~"" ~=---~~ Sf;", ~: f'~O~(C r ,"-lO NIA J1614 r()jl"~ ." • f' COOIC~!I'1' ~~, 01/ COf'P(e UC~ ... I/ICJI((I/ C_Sf i1011h 1.0' 11«0'" ,-?OI., f 1/" 5CCllON C""'<f~ 0/ IIJlH Pig ~~'f,,~: ~~Rtr0 Bff(RfNCC$ o ~ll"r: f'''f:C'g'l:OIIr "" . ..r /Ice N(l lOOllla~~PI'lIXJ. ~ -s- I SCALE o 50 lno c·_: " ( rfff J . ; .. :::::::,. "",I~:.i~·,,,· h5U/x1; 1.,1.7.' I INCH _ '00 Ft BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 SINOING SIT!! PLAN Sf! 1f4 SECT. 7, nvp, 2JN, RGE. ~E., W.M SW 114 SECT. B, TWP. 23 N., RGE, Sf" W.M. CITY OF RSNTON, KINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON CITY Of RrNTON 5lJRYfY CONTROl ' ~fS I'D "rt' M ItC0/1Of/ SI)IIIf"Y ctWrII:l 'lfTflOllK IoIOMJllrOirs. ~S SrlQ .... 0'1 5..a~ r "~Il J N 8th SI. ""'""'\" .. ;./":o}~·".; :: (119,004 Iq, II. ,,;:: ':,:,.~,«,,~.! ocr •• ')-" LOT5E JIl,/Jt7 10. II. " . LOT 50 , 168. !I.J'q fI. J.1I11 OCf., BOEING RE"-l 1'1' COMPANY CITY OF RENTON n, II! i :~ , II I .I LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 """''''" LI UOU',,"r, 1~.If· ~J 10''011',0"11: 14.1" U IM""ao'C. J.)O' RfNr(W f"AR~ ACRCAGE VOl. !l/J7 BLOCII' 4 ~ .. :;----...-;;. _I N 6rh Sr. LUA-07-0 .. 8-BSP [lCS':';NfD at. ___ (;MfC~fO B~. O" ... .mdf. ~ L.,~T m'T. aaLlaLlJ? "'LOr DAre; BINOINO 8/Te PUN SE 11 .. SECT. " TWP. 2JN., RGE. 5E., W.M. SW 114 seCT. 8, TWP. 2.1 N., RGE. 5E., W.M. CITY OF R6NTON, KINO COUNTY, WASHINGTON ';""",:: { .~ ,;.:';,' ..... " ...... . "/10 ~ClHY COIII€1I5 JIIU "' ..... "0 AS ,..tJlf or ~ IJWOi'I'lI SIre It\. .... . ' 011£,:10 ruJ1.Mt;.~1lIUC1I(W tor.'MIl'IUhOfIS. " ~r 'II' ';;"l .-~'UI~II .r:i~ t«.;iIi:C'OIoII'oUIY. " ,:. . SCALe o 50 'f --; ( rr(1) . . r JNCtJ • 100 rr BOEING REALTY COMPANI' CITY or RENTON ', .. ", LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN ReNrON. /(WG seAi/" , •• 1(10' Pf?OJf:C T NO, J2!1!4 I)RAlVlN(; FILL .'IAM[: J261.~SIJRV-BSO!.DWG 5 .'-.. ---------. -, o • For Ten Dollars ($10.00) an4 Qtb€~ 9004 and valuable considerAtion, tha receipt and sUfficiency of which 10 hereby 'acknowle4god by Grantor, tho Grantor, 'aruldo partnorohip, a Waahinqton genaral partnoruhlp, hereby convoys and wamnts to Tho ~ Booing co.party, a Dolaware corporation, the roal property deacribed "': . -as follovo: That portion of tho aOllth 660 foot of tAo northwe8t quArter of the southwest quarter ot Section 8, Township 23 North, RimgO 5 ElIot, W.M., in Kinq COWlty, Naohlnqton, which 1100 north of the north Une or Harth Bbth Street .nd betwoen the northerly ertension of mB centerUne of Polly Avenuo Korth and Kain street, nov Wells Street Northl EXCIrPT that portion thereot conveyed to tho City at Renton by deod recorded August 19, 1971, under .RecordIng-lu.ber 71)(08190352. This conveyanco 10 aado expreaoly subject to tbo tollovinq .atters: 1. Roal property taxes, conservation cbarqos and pubUc a~peeaaanto, if any, beco.inq due ofter tho date of thia Deed. 2. £4l11eaonta and ttv. tena and conditions theroof recorded under J(inq County RecorcUIl9 Nos. lU2120, 3UnZ1, 1l11290l92, ~ 77050l0589, 7108170113, 7710030507, 7711180856, 85Un09.." 8512160149 and 86120]1434. 1~;1I4'" TIl.l1II1IIIIIQ,.... ... LII "',. e 0 C g (.\S • e e • c .. 0 ~ w: .. .. ~ , • c , ~ c • ~ " ~ ~ ~ • ~ '" I ., j .< ,. • • • ........ ___ -:..1._. __ ~~;.,·.Ir ---------- --~,~ .. -----.-,--.... _-,.----'---_.--... -------.... -... -.--~- " • 3. SU:voy excoptiona 410010004 by iOO:Iaptlon No. 34 1n Transaaorca Title Insuranco Coaait8ent No. 863073, Survoy Job' 75066, da.ted Decaber 8, 1994, prepared by Biliaa 6: HOl1aberq, Inc. Dated: January 4, 1995. (Grantor) Parkoido partnership, a WaGhlnqton general partnership KICIVN:ll41f'1 Tll~S . ,. "' .. i ; I .--.! ._--...---,--.. -- •• • _)_ ....... ___ 1 ..... __ ~.\'" Ir -=-~-"--.. -"",-"" .... ",~ .... -"",-.. -.,..---... ,,,,-=-.. .",,~-=------ • -, ., .. 'If--. -,'.' -'--~-'-"--"-""--'" o • S'l'ATE OF ,1IASQING'I'ON ) ) DO. COUNTY or KIKG j On thh L day of Jammry, 1995, before .0, the undofaiqned, IS Notary PUblic 1n and tor tha state ot WDlSbington, duly co .. 1saloned cmd Gvorn personally appearad E'Uc)enO Horbach and. Hiolulol. R. "atro, known to H to be the panna" of PIIrkai4a partnership, tbo partnersbip that UCK."Uted the tOrfl9oinq inotruaent., and. acknawlodCJod the said inatt:uacnt to be tho free and voluntary aat and dood of Gaid p&rtiIerabip, tor tha ~eea tllerain aentloned, and on oath stated that they vere authorlled to e.acute oaid inat~nt. t certUy that I Jet.;v or have aatlstaatory evidence that tbe pqrDona appeuinq betore u and _Up!) ttli. agknovledq1l6ftt ara the peroona nose trua oiqnaturolS appou on tIIi. clocuaent. VI'l'tfBSS .y band an4 official seal haRto .ffixed the day and year in tho certiflC4to above tte. .J. •• "stato ot (4 • ...,. \ I I· · ,-"-) L. :',; ·Ir --------------------~ 'MitN JECOfI)fO IIEllJRN 10 OIIalll,..OfyC ..... AMIIutI CIrt Hd rOlll8llllfl ar.ty W., '**'" WI. ..aNi BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDINO 81TI PLAH SE 1/4 SECT. 7, TWP. 23N. RGE. 5E,. W,M SW 1/4 SEcr. 8. 1WP. 23 N" RGE. 5E" W.M CITY OF RENTON. KINO COUNTY. WA8HINGTON 0.rr'Z"'/7 .. LOtf', ,.: ~peBQVAI S' ,l ,,... ,,' C/ry or R£N'inN ADMINI'~:TR'; lOR a~·';~L"~'NNING ;',fJUIWliffi / PUOLIC WORKS ':'., ;: .,,' / :'. :: I " .... W1l A'<fl 'PP~O;t'O ~9 ec_ j/l PI 'AQ fl/"IHrJ ;.:...~.' II .. ~::~~.!,,~!~-,-__ .t!ti.{.ff(-ffrorf£t;,·. ., . .:" / :.~r .. / . .t ,//0"", >:'" KING COUNTY DfPART"fNT or ASSti~.:"f~·TS" ,,/ •. /f,.""'· ...... ". ;::.~~;:.:.=~·;a4:J..:4"L 't \".;': kl~O COUNI'<" A~Sf.~~ IIfl'lUi «II«; ""'''''II AUlsfOH 1.:.. ..;. '~DlJIoI "U"""If' 1WI~IO.O()~o. 'nJ()(l_010, LUA-07-048-BSP t,'i;'l:GJoJ(iJ in ,,'II.,*, !I( .1" I (GAl Of5CB!P nON or (XIS DNG PARCO S' ( .. 111;1 ..... f~.r;.o. .. ~ltr "'SU~.~C[ Co..-PAN. COtoI-""IRlr .. ' "" NC.i-1J'i'CII"_A', OAITO ITIIRl)A~. 1~, 20071 P'Ifq,5 ti. C A~D [ ORC .. or A PA~I OF ",'S fJt~DIl<G SIlT PtA .. PARC£( .-p 101 ... CH~ Of' ~"'TON SIfOIPI Pl.A1 N\J""aCR OI/J-~i. 1t(C(MO£l) ~Ovt""IIU 14. lf89 U'IOCI1 kIf.a cOlINrr ,,""O~PWO MJ 11il!HI/OClt OF OffiCIAl. RCCOR/n; fJtC'£1't II<Ar POfl~1lOo CONIII'''fO 10 ""( ClT~ OF IfL"1tIfoi Dr QUI CUI" 0«fI IICCOfIPCIl ""OO£",,CII II, 111811 V'OC~ II£CfIIIDWO 100 ~1I1JOIIOHJ OF OfflC/AI II£CQIIUS. IH • .,.0 COI:/fjrr, ""$t<W01Ofi A,SO f.(CU'1WG I>I£lIffltOtlj J);AT """nor. ccwvrrtll 10 "" CITY OF II[NltW lIT DrrO IIrC()lll!)(l) AlIWSr 11. IOIlf IiNOt.Jt IIrctl/IOIHG p./(J, lOOfD11I11lD1:1l', '" oIWG COI.Wrr. ~nw ~ucn A-1 to" I. l, J, • A~j) ~, .. OCt< J. IICNICi'< fU" AC1I(A(;C. A~ ro !)OC I'\.AI 11<£~£l)f IlfCOllOfll w ou.U""f " or P'-"'l. ... c;r J1. po; k'lOa cOIIHrr. WAS/fIOfGIDOI, £d;lPf /"'fRffllOil IlIf 10011111 10.00 fCCI Of 5.0«1 '-01 , CONllrrD 10 1M" errr or ~(Hnw 'Qtt Jlf!fll _.-oSC.l, UIo'Ol~ tl£COIIOWC: NO "II)U' tY OfflCl41-IIfCQlro!· A'-SO OU", ,,,,.1 PORtION COOIW'rrD /0 1>If plY 01' H,rtTOP; " II<H IHsnrlll.".1 RrCOlloro DCCEIi8I:1f 11. loot lI"IUR "'tOIIPWO NO lOOIIl1'lOOO~ W .,~ C!lII>IIY, 1OAS .... rtClON IOGtrOjlI< .,,)< IH! HO~I" HAlf or v.c.rro _IH 10. SIlICff AIM)jHIIf() A/j() I1IH POHIlOH or '!If' 'O.JCWJNG PIi If</' IIl'SI AJ VA('I(O lI"IUR CI" {)I RCIo'CW ~A"C( 110. JJlli Allp H(COIIPCO "".r 11, IHi 1.11<11£11 .'''~ cov~lr IIU/JRU< .. a I/O. l!lOU10I'" or 0f/1C1.tl RICO'WS. '." «pm; cou~rr. WA5"">jG>'OIO "'''''", P'R~U ,-,I ."" :, ..... ~.~OfIflj WOtlo tf~1 ~.~'ti.r {(~r 'woo 'crT Of" ""I _'''linT QU,oJIIIR flF' IH( ~t'.:!.t:"'~!~'f'~'!~~="'G.;:""S>N" 'J ""<III<. IIAM'.{ S USI, II'I.t,4oIrnr c~{pr I'>jrllf~ 1lq: "p/I'" ''''CO fU' '1<E1li1Y. ctWvrrn) 10 I><C C'lr CJI .r"'ON /'011 S1PflT •• /IW'OSCf toW" .CCO'PO'll: ~'IIW!I£R ~r_1lI flF' OfnclA( IIfCO'DS; 4LSO t~CfI" ~1tf'"OO< ""tf I'0Il"0'0 "<I'COI' l"'IG"!)OW I><C M:SI 'QCIO fUT OT ;:~:!:s=t('r'lft:tJ..'f!"::'~.~[JI,;i.·:gC!:D~:':JC!~ J'~r~ro!(;~1tJn, :1~g~n:.:'~~A~~~J:':~ ~~~gsTl<{ CII'<" OF IIr .. 1'()Ij S- f){tD I!fc~"on; :':Jt';: ru ........ IQO.IICC'OItQWC ..0. '_010'" 01" OffiCIAL II£CORI)s' >':'$0 £XU!'T r"A,.' I'OoI'nptl'CO'OIIfIi:D'1'tl: tIj{ erlr or IIr~I'()Ij., •• HH I"Sr-UW(:N' IICCO"OCD ::~~~_:~. ~:~ { IIUOtI/lI.'OC NG.':~.\!J111XlOJJI 7fti~::~Nry. *A5Ho'/OrPll' "\'" ':'WIs'", AHgJ::OF lor 1,~i-';li~s;;;;roVr. ~o. ~-IIo!. RfCtlixD ~ll'lfllafli Id. "/If "'::':"... ." W(l1clI R[ .. Ot>/C "0 .~~:.'.'.~ .... ,.r. or ~nr.IAt ~CO/I05;, ~,OI() .~rr. "OSWO/lC1ION ;,"'. , .. ' P'.~CCL A~'j ': ~' .,,' .' .: :: d\~~~:OC,,:-~:'£,1"n [.;".:,:r:c;,.e: ~~,~ .. ~or:=-a ,1~A~;;J. "'€RtOf" "~"1r1t _",',... r:ftll'IIAlr or V~CAII~ H()I~ Jflj s~n ilI),.()O/Ifja, Af ~AC.II!) ~~~~~~III ~~~Iog. ~~, >.{)f-.o oif'fIIC lOW. ~'C,II!) UmICII Clrr (Jf /ffHroh _Ali\".C.~!I '04l.''1'!1 IIfCQI'orn ""~ II. tgal 1Nfl{' RCCOII"'1fC .. 0 'XlJ"051~.(]I" QlnClAI RtC'O.,S· .' . .... , .. ,,',.... :: :." .' ~~~J~o;,. ~~t~ ~~~:~r;.~ ~I~;'II·;=. '~Ai:!c1~ tIOfOf roGlrnc~ 111/" ,,,., ~o~m»lL,or 41i{~ .JI.()/;I/f/o'(l.dN IHf IIfSI. V'CAII!) 1INDl~ an" OF U~TCW OIIo""I<e( NO 'Ojlt:,t'lO Q~CC/lO[O ~.~c,. n. 11M1 lI!fDr~ RrCOfI""",G NO. a~OJ!105" ()f omCI., ~(COR05 " , C SCALE .:1 '('C) :;.-~IO>ltli lit.. __ • 01fCK(!) nr .~;;J,W>; flY. _,_f~." ~AH (!:Iii QllilaLaI PlI)IOAI/. BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BIHOIHO alT8 PUH Sf 1/4 SECT\ 7, TWP. 2.1N" RGE. Sf., W M SW 114 seCT 8, TWP. 23 N., Rae. SE., W,M CITY OF RENTON, ICINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON J~"JI'n'r CITy or BfNTON SURlifr CONmO!' r.rs TO ,,<V or IICHro-o ~..ry ctlNlROI. 'IIr-K IfflNVIIrHrt: ~5 SHO ..... l1t< SI<fTB , ,.,p J Ij' (1/4 COlI' 10 '~N 5.r~'.J ~: 619,004 .q. II. "\,,~,~~~.1 ac<u .:.,. \';. ;:' ":'1"" .. , .• :,,'/' BOEING RE ... l TY COMPANY CITY OF BENION LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN , Ii :r (lO iJ,o;,. !~,.'i>LH lU.~.OoI.OII.:'$/tI1 '" ~flI'£-~' N 6th Sf. WA-07-04B-BSP LND-J.5-0016 BOEING LAKESHORE LANDING 2 """""0,,,.,. BINDINO BITE! PLAN SE Jt4 SECT. 7, mp. 2JN .. ROE. !if .. W,M SW 114 SECT. 8, TWP. 2J 1'1 .• ROE. !iE" W.M. CITY OF RENTON, KINeJ COUNTY, WASHINOTON ",: . ..... , ...... . . ,,' j ~':"~ ~ -s- I SCAL£ '.OO5i'!! .. ~O~~"~!'5!O~_;;;;;i;'" ~ ...; ;:11 I ( fen} I INCH. tOO rr R£fTRrucrS t5>:,~;;Ij~ :::: I:f()~r "tAl cr-o-'t "(/Ct. 110 200"lP'~. , ':'~C'OIIO Of $l.IIIlo(r IQU4JliOOJ, ftr'HCJit'PH ()OI'ViS • A$SOCiA'tS "-J' !>jAr 0" IIf~rClN rA" ..• CllfAa" VI\.. Il 0( "'-An;. 1'(1 JI 80l:ING REAL TV COMPANY CITY or RENTON LAKESHORE LANDING 2 BINDING SITE PLAN