HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole Packet for 06/12/2017
AGENDA
Committee of the Whole Meeting
5:30 PM - Monday, June 12, 2017
7th Floor, Conf. Center/Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Parks/Trails/Community Facilities Initiative
in the Conferencing Center
a) Presentation
2. Quendall Terminals Development Agreement
in Chambers at approx. 6:00 pm
a) AB - 1920 Community & Economic Development Department recommends approval of
the land use applications (Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit),
subject to the condition in the Hearing Examiner's decision and approve a resolution
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a development agreement between the
City of Renton and Quendall Terminals.
b) Presentation
c) Letter from HCMP
d) Memorandum in Response to HCMP
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
of
th
e
Wh
o
l
e
Ju
n
e
12
,
20
1
7
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
Ma
y
15
th
Br
i
e
f
i
n
g
St
a
f
f
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
:
•
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
vo
t
e
d
me
a
s
u
r
e
to
fu
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Pa
r
k
s
,
Tr
a
i
l
s
and
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
20
1
8
or
20
1
9
•
Su
r
v
e
y
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
da
t
a
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
pa
r
k
s
,
tr
a
i
l
s
,
an
d
ou
t
d
o
o
r
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
for all ages
an
d
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
st
a
t
u
s
•
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
–
•
Vo
t
e
d
Re
g
u
l
a
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Li
d
Li
f
t
•
Vo
t
e
d
Ex
c
e
s
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
,
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Le
v
y
/
U
T
G
O
Bo
n
d
s
•
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
a
n
i
c
/
L
T
G
O
Bo
n
d
s
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
St
a
f
f
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
(C
o
n
t
’
d
)
:
•
To
t
a
l
nu
m
b
e
r
of
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
an
d
co
s
t
s
(a
n
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
sa
m
p
l
e
li
s
t
)
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in the Parks,
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
Pl
a
n
•
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
ti
m
e
l
i
n
e
is
s
u
e
s
–
F
a
m
i
l
y
Fi
r
s
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
,
Up
d
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
s
Pl
a
n
,
an
d
Civic Core
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
•
Ti
m
i
n
g
op
t
i
o
n
s
•
Ne
e
d
of
Ci
t
i
z
e
n
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
/
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
•
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
st
a
f
f
wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
–
G
o
/
N
o
Go
at
th
e
Ju
n
e
12
th
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
of the Whole
Su
m
m
a
r
y
of
Ma
y
15
th
Br
i
e
f
i
n
g
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ne
e
d
e
d
To
n
i
g
h
t
:
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
mo
v
e
fo
r
w
a
r
d
or
no
t
Go
i
n
g
Fo
r
w
a
r
d
:
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
el
e
c
t
i
o
n
da
t
e
to
wo
r
k
to
w
a
r
d
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ea
r
l
y
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
as
to
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
Ty
p
e
of
fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
,
fu
n
d
i
n
g
pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
,
An
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
th
a
t
mu
s
t
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
of
a Ci
t
i
z
e
n
s
Ad
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(C
A
C
)
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
it
s
co
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
and
sc
o
p
e
of
wo
r
k
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
bu
d
g
e
t
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
th
i
s
ef
f
o
r
t
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
“M
u
s
t
Ha
v
e
s
”
/H
i
g
h
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
?
Do
e
s
Co
u
n
c
i
l
wi
s
h
to
pr
e
‐se
l
e
c
t
an
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
fo
r
th
e
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
?
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
Ge
n
e
Co
u
l
o
n
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
Be
a
c
h
Pa
r
k
Ma
j
o
r
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
$
7 million
Ci
v
i
c
Co
r
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ci
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
•
Pi
a
z
z
a
Pa
r
k
,
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Pa
r
k
,
Bi
g
5 Lo
t
,
Pa
v
i
l
i
o
n
,
Fe
s
t
i
v
a
l
St
r
e
e
t
•
Tr
a
i
l
/
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Bu
r
n
e
t
t
Li
n
e
a
r
Pa
r
k
to
Ce
d
a
r
Ri
v
e
r
Tr
a
i
l
$20 million
Tr
i
‐Pa
r
k
Ph
a
s
e
1
Ce
d
a
r
Ri
v
e
r
4 –
s
o
c
c
e
r
fi
e
l
d
s
$
1
6
.
5
million
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Pa
r
k
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
s
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$23.7 million
Bl
a
c
k
Ri
v
e
r
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
Fo
r
e
s
t
Va
l
l
e
y
In
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
$ 8.9 million
Ed
l
u
n
d
P
a
r
k
Ta
l
b
o
t
So
f
t
Su
r
f
a
c
e
Tr
a
i
l
$
6 million
Ke
n
n
y
d
a
l
e
L
i
o
n
s
Pa
r
k
Ke
n
n
y
d
a
l
e
R
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
$ 3 million Total:
$
8
4
.
6
millionAGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
Co
s
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
•
Ge
n
e
Co
u
l
o
n
$
7
mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
Ci
v
i
c
Co
r
e
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
$
2
0
mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
Ke
n
n
y
d
a
l
e
L
i
o
n
s
Pa
r
k
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
$
3
mi
l
l
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
$3
0
mi
l
l
i
o
n
An
n
u
a
l
O&
M
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
(2
%
)
•
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
‐
1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
Co
s
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
•
Co
u
l
o
n
M
a
j
o
r
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
$
7
mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
Ci
v
i
c
Co
r
e
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
$
2
0
mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
Tr
i
‐Pa
r
k
Ph
a
s
e
1
$
1
6
.
5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Pa
r
k
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
$
2
3
.
7
mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
Ed
l
u
n
d
P
a
r
k
/
s
o
f
t
su
r
f
a
c
e
tr
a
i
l
$
6
mi
l
l
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
$
7
3
.
2
mi
l
l
i
o
n
An
n
u
a
l
O&
M
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
(2
%
)
•
$1
.
5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
‐
2
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
‐
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
z
e
-
$
3
0
M
(
$
2
0
1
7
)
Pa
y
-
a
s
-
y
o
u
-
g
o
20-Year Bonds
20
1
7
$
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
f
o
r
d
e
b
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
/
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$1
.
8
4
9
M
$
1
.
9
9
6
M
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
$.
1
2
3
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
$
.
1
3
3
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
In
i
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
m
e
d
i
a
n
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
*
$4
1
$
4
5
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
15
+
y
e
a
r
s
3
y
e
a
r
s
20
1
7
M
&
O
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
o
r
M
&
O
$.
0
3
9
9
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
$
.
0
3
9
9
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
An
n
u
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
m
e
d
i
a
n
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
*
$1
3
$
1
3
*2
0
1
7
M
e
d
i
a
n
H
o
m
e
V
a
l
u
e
=
$
3
3
7
,
0
0
0
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
‐
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
z
e
-
$
7
3
.
2
M
(
$
2
0
1
7
)
Pa
y
-
a
s
-
y
o
u
-
g
o
20-Year Bonds
20
1
7
$
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
f
o
r
d
e
b
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
/
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$4
.
5
M
$
4
.
8
7
M
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
$.
3
0
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
$
.
1
5
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
In
i
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
m
e
d
i
a
n
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
*
$1
0
1
$
1
0
9
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
15
+
y
e
a
r
s
3
y
e
a
r
s
20
1
7
M
&
O
$1
,
4
6
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
6
4
,
0
0
0
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
o
r
M
&
O
$.
0
3
9
9
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
$
.
0
3
9
9
/
$
1
0
0
0
A
V
An
n
u
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
m
e
d
i
a
n
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
*
$3
3
$
3
3
*2
0
1
7
M
e
d
i
a
n
H
o
m
e
V
a
l
u
e
=
$
3
3
7
,
0
0
0
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ne
e
d
e
d
To
n
i
g
h
t
:
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
mo
v
e
fo
r
w
a
r
d
or
no
t
Go
i
n
g
Fo
r
w
a
r
d
:
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
el
e
c
t
i
o
n
da
t
e
to
wo
r
k
to
w
a
r
d
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ea
r
l
y
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
as
to
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
Ty
p
e
of
fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
,
fu
n
d
i
n
g
pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
,
An
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
th
a
t
mu
s
t
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
of
a Ci
t
i
z
e
n
s
Ad
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(C
A
C
)
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
it
s
co
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
and
sc
o
p
e
of
wo
r
k
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
bu
d
g
e
t
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
th
i
s
ef
f
o
r
t
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
AB - 1920
City Council Regular Meeting - 05 Jun 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement and Land Use Decisions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Committee of the Whole
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
EXT.: 7314
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City approve Master Site
Plan, Binding Site Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed -use
development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190
square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks /open
space.
A Public Hearing was held by the Hearing Examiner on April 18, 2017 for both the land use permits and the
development agreement. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation to
Council on May 9, 2017. The Hearing Examiner recommends that Council approve the applications, subject to
the conditions identified in his decision. It is also recommended by the Hearing Examiner that Council approve
the proposed development agreement, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No.
2(B).
EXHIBITS:
A. Hearing Examiner Recommendation
B. Hearing Examiner Exhibits
C. Draft Resolution
D. Development Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the land use applications (Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit), subject to the
conditions in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Additionally, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a
development agreement between the City of Renton and Quendall Terminals.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10 Quendall Terminals
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
I 1 Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline and
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RECOMMENDATION
IZ Substantial Development Permit
13 LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
14
I S Summary
16 The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline
17 Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft.
lg of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the
19 development agreement.
20
The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed
21 development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints
of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009,
22 the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 syuare
feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office
23 space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access,open spaces,landscaping,
24 view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures
composed of 46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review.
25 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
26 appealed. By the date of the April 18,2017 hearing,the appeal had been withdrawn and only five
members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
1
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
project.
2
One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the
3 project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is
the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the4
past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake
5 sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better
understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process
is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the
City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup
action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used
g to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is
anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the
9 upland portions of the site, including placement of a soil cap across the project site and shoreline
restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation
10 activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land
use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished.
11
12 EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need for the proposed development agreement since
the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the
13 Project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit
expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards
14 during the extended eXpiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is
two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration
15 periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park
16 space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street
activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
1 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and
a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development
18 agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the
function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area.
19
20 The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation)are traffic
and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
21 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to I-405 and
NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to
22 improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the
WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the23projectusetheinterchangeinsteadofCitystreets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
24 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However,the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary
to assess a scenario where ti e WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project,
25 off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections.
As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will
26 have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic
calming treatments will be placed south of 41st to discourage long distance travel along that
MASTER PLAN, BiNDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at
2 the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation
will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even
3 with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use I-405 than the
4 City streets to the south of the project.
5 View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little question that the multiple
six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale
neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the
applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a
g building that is 115 feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts,the proposal includes a widened
central road(Road B)to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining
9 properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback reyuirements.
10
Testimony
11
Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner's Recommendation. It is solely1 provided for the convenience of the reader,for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary
13
should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or sign ing any priority or
importance to the comments of any ind vidual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an
14 accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing.
15 Staff Opening Presentation:
6 Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to
1 examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23,the City Council expressly authorized
the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4.
1 g Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement.
Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time
19 frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the
site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and20thatprecisedetailsofdesignwillbereviewedandapprovedduringsubsequentsiteplanreview. The
21 heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and
north of the project.
22
The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to
23 fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now
referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re-24
evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10,
25 2010 for the term of the agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either
when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency
26 ("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to
fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
3
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains.
2 The site is a former creosote facility and was subseyuently designated a superfund site. The EPA will
be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain3howtheprojectsitewouldbeconfigured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort.
In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline4
assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline
5 buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the
clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA.
6
There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to
site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks.
g There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill
and a 38-foot setback from tt e Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor
9 width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi-private plaza spaces. Pursuant to
Condition 27, Lots 1 and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the
10 EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas,they proposal will
have to be amended. Condition 41 requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped11Waterline. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement.
12
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re-opening of the
13 hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the
Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the
14 discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site
plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the CityISCouncil.
16
Applicant Presentation:
17
Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations.
18 She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project.
She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The19applicanthastheburdenofproofinestablishingconsistencywithdecisioncriteria. The examiner is
20 also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision
on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed
21 minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development
agreement.
22
Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal23
property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage
24 yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the
prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned
25 the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development
agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit
26 review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and
remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
4
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
2 Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation
mitigation, including both on and off-site roadway improvements, a transportation demand
3 management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and
compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE444thstreetinterchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of
5 Transportation ("WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were
assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the
analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The
WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual
time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be
g
completed. Without the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of
north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
9 widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project.
To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be
10 placed south of 415 to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded
that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as11opposedtoi-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City
IZ
streets. On-site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The
transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and
13 programs to reduce reliance upon single-occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should
effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it
14 easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency
certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has15adequatecapacitytoservethedevelopment. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering
6
for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of
mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation
17 information available to the City, such as the work associated with the I-405 WSDOT interchange
improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off-setting traffic impacts.
18
Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last19twoyears, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been
20 geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the
beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and
21 restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A
pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian
22 oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the
street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards23
the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with
24 Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the
project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects
25 have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly
environment. The project is consistent with the City's design standards.
26
Campbell Mathewson,project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
5
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation,
2 landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The
binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline
3 permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for
4 a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject
to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was
5 800 dwelling units,245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the
project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met
6 with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of
the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was
significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square
g feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic
impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the
9 applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation
of approval. However,the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff
10 report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront
retail and the public park along the southwest corner of the site and the potential for a new dock. The
1 buildings were also set back another 20 feet Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning
12
regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included
buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be
13 compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review.
Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining
14 uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of 90 feet
from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
15
16
As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space
for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards
1 between residential blocks,pedestrian orientation in design,added retail use and restaurants and trails.
The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park.
18 The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by
the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the19firsttimeindecades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants
20 and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended
in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April 11, 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee
21 Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the
development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the
22 1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development
agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five.
23
24 Pubiic Comments:
25 Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern.
He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently
26 has to twelve-foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive
characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
6
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going
2 between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened
as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted
3 that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little
4 bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view
of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box
5 entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third
issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would
be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public
access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock.
7
g Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated
the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the
9 parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She
also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed-use site and she doesn't
10 want it to be an elitist area.
11 Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and
2 grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can
be cleaned up as quickly as possible.
13
Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development
14 agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the
applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of15residentsandalsothatthedeveloperhasbeenveryaccommodating.
16
Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near
1 the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle
safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during
18 pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts.
19 Staff Rebuttal:
20
In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor
21 was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so
to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts,
22 a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were
implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the23
recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil
24 contaminants being moved with pile driving,the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic
impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the
25 parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also
require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. ln response to examiner questions, Mr.
26 Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking
structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
7
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
Applicant Rebuttal:
2
Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety
3 plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a
result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site.4
5 In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about
a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation
measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced
alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions
of approvaL Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one
g of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found
the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets
9 and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides
for public access and use of shoreline areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks
10 and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the
project.
11
12
Exhibits
13
Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at
14 page 2 of the April 11, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18,
15 2017 public hearing. In addition,the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017
public hearing as well:
16
Exhibit 24 Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017
17 Exhibit 25 Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Exhibit 26 Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
g Exhibit 27 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
19
Exhibit 28 Google Maps
Exhibit 29 City of Renton power point
20 Exhibit 30 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Exhibit 31 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
21 Exhibit 32 Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Exhibit 33 Larry Toedtli CV
22 Exhibit 34 Bob Wells Resume
23
Exhibit 35 Lance Mueller Resume
Exhibit 36 Street B rendering
24 Exhibit 37 June 6, 2016 Site Plan P1.0
Exhibit 38 June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0
25 Exhibit 39 April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
8
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
2
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
4
Procedural:
5
6
1. Ap licant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle,
WA, 98101
7
g
2. Hearin. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary
9 if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council.
10
Substantive:
11
3. Project and Site Descri tpion. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
12 Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a
mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
13
14
A. ProposaL The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-
use buildings.The proposal would include 692 residential units(resulting in a net residential
15 density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be
16 constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building
height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposedl to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-
1 way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via
1 g
the development of new internal Roads A— E. The primary site access from public streets
is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane
19 Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear
feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 —
20 133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development
agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen
21
years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park
22 space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork,
etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public
23 access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed
complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10, 2010.
24
25
26 '
The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
9
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
B. Site Conditions/Superfund Desi nation. The subject site has received a Superfund
2 designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners
are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin
3 construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision(ROD) identifying a remedy for
clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.4
5 The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated
from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater,
6 surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology
transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA,
which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial
g investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of
contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the
9 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City's land use review.
10 Currently the site is vacant. However,the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15)to define
the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in
I 1 the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the
IZ Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2,
for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to
13 include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland
portions of the site(Main Property), including placement of a soil cap across the entire Main
14 Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts
associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA
15 process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been
16
accomplished.
i C. Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental
impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement
18 FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from
the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation19Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is
20 recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed
for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in
21 an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred
alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the
22 development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the
applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals23EnvironmentalConsistencyAnalysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the
24 range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through
2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures
25 are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Consequently,the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the
26 April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced
Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
10
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
with the "proposal".
2
4. Surroundin Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north
3 is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the
east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane(Seahawks Way) right of way, I-405 and4undevelopedCORzonedproperty.
5
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement,Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most
significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
g A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area
9 regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse
impacts to critical areas.
10
The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards,and wetlands on the City Critical11AreasMapandislocatedwithintheshorelinejurisdictionofLakeWashington.Due to the baseline
12 assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas
would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located
13 in the 100-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the
extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the
14 project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the
recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands
15 and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically
16 reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS
assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on
1 adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site-specific site plan review should
include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the
18 criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the
19 buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6),Recommended
20 Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure
compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers
21 are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the
overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per
22 RMC 4-9-200(J)a new application would be required.
23 As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C 10, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different
24 than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine
whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any
25 difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include
impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging.To ensure a true baseline condition
26 is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recor-ding
of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
11
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be
2 submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD.
3 It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources.
Pages 3.6-14—3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline4
resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the
5 DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake
Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and
6 sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City stormwater regulations. Following
construction, a permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with City
g
stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped
stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution-generating
9 surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stormwater outfall pipes would be
situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed
10 during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation.
11 B. Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The
12 subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows
for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake
13 Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi-story
structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These
14 impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of
the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred
15 Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center
16
of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the
property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking
1 garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights-of-
way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures Fl —
18 F 15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west
view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of
9 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of
20
80 feet.
21 At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would
completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between
22 the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and
appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However,
23 in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating
24 view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The
maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes
25 almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant
has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view
26 corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks,which are significantly wider
than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
12
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
2 SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from
the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all
3 reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development
potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed4bytheapplicant.
5
C. Noise, Privacy and Dust. The City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative
standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It
is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the
g
project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a
Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise,
9 control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8
RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance
10 regarding construction hours. With these measures in place,noise and dust impacts are adequately
mitigated.
11
12 The proposed building layout provides semi-private court yards between each residential tower
which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy.
13 The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an
opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the
l4 retaiUrestaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics
of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window
15 coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
16
D. Draina e. Adeyuate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant
1 adverse drainage impacts. The City's stormwater regulations assure that stormwater impacts are
fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 stormwater manual is applicable to the project.
18 As noted in Conclusion of Law("COL")No. 2 of this recommendation, more current stormwater
regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater
19 regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts.
20
Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth,
21 Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this
analysis mitigation measures A1, A10, A11, B2, and B7 were established and will become a
22 condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private,
the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant
23 for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance
24 responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding
site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained
25 a condition of approval reyuires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents
for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for
26 the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
13
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
2 A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be
submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site
3 is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is
proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is4
proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City stormwater standards. Storm
5 water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall
be followed in the design and construction of the project.
6
The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project
specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16,
g the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include
an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality
9 impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation
for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre- and post-
10 developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and
developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology.I1
12
E. Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts
via the City's design,view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund
13 toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is
by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and
14 enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing
view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building5andsitedesignissubjecttogeneraldesignreviewatthemasterplanstageanddetaileddesign
6
review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies
with the District"C" design standards for master plan review.
17
The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping
18 standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the
Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure E1, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and
19 constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The
20 applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re-submittal dated
12-16-2015, Exhibit 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide
21 landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east
of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10-foot wide landscape
22 buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C
along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative
23
would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires
24 that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as
shown in Exhibit 11.
25
Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and
26 Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All
street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
14
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper
2 inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a
final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas
3 prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of
the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan.4
5 Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface
parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted
in Mitigation Measures F4, G12 and G13.
7
g
F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation
since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's
9 tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project
site subseyuent to remediation.
10
G. CompatibilityBuildin Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding1 uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the
12
west and R-10 property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic
issues addressed elsewhere,the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining
13 the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings
along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at
14 a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the
project site.
15
16 As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on
adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, Fl, F8, F9, F11, and
17 F15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and
Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures,
18 the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site.
19 H. Li htin . As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting
20 proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review
for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition
21 F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B 11 and F7 to ensure
that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
22 downlighting and shielding among other techniques.
23 Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
24 roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other
common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F 13 and H9 and the design
25 standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re-submittal of the Preferred
Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or
26 compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
15
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9
2 and the design standards for the common areas.
3 I. Loading and Stora e Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and
storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan4
review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include
5 loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and
restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at
off peak hours.
7
g
6. Adeyuacv of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
9
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
10 provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the
King County parcel fronting the site and a 10-inch water main extending into the project site.11 There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The
12 development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and
water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic,
13 landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction
permits.
14
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department15andpoliceprotectionbytheCityofRentonPoliceDepartment. Police and Fire staff
16 indicated that sufficient resources eacist to furnish services to the proposed development; if
the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
17
Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided
18 to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet
wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire19apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum
20 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD,the road shall also serve as
a pedestrian traiL If EPA's ROD prohibits the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot
21 shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail.
22
Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot23
shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However,the looped water line
24 required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface.
Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that
25 the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail
which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
16
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adeyuate parks and open space. As
2 previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space.
3 Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and
4
Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park
demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service
5 standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this
application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation
mitigation measures (Gl —G13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas.
The amount of on-site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant
would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards.
g However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off-site
park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on-site park and open
9 space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to
mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project.
10
11 As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2
12 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of"Natural Public Open Space Areas"and"Other
Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall
13 include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the traiL The "Other Related
Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks,
14 paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of
Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other
I S Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with
16 Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the
trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
1 public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is
for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved
18 by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources
Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with
19 the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition G10 requires that the trail be
20 enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive
signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the
21 trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials.
Mitigation Document condition G11 requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill
22 residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the
surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in
23
compliance with condition G11. Based on the above analysis the provided materials
24 were not compliant with conditions G2, G'7, G 10, and G 11. As such a recommended
condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any
25 other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G10, and Gl 1
for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community
26 Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan
recording.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
17
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
2 The Development Agreement adds a 1.3- acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours
of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
3 determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park
hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public4
use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the
5 Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director
prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding
6 site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy
of the first building on the site.
7
g The"street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide
distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not
9 been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that
Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the
10 roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
11
12
D. Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe
13 pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings,open space,and parking areas with the
sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian
14 connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline.
However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the15sidewalkalongthewestedgeofRoadCdoesnotcontinuealongtheprivateStreetEeither
16 north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley
Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge
1 along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show
stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the
18 buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian
circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space,19
parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended
20 condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete
connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning
21 Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The
approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording.
22
Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian
23 circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when
24 planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a
recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public
25 right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this
condition.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
18
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street
2 infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum.
For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal,additional transportation analysis was
3 included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the
Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of4theEnhancedAlternativewouldbewithintherangeofimpactsidentifiedintheDEIS, EIS
5 Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation
measures, with or without the I-405 improvements, staff determined that significant
transportation impacts are not anticipated.
The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently
g
operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts
were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT
9 improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project
using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
10 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's
necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without
I the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and
12
southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange
13 project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming
treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor.
14 The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent
people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even with the current
15 congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City streets.
16
The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour
1 vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips,
no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred
18 Alternative. As to the preferred alternative,page 1-14 ofthe DEIS addendum concluded that
tJhe existing transportation network with and without I-405 Improvements would
19 adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build-out in 2015, with the
20
additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative
21 constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is
within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010
22 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation
measures are reyuired beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
23 Document.
24
The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the
25 DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative 1 traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak
hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative 1 clearly generated far
26 more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited
information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
19
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative 1,the
2 traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection
level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation
3 on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows
intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where4WSDOThasnotcompletedI-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6
5 shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three
intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table
6 3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections.
Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any
intersection except for the Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any
g
of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection.
9 The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative
analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center
10 turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group,
in a memorandum dated January 12,2017,Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit
11 2 L The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal
12
because single-lane approaches at each of the Street `A' intersections would provide
acceptable traffic operations.
13
Conditions H1-H15 ofthe Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary
14 to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires
frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane15SeahawksWay) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel
16 lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing
roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document,
provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the
site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along
18 two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The
private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including19landscapedplanterandsidewalktobeprovidedonthenorthsidematchingtheexisting
20 landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at
the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and
21 6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access.
22 The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property
owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of23
existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the
24 applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who
owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N,
25 and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval
requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should
26 be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
20
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
2 The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause
some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off-site improvements, such as
3 southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly
north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures4
Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the
5 mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation
Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In
addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some
inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements
evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the
g inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully
depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the
9 Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as
shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
10
In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the11internalroadcrosssections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation
12 Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian
walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation
13 coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has
resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become
14 private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard
street cross sections is not required. However,the design of the streets shall meet minimum
15 standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be
16 required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of
public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of
1 approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways
and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on
18 street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for
pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street19crosssectiondesignwillvarydependingupontheproposedgroundfloordesignofeach
20 building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those
areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street,or a 12— 15-foot sidewalk is
21 required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground
floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6
22 feet in width,travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to
account for the curb width,and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross-
23
section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant
24 amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit
review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the
25 amended cross sections.
26 A couple members of the public at the April 18,2017 public hearing expressed concern over
increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
21
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
Condition HS of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming
2 treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips
generated by the project to utilize the I-405 corridor.The applicant's traffic engineer testified
3 that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern
street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers4
would elect to use I-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site.
5 Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition HS adequately addresses concerns over
increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also
expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the
project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the"scenic"character
of the road and turn it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be
g some legitimacy to this concern,the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and
functionality considerations integrated into the City's street standards that require the
9 additional street width.
10 F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall
development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N
l 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross
12 the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road
right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are
13 two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive
approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail-road right-of-way.
14 This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A
recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City15identifyingrightstoconstructacrossingforvehiclesandpedestrianspriortositeplanreview
16 application and construction permit application submittal.
1 Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed
through an internal street system, identified as Roads A—E. The applicant has indicated that
18 Roads A — C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private
streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City19isnotwillingtoaccepttheproposedpublicrights-of-way dedications and Roads A—C shall
20 become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A — C will be private
streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement
21 for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The
public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property
22 Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
23 G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any
24 additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School)
25 and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated
26 that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
22
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot
2 specific site plan review.
3 A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City4
as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
5
H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities.
Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit
service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is
provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St.
g interchange and I-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include
Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the
9 I-405/NE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted,Mitigation Document conditions H3
and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage
10 future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available.
11 Currently there are no non-motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site,
I Z however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition,the existing rail
road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is
13 identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails"
planned multi-purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating
14 alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi-purpose trail
at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the15primaryformandmostreadilyavailableformofalternativenon-motorized transportation is
16
bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and
restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation
1 Document (page 26) to mitigate system-wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity
transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the
18 applicant shall prepare a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include
on-site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above
19
analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in
20 the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure
weather-protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking
21 should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and
restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents
22 shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation
Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation23
would not use the multi-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor,therefore
24 a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north
and south side of Ripley Lane(Seahawks Way)with or without the construction of the multi-
25 purpose trail.
26 L Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously
noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
23
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
2 width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the
lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B10 requires
3 that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be
incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake4
side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake
5 side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details
of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval
requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site
g plan review and construction permit application. In addition,should the EPA ROD eliminate
the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires
9 that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction
permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline
10 master programs requirements for significant public access.
11
Conclusions of Law
12
13 1. Authoritv. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit
14 applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement.
However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made
15 recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It
is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding
16 site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should
be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City1 Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline
g
applications.
19 The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City
Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications
20 are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement
with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7-
21 230(I)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement"
22 significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two
provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan
23 applications that are merged with development agreements.
24 In contrast to the binding site plan application,shoreline substantial developmentpermits are classified
by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type II permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and25
master site plan approval as Type IlI permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short,the three
26 permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
24
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number
2 procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not
classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the
3 eacaminer(see Ex.23)coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision
mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation4
coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be
5 considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the
Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure.
6
2. Vestin. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The
examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows:
g A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vestin. FOF No. 2 of the April
9 19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a
complete binding site plan application on February 10, 2010. The proposed development
10 agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period of ten to fifteen years. The law is not
actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards.
11 Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement,
12 rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the
examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation
13 from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when
the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited
14 to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when
evaluating the vesting issue.
15
16 Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local
ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of
17 land" vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a
binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional
18 language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs "...at the time a fully
completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat19approvaloftheshortsubdivision, has been submitted..." A binding site plan is neither a
20 subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land
division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature
21 intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a
complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do
22 so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains.
The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant23
submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7-
24 230(N)(1) provided in 2010 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding
site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time
25 of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting
legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham
26 Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98 (2011), a court ruled that permit
expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
25
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance
2 has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting,or whether it is a procedural
ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting.
3
B. Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development4
agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting.
5
The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County
stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King
County stormwater manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently
ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology
g
DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish Counry v. Pollution
ContYol Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater
9 system is governed by a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition SS.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit
10 requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase ll NPDES permit
shall apply to all [land useJ applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall11applytoapplicationssubmittedpriortoJanuary1, 2017, which have not started
12
construction by January 1, 2022..." In short, new Phase II permit requirements not
integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't
13 started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its
superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start
14 by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit
will apply.
15
16 The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in
proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to
17
any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations
1 g or court decisions that add regulatory requirerrtents on the City that it must enforce
19 that are not subject to a "grandfather"or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the
City's enforcement responsibiliry beyond the life of this Agreement."
20
emphasis added).
21
However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not22
new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development
23 agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something
from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in
24
the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to
25 remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following
should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
26
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge
2 Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton.
3 2.5 Zonin / Comprehensive Plan Desi nations. The subject property is zoned and has a
4 comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR).
5 3. Review Criteria.RMC 4-9-200(B)requires master plan approval for all development in the COR
zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities.
6 Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property
pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(1). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any
nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria
g for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by
9 RMC 4-7-230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9-
190(B)(7),which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program("SMP") use
10 regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through
11 corresponding conclusions of law.
12 Master Plan
13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
14
a. Master Plans: For masler plan applications, the Ac ministrator rll evaluate complicz ce
15 with the Yevietiv criteria al a level of detail appropriate for ma.ster plans. Mua ter plans will
16 be evaliratedf'or general eompliance with the criteric anc to enstire th«t nothing irr the
1 master plun will p•eclude developrnent of a site plan in full compliance with Ihe criteria.
1 g b. Site Plans: For site plan applieations, the Aclministr atof•will crnalvze the pl zn in c etail
19
valuate compliance n ith the s ecific i egitirement,s disciassed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
20
4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan
21
review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude
22 development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of
approval,building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more
23 specific design features to be addressed during site plan review.
24
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
25 compliance with the following.•
26 a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
27
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elenzents, goals, objectives, and policies,
2 especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
3 applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
4 ii. Applicable land use regulations;
5 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
6 iu Design Regulations:Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
g Finding No. 222
of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District"C"and consistent with
9 Design District "C" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
10
11 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
12
i. Structures:Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular13
portion of the site;
14
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
15 adjacent properties;
16 iii. Loading artd Storage Areas:Locating, designing and screening storage aNeas, utilities, rooftop
j equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
18 iu Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of rnaintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
19
20 v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
21 project; and
22
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
23 brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
24
25 2 References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No.References to findings from this
26 recommendation are"FOF No. ." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any
updates to the findings addressed in the April 11,2017 memo to the examiner,Ex. 19.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
28
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
2 significantly adverse. Specifically,massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by
FOF 6(D), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(I), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E)
3 and lighting by FOF 5(H).
4
RMC 4-9-200 E 3 c : Ort-Site Im acts:Miti ation o am acts to the site includinPSf P S
5
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
6 and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
g characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
9
10 i i. Natura[Features:Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
11
iv. Lartdscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
1 and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
13 appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection ofplanting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
14
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
15 adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that
16 the mixed-use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well-integrated environment for
residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities.
1 Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA,
however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking
18 trail, dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E)
and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally
19 improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
21 users, including:
22 i.Location and Consolidation:Providing access points on side streets orfrontage streets rather than
23 directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingr•ess and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
24
ii. Internal Circulation:Promoting safery and e ciency of the internal circulation system, including
25 the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
26 turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
29
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
iii.Loading and Delivery:Separating loading and delivery areas from parking andpedestrian areas;
2
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
3
4
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings,public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
5
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one
6 on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining
properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for
safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(D).
g Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No.
9 5(I). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No.
6(H).
10
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project11focalpointsandtoprovideadequateareasforpassiveandactiverecreationbytheoccupants/users
i 2 of the site.
13 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
14
5
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(: Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
16
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline
1
as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF
1 g No. 6(I).
19 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
20
21 11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A),the natural systems at the site
i.e. critical areas)will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations.
22
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and23facilitiestoaccommodatetheproposeduse.
24
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adeyuate services and facilities as determined in
25 Finding of Fact No. 6.
26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with developrrtent phases
and estirnated time,fr ames,for phased projects.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
30
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the
2 scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the
3
infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton
4 for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is
5 governed by the proposed development agreement.
6 Binding Site Plan
RMC 4-7-230(C):
g APPROVAL CRITERIA:
9 Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the
following criteria are met:
10
1. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or moreI1contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan
12 procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions
shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district.New nonconforming
13 lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
14 14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff
15 report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots
16 1,6,and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified
through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval reyuires that
l lots 1, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be
buildable if created.
18
The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or
19 tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a
20 part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and
placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
21
2. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met,
22 the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of
this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-1 S0.
23
15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium
24 site creation is required.
25 3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or
26 mixed-use zone.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
31
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
16. The site is located within the mixed-use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval.
2
4. Zoning Code Requirements:Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply
3 with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning
district. Where minirrtum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall4beprocessedasacommercialcondominiumsiteperRMC4-7-230D.
5
a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements
6 and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application
is submitted.
7
b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan
8 application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards
of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations9wherethesitecannotbebroughtintoconformanceduetophysicallimitationsorother
10 circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at
the time a completed application is submitted.
11
c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site
12 plan may propose shared signage,parking, and access if they are specifically authorized
per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-080I7, and 4-4-IOOES, and other shared improvements as
13 authorized in other sections of the Ciry's development standards.
4 17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable
15 comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant
has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed
16 as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition
H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared
17 parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on
the binding site plan prior to recording.18
19
20 5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5-
010.
21
18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building
22 permit approval.
23 6. Infrastructure Provisions:Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or
24 in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways,
water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes,for the entire property covered by
25 the binding site plan.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
32
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
19. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 6, the applicant has made adequate
2 provisions for all drainageways, streets, water supplies, open space, solid waste and sanitary waste.
This criterion is satisfied.
3
7. Access to Public Rights-of-Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan4shallhaveaccesstoapublicstreet, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct
5 access or access easement approved by the City.
6 20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a
private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted
7 in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that
each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan
g for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a
9 recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to
roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted,
10 constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior
to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless
11 a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review.
12 8. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space,parking, access,
signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan13
and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-080I7, and 4-4-IOOES. Conditions of use,
14 maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space,parking, access, signage
and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants,
15 easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism.
16 21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No
shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval reyuires the applicant to provide a covenant
1 or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA
18 responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded
19 'th the Binding Site Plan.
20 9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any
subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded
21 binding site plan.
22 22. As conditioned,the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision
23 for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded
binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this
24 standard.
25 10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant
shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan.
26
23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
33
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
I1. Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of
2 flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of protective improvements may be
required as condition of approval.
3
24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the4
City's critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A),the proposal complies with the
5 City's critical area regulations.
6 Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
g Economic Development or designee mustfind that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
9 a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
10 that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
11 b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
12 and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted,
13 Provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Departrrient of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
14 intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
15 c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines
16 of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
17
25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed
18 in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the
proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No.
19 6(I). The commercial use regulations further reyuire that parking is to be provided at frequent locations
20 and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured
parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use
21 regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the
shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(I). The development agreement adds a 1.3-
22 acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations
further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as
23 determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS
24 mitigation requires a 100-foot setback. The proposal complies with this 100-foot setback except for a
proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval reyuires the water line to be moved outside
25 the 100-foot setback.
26 The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for
shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
34
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the impacts of
2 the proposal on shoreline ecological resources have been mitigated and controlled as required by RMC
4-3-090(K).
3
4
5 DECISION
6 For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications
7 are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the
applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Councilgapprovetheproposeddevelopmentagreementforthereasonsidentifiedinthesummaryofthis
9
recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The
permit applications should be subject to the following conditions:
10
1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation
1 Document dated, August of 2015.
2. All lots shall meet maXimum building lot coverage either individually or combined
12 through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside
13 through the binding site plan.
3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter,
14 sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common
15 landscaping(including irrigation),trails (including signage and amenities), public
art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD
16 shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of
1 Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding
Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot,
18 unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any
19 delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety
or welfare.
20 4. The minimum partial sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier(buffers) shall be
21 maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11 and shall be
identified on the recorded binding site plan, as reyuired by Mitigation Measures E1, E2,
22 and F5.
23
5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk
when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for
24 each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
25
6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the
Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts
26 as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection
Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
35
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review,
2 this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
3
8. Roads A—C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an
easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C,
4 and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.5
9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent
6 development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding
site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording.
g 10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the
hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current9
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
10 construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to
Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.11
11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
12 access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
12. Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to13MitigationMeasures:
14 B 10 -public trail
15
G2—public trail and open space
G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
16 Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
1
G7—trail signage
G9—crosswalk
1 g G10—trail amenities
19 H3 —frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
20
H4—trail
HS —traffic calming measures
21 H8—fire access road
22 H 10—bicycle lane
H11 — H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
23
signalization
24 shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary
25 Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and26
C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
36
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements
2 matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be
3 provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane
Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide
4 sidewalk on south side of the access. These off-site improvements shall be designed,
permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning5
Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
6 first building on the project site
15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a
minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking
g garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan
review.
9
16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve
10 uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be
permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the11
ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot
IZ specific site plan review.
17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit
13
per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is
14 required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be
demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
15
18. To ensure the semi-private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed
16 design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan
review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and
1 amenities as approved by the Director.
1 g 19. To ensure that all uses receive eyual signage opportunities an overall sign design package
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
19 to the approval of any sign permit for the site.
20 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows:
a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington
21 b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
22 c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility)
21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum
23 width of 74 feet and the semi-private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall
24 maintain a minimum width of 80 feet.
22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-designed to reduce to
25 the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake
26 maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
37
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of
2 these buildings shall be completed at site plan review.
3 23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units
on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for
4 the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking
plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review.
5
24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals
6 site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building
proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5.
25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of
g the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the
design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for
9
lots 2 and 5.
10 26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the
infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
ro ect mana er Current Plannin ro ect mana er and Pro ert Services for a rovalPJg gP J g P Y pP
12 prior to recording.
27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the13
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e.
4 the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots 1
and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that
I S
all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the
16 change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site
development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required.
1
28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane
1 g Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-purpose trail.
29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of
19
construction permit review.
20 30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities
built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property
21 owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan.
31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping,
23 open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be
maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and24
approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the
25 maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and
Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
38
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 11, 2017 memo to
2 examiner.
3 33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
4 sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to
5 binding site plan recording.
6 34. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City
of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department
prior to binding site plan recording.
g
35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on
9 the subject site.
36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that
10
Will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which
11 should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works
Department.
12
37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the
13 proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the
easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approvaL Final documentation
14 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording.
15 38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the
center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the
16 facility.
1 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be
completed for the reyuired off-site improvements between the developer and all other
1 g affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
19 Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application
for the site.
20 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the
21 timing identified above per condition of approval 12.
41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the
22 front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end
23 shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and
utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
24 art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road
compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
25
42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified
26 on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another
mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
39
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public
2 vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way.
This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be
3 recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of
Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation.4
5 44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review
application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and6constructionpermitissuance.
I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density
g for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units
9 per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum
permitted density to be shared among the entire property.
10 jI. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted
11 for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common
landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved,
12 a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance
13 with the approved phasing plan.
II1. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the
14 proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review
15 and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and
Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on
16 the recording Binding Site Plan.
1 IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the
Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a
1 g Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD
19 issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed
baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project
20 changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C 10.
21 V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials
to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G11 for
22 review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the
23 Community Services Administrator.
VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the
24 Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered
25 common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed
pursuant to condition of approval 3.
26 VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian
pathway system, including an evaluation of on-site crosswalks to ensure
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
40
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review
2 and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate
3 compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved
pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon
4 recording.
VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active5
recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review
6 and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion
of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot.
IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation
g measure F 13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including
but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special9
landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the
10 Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community
Services.
11
X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a
12 crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-
of-way.
13 XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and
14 public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the
required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be
15 provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design.
16 XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B10, G3,
G2, G10, G11 and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current
17 Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department.
1 g XIII. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the
19 amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16.
20 XIV. Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the
design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above
21 under XIII.
22 XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated
conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan
23 Reviewer:
24 a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property
frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The
25 existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to
26 the location of the proposed new Road A.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
41
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be
2 within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot
3 buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the
building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area.
4 c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main.
d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100-shoreline buffer.5
e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton
6 regulations.
XVL If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access
from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive
8 signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane
and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots9
2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new
10 public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant
public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access
11
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
12 XVIL A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking
agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying13
compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared
14 parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division.
15 XVIIL A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and
16 Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the
specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of
1
project approvaL The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
1 g approval of any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the
19 roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
20 installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
21 Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
22 Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of
any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
23
24 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
25
26 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the
hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
42
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
2 construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior
to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
3
4 Decision issued May 9, 2017.
5
c.--'_--..6
Phi A.(Ibce ht
Hearing Examiner
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, BiNDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
43
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Quendall Terminals
Project Number:
LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Date of Hearing
April 18, 2017
Staff Contact
Vanessa Dolbee, Current
Planning Manager
Project Contact/Applicant
Campbell Mathewson,
Century Pacific, L. P., 1201
Third Ave, suite 1680,
Seattle, WA 98101
Project Location
Parcel 2924059002. South
of the Seahawks VMAC
Training Facility
The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing:
Exhibits 1-18: Hearing Examiner Staff Report (April 2016) and Exhibits
Exhibit 19 - 23: Memo to the Hearing Examiner (April 2017) and Exhibits
Exhibit 24: Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017
Exhibit 25: Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Exhibit 26: Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
Exhibit 27: City of Renton COR maps and GIS data:
http://rp.rentonwa.gov/SilverlightPublic/Viewer.html?Viewer=COR-Maps
Exhibit 28: Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Exhibit 29: City of Renton power point
Exhibit 30: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Exhibit 31: Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
Exhibit 32: Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Exhibit 33: Larry Toedtli CV
Exhibit 34: Bob Wells Resume
Exhibit 35: Lance Mueller Resume
Exhibit 36: Street B rendering
Exhibit 37: June 6, 2016 Site Plan P1. 0
Exhibit 38: June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0. 0
Exhibit 39: April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 11, 2017
TO: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09-151
Following the canceled public hearing from April of 2016, the Applicants have requested
the City consider a Development Agreement. As such, this memorandum addresses the
Development Agreement and changes to the project which result from the proposed
Development Agreement. This memo is intended to supplement the staff report to the
Hearing Examiner which was issued in April of 2016, for the original scheduled hearing
date of April 19, 2016. Only those items identified below have been changed and/or are
proposed to be changed from the original staff report.
Updated Project Description:
The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-
use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is
zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46 -acre site
would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed -use buildings. The
Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential
density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant],
1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 – 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has
proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right -of-way, which would provide access to
the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583
linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a
Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the
following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and
street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier
and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake
Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the
remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term
to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation
vesting would be maintained.
EXHIBIT 19
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 2 of 7
April 11, 2017
The following Exhibits should be added to the Recorded:
Exhibit 19 – Memorandum to Hearing Examiner, April 11, 2017
Exhibit 20 – Draft Development Agreement
Exhibit 21 – Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 22 – Notice of Issuance of Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 23 – Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing
Findings of Fact (FOF): (the following FOF’s are identified with letters to eliminate and
confusion with the original staff report)
a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
(Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative
would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential d ensity of 40.95
units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 – 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include
the following:
The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains,
artwork, etc.)
The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake
Washington;
Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the
remaining buildings would be 6-stories;
Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible
extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be
maintained.
A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments.
b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the
sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative
relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the
Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be
contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement . If
the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should
be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner should be completed.
c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS
Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced
Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis
determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are
within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 3 of 7
April 11, 2017
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated.
d. A detailed master site plan has not been provided incorporating the changes
identified in the Enhanced Alternative. As such, staff recommends as a condition
of approval that a final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City
for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that
incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative
and all the conditions of project approval. The final details master plan shall be
approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording
of the binding site plan.
e. Staff does not expect that the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative
would impact the analysis and associated recommended conditions of the April
2016 staff report for all Findings of Fact except as follows:
i. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Parking: The total
parking stalls proposed in the Enhanced Alternative is 1,352 stalls an
increase from the 1,337 stalls proposed in the Preferred Alternative, a 15
stall increases. There is no change in the residential and restaurant
space; however there is an increase in retail space from 20,025 SF to
33,190 SF which would result in a maximum of 133 stalls required for the
retail space, up from 80 stalls. Together all three uses could require up to
1,469 parking stalls.
ii. FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard Compliance, Refuse and Recycling:
Based on a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 33,190 SF of retail a
combined total of 210.95 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 421.90 Sf
of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project.
iii. FOF 25, Critical Areas, b.: The reference to “NRD settlements” should be
eliminated because the EPA does not approve and is not party to an NRD
settlement. Therefore, Condition 44. IV, should be amended to remove
the reference to “NRD settlements”.
iv. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, f. On Site Impacts, Structure and Scale:
With the addition of retail/commercial space along the Lake Washington
side of the development it is anticipated that the parking garage would
no longer be the dominate structure viewed from the Lake or shoreline
trail.
v. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, j. Distinctive Focal Points: The “street
activation” identified in the development agreement are anticipated to
provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However,
the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such staff
recommends as a condition of approval that Public Art, fountains, or
other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways
shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 4 of 7
April 11, 2017
vi. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, Phasing: Staff recommends that the
project duration be consistent with the time frames established in the
Development Agreement, Exhibit 20.
vii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Stormwater: The
Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1,
2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated
stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff
recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be
removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable
stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction.
viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The
Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak
hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would
represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak
our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative.
Additionally, the center left-turn lane that was included as a part of
Street ‘A’ is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this
turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated
January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The
analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the
Enhanced Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the
Street ‘A’ intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a
result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly.
Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency
Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The
Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the
Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in
the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With
implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the
I-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not
anticipated
ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development
Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public
use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City’s Community Services Administrator. Currently
public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying
that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An
easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site
plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the site.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 7
April 11, 2017
x. FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Time Requirements for
Shoreline Permits: The Draft Development Agreement extends the time
for all land use permit applications including the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit. Time frames identified in the Development
Agreement should be applied accordingly.
f. Condition of Approval 14 should remove the word “east” as this has been
included in error.
g. Condition of Approval 22 contains a minor error, the word “East” should be
“West”. Condition of Approval 22 should be amended accordingly.
h. Condition 43 requires an easement be recorded to all for public access for
vehicles and pedestrians to cross the King County rail-road right-of-way. This
requirement for an easement limits the type of legal documents that could be
drafted to accomplish the intended purpose of the condition. As such, this
condition should be amended as shown below.
i. The word “Public Promenade” should be removed throughout the staff report
and replaced with “fire lane and utility maintenance access road” to be
consistent with the Consistency Analysis and Development Agreement.
Therefore Condition of approval 41. and 44. XVI should be amended accordingly.
Conclusions: All conclusions in the April 2016 staff report are to remain except as
identified below:
10. The project An expiration date shall be as identified in the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20set by the Hearing Examiner for the Master Site Plan, see FOF 26 .
12. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36 -70B-
170.
New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan,
Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative
described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff
report and any new conditions or modified conditions below.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition
that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Co uncil, the Hearing
Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering
the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff
report to the Hearing Examiner.
Amended Conditions of Approval:
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage
improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped
planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side. The new private
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 7
April 11, 2017
access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8
feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the
access. These off-site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed,
and substantial complete as determined by the Current P lanning Project
Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
22. East West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-
designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to
ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic
and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming
and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shal l be completed
at site plan review.
32. Any extension to the project approved beyond January 1, 2022 or building and
construction permits submitted that would extend the project beyond January
1, 2022 shall be subject to the updated stormwater manual, in e ffect at the
time.
41. A public promenade fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake
Washington extending along the front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B
terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the
design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This promenade fire lane and utility
maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture,
public art, water features, etc. Design of the promenades fire lane and utility
maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at
the time of lot specific site plan review.
43. An easement shall be secured from King County or other future property owners
of the rail-road right-of-way to provided vehicular and pedestrian access to the
proposed development across the right-of-way. The easement shall be noted on
the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site
plan. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for
public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the
right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan
and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already
recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access
documentation.
44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of
the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior
to a Record of Decision (ROD) and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA. A
copy of the final ROD and NRD Settlement issued by the EPA shall be submitted
to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct
and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as
required in Mitigation Measure C10.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
April 11, 2017
44. XIV. A transportation study shall be completed to analyze the need for a center
turn lane in Road A. Depending upon the outcome of this study, Road A street
designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane accordingly and the
design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above
under XIII.
44. XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public
access from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints,
interpretive signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2)
A public promenade fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake
side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road
B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying
compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master
Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager
New Conditions of Approval: (The following numbering picks up at the end of the April
2016 staff report.)
45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and
public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use
and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services
Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated
signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on
the project site.
44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review
and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both
the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions
of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located
in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and
constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastr ucture
construction.
44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval
of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan .
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
2
4
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
2
5
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
2
6
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Quendall Terminals
(LUA09-151)
HEX Public Hearing
Date
Names/TitlesVanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
April 18, 2017
EXHIBIT 29
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Presentation Overview
Approximate Location
•Project Description –Enhanced
Alternative & Development Agreement
•Background
•Renton Municipal Code Analysis
–Compliance
–Conditions
•Staff Recommendation
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Approximate Location
Approximate Location
Applications:
1) Master Site Plan
2) Binding Site Plan
3) Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
4) Development Agreement
Environmental Impact Statement
Completed
−FEIS issued August 2015
−Mitigation Document issued
August 2015
−Consistency Analysis For
Enhanced Alternative issued
March 2017
The application is vested to
regulations from February 10,
2010, ORD 5520 (including the
SMP –amended in 1983)
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Site Characteristics
SITE
Isolate
Property
Lake Washington
PanAbode
SiteBarbee Mill
VMAC
King Co.
rail-road
ROW
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
•COR Zone and Urban
Shoreline Environment
•21.24 acre site
•7 lots –4 with mixed
use buildings
•692 multi-family
residential units
•33,190 SF of
retail/Commercial
•9,000 SF of restaurant
•Density 40.95 du/ac
•Parking for 1,352
vehicles
•*Superfund site subject
to EPA regulations
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
Pedestrian Trail
Road C
Ro
a
d
B
Road A
Ro
a
d
E
100 ft. shoreline setback
N 42nd Place
Ripley Lane (Seahawks
Way)
Rail road ROW –King. Co.
Access Point
Access Point
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
Building Design –
* Ground floor Parking or Retail/Restaurant along Road B and Lake Washington
* 3, 4, or 5 stories above for residential units and semi-private plaza space
*Final elevation design will be reviewed at Site Plan review.
**Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Quendall Terminals
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Quendall Terminals
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Overview
•Applicant: Extended time frame beyond the 5 years permitted by code
and associated vesting of development regulations
•City/Public: Project Enhancements –designed to provide a public
benefit
Development Agreement
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Provisions –Project Timing
•Following 5 years of the initial term a SEPA Transportation Update would be
required.
–New transportation mitigation for the project may be required based on changed
conditions and associated project impacts.
•Vest the development regulations effective on the vesting date, which is
February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement.
•Extends code authorized land use approval time lines from 5 years to 10 years
from the earlier of:
–(i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of Decision, or
–(ii) The Hearing Examiners Decision and/or subsequent appeal decision dates
•Extension to the 10 years up to 5 additional years, could be authorized by the
City if 51% of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and
received Certificate of Occupancy, following a second SEPA Transportation
Update.
•s
Development Agreement
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Enhanced Alternative
Project Elements
Collaborate with the
developer on a public
dock/pier
•Permitting –City
•Funding, construction,
mitigation -developer
1.3 acres of a public park
in the southwest corner
of the site A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Project Elements
Additional
retail/restaurant/office space
•Minimum 50 percent of the
building street frontage
•Minimum of 20 feet in depth
Required along:
•Lakeside frontage
•Street B
•Other street frontages as
necessary to meet 50%
Street activation; such as
fountains and artwork will be
provided along street B and
lakeside frontage
Enhanced Alternative
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Background
•Former creosote manufacturing
facility that operated from
1917-1969
•Past coal tars and creosote
have contaminated soil,
groundwater, surface water
and lake sediments
•In 2005 DOE transferred the
oversight to the EPA
•The site received a Superfund
designation from EPA
•The EPA is conducting a
remedial investigation and
feasibility study. Which will
lead to a ROD.
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Background
•Clean up work is being
conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. (CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund)
•EPA Contact –Clair Hong,
hong.claire@epa.gov.
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Background (baseline assumptions)
Figure 2-6 DEIS
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design
Soil Cap
Wetland Recreation
•This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS.
•Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum beyond
100 ft. setback.
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Background (baseline assumptions)
Figure 2-7 DEIS
Buffer Width Averaging Wetland D
Wetland Recreation
•This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS.
•Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum for the
Preferred Alternative
Buffer Averaging
Trail with
view points
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Background (EIS Process)
Determination of Significance (DS) issued on February 19, 2010 –EIS Process began:
Date EIS Action, see Exhibits 2, 3, 15, and 21.
2/19/10 –
4/30/10 EIS Public Scoping Period, 70 days (extended)
4/27/10 Public Scoping Meeting
12/10/2010 DEIS Issuance
12/10/10 –
2/09/11 DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended)
1/04/11 DEIS Public Hearing
10/19/12 EIS Addendum Issuance
10/19/12 –
11/19/12 EIS Addendum Public Comment Period
8/31/15 FEIS Issuance
8/31/15 –
9/24/15 EIS Public Appeal Period
9/24/15 Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back
2/18/16 Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Appellant and Applicant
2/22/16 Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner. Appeal
Dismissed.
3/20/17 Consistency Analysis Issuance for Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Renton Municipal Code Analysis
•Comprehensive Plan Compliance
•Zoning Compliance
•Design District Review
•Critical Areas
•Master Site Plan Review
•Binding Site Plan
•Availability of Public Services
•Shoreline Regulations
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
64 Conditions of Approval Recommend by Staff
Primary:
•Compliance with the Mitigation Document
•Phasing/Site Plan Review
•Design Standards Compliance
•Access/Roadways (vehicular and pedestrian)
•Binding Site Plan (recording)
Secondary:
•Utilities
•Code/Landscaping
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 20 and 21:
Setbacks from parent parcel edges shall be as follows:
a.100 ft. from the OHWM of Lake Washington
b.40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
c.38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawks Training Facility)
View Corridors –
a.74 ft. width for Road B
b.80 ft. width for semi-private plaza space.
Site Plan
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 6
and 27:
Critical Areas
Regulations
Baseline Assumptions,
assumed all recreated
wetland and their
associated buffers
would fit within
Binding Site Plan lots 1
and 6.
Baseline
Assumptions
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 27:
Critical Areas Regulations
1)The outcome of the ROD and NRD Settlement details
are not known at this time.
2)This conditions is need so impacts of the proposed
development will comply with the City’s critical areas
regulations following the ROD and NRD Settlement.
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 41:
Requires a fire lane and utility maintenance access road along
Lake Washington
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 41:
Satisfies the following code requirements:
1.Fire Access is required along the Lake
a.Required to be 20 ft. in width.
b.Shall be constructed to support the weight of a fire apparatus.
c.Critical Areas regulations may not permit the trail to be built to meet
fire access standards. Maximum width permitted per code is 12 feet.
(RMC4-3-050C7.a.)
2.Looped waterline required
1.Located along the west side of the 2 lake front buildings.
2.15 feet minimum width needed for maintenance access.
3.Maintenance access shall be a paved surface.
4.Not permitted within wetlands, wetland buffers, or shoreline buffer.
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline
Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the
conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified
conditions.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that
if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner
will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner.
Recommendation
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
QUENDALL TERMINALS
ENTITLEMENTS HEARING
MASTER PLAN REVIEW
BiNDING SITE PLAN
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
CITY OF RENTON
APRIL 18, 2017
EXHIBIT BINDER #2: VESTED
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
EXHIBIT 30
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
3
1
E
n
t
i
r
e
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
U
p
o
n
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Birdseye View
Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative
Renton, Washington
Century Pacific, LLLP
I-405
Barbee Mill
Lake Washington
Public
Park
Seahawks
VMAC
Denny’s
EconoLodge
N
E
4
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Lake Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
B
l
v
d
.Promen
a
d
e
EXHIBIT 32
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Larry Toedtli, PE Principal (Retired)
Expertise:
• Development traffic impact
analyses under SEPA
• Transportation analyses of
large master planned
developments
• Experience managing multiple
team members
• Experience managing on-call
contracts
• Multimodal transportation
planning under GMA
• Experience in facilitating
stakeholder engagement and
public outreach programs
Years Employed by Transpo: 30
Education:
MS, Civil Engineering
(Transportation), University of
Washington,1983
BS, Civil Engineering, University of
Colorado, 1977
Professional registrations
and licenses:
PE, Washington, #25888, 1989
PE, Colorado, #23125, 1985
Professional Associations
Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE)
Contact
larry.toedtli@comcast.net
Larry recently retired as a principal at Transpo with over 30 years of experience
developing area-wide and corridor level transportation plans. He directed
Transpo’s efforts in GMA-based transportation plans, transportation financing
strategies, and concurrency programs. He also had project management
responsibilities for transportation analyses supporting EISs for subarea plans,
planned action ordinances, and transportation corridor projects. He has a
thorough knowledge of travel forecasting and traffic operation analyses
techniques.
Larry also served local agencies in reviewing traffic impact studies for
developments within and outside of their jurisdiction. He recently assisted the
Cities of Duvall and Ferndale in this role.
Larry was appointed as a member of King County’s Transportation Concurrency
Expert Review Panel. The panel includes County staff, citizens, and representatives
from the development community. The panel developed recommendations to
refine the Concurrency program to reflect the changes in King County to a more
rural County and also to improve the interface between the County’s concurrency
program and SEPA processes.
Tehaleh Employment Based Planned Community, Pierce County
Larry directed Transpo’s transportation planning and traffic engineering
assistance for this large master Planned Community located in Pierce County
between Bonney Lake and Orting. When fully developed, the community will have
over 6,500 residences, a retail center, business park, schools, and golf course.
Transpo’s assistance has included sizing of on-site roadways, design of
roundabouts and street lighting, and roadway channelization for internal
roadways. Transpo has also assisted in monitoring the transportation mitigation
triggers based on the approved development agreement. Transpo has assisted
the project team and agency staff in defining the off-site roadway and mitigation
strategies to support future development phases. Larry also led the initial tasks
for the detailed transportation analyses to support the Phase 2 application for the
development.
Redmond Ridge/Trilogy/Redmond Ridge East Master Planned
Communities EISs, King County, WA
Larry managed the analysis of traffic impacts and development of a subarea
transportation improvement program for the EIS for a large mixed-use
community planned for rural King County. At buildout, the development will
include 5,400 dwelling units, neighborhood retail, 1.2 million SF of business park,
golf course and soccer fields. The analysis included assessing roadway
improvement needs and non-motorized system facilities, transit opportunities,
and financing. Key issues included accommodating urban traffic levels in an
otherwise rural area and potential traffic impacts on other jurisdictions. Larry
supported the projects through coordination with WSDOT and Redmond.
EXHIBIT 33
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Orton Junction Urban Growth Area EIS, Sumner, WA
Larry managed the transportation analysis for the EIS for this subarea located
south of SR 410 in Sumner. The City proposed to increase densities and expand
the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to accommodate a mix of residential, commercial,
and industrial land uses. The analysis addressed impacts and transportation
improvement needs in the immediate vicinity of the subarea.
Overlake Urban Center Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, Redmond
Larry managed an analysis of the potential traffic impacts of the additional multi-
family residential development within the proposed Overlake Urban Center. The
analysis focused on evaluating the impacts within the Overlake Transportation
Management District (TMD) and surrounding area of Bellevue. The City of
Redmond’s proposal to change the designation for the Overlake area from a
Manufacturing/Industrial Center to an Urban Center would not affect zoning or
the potential for residential growth in the area. Actual development of additional
residential units in the area would, however, result in some traffic impacts. The
impacts would primarily be in the immediate vicinity of the Overlake Urban
Center, with impacts decreasing further from the site.
Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel; King County, Washington.
Larry serves on the King County Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel.
The panel provides policy and technical guidance to King County staff as part of
their ongoing refinement of County policies and programs related to level of
service standards and concurrency. The panel has assisted in defining changes to
the programs as the County focuses on rural areas as annexations and
incorporations have greatly reduced the suburban areas under the jurisdiction of
King County.
Ferndale Main Street Master Plan and Planned Action EIS, Ferndale, WA
Larry managed the transportation analysis for the planned action EIS for
Ferndale’s Main Street near the I-5 interchange. The planned action would allow
over 1 million square feet of commercial developments. The EIS evaluated the use
of roundabouts vs. traffic signal improvements to address potential traffic
operations and safety impacts due to the increased level of development. The
analysis included comparison of levels of service, corridor travel speeds and cost
differences. The EIS also identified development mitigation strategies including
potential updates to the City’s transportation impact fee and concurrency
programs. He also coordinated with WSDOT on improvements related to impacts
on I-5 and interchanges at Main Street and Slater Road.
Pacific Ridge Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS, Des Moines
Larry assisted the City of Des Moines in evaluating the transportation-related
impacts associated with 4,200 additional dwelling units and 6,900 additional
employees located within the Pacific Ridge subarea. To mitigate impacts, a variety
of strategies were identified, including a reduction in the amount of new
development, creation of a transit and transportation demand management
program, and/or funding and building necessary improvement projects through
one or more Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) or Transportation Benefit Districts
(TBDs). The Planned Action Ordinance took into account the City’s impact fee
requirements and street standard requirements.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
L A N C E M U E L L E R & A S S O C I A T E S
B O B W E L L S
A S S O C I A T E
Education: Bachelor of Architecture - 1969
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
Professional
Registrations: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, USA - 1975
Experience: Bob has worked full-time in architecture since college graduation.
Consequently, he has many years of varied experience in the Seattle
area with project types including low and mid-rise commercial
structures and industrial structures.
Responsibility: Bob has been with Lance Mueller & Associates since 1973 and an
associate since 1980. His responsibilities have been for the design,
documentation and contract administration of numerous office, retail,
flex-tech, industrial, residential, and corporate facilities.
Representative
Projects: ROCKWELL COLLINS, Wilsonville, OR
This 221,000 sf manufacturing and office consolidated Rockwell’s
Portland area operations in one building in a wonderful natural
setting. Our roll was shell architect and coordinating shell revisions
with the TI Architect. Later we assisted Rockwell on a number of
smaller tenant improvements.
DWFRITZ PRECISION AUTOMATION, Wilsonville, OR
From 2009 to 2017 we were the Architects on three separate projects
totaling 273,000sf for this hi-tech manufacturer. The first two are new
2-story buildings and the last is a conversion of an existing industrial
building into an office and manufacturing facility filled with natural
light.
EXHIBIT 34
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
L A N C E M U E L L E R & A S S O C I A T E S
B O B W E L L S
P A G E 2
COMPACT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Redmond, WA
This 50,000 sf two story for a very sophisticated mailing label
business. In addition to the usual office, warehousing, and
expansion requirements, the facility included a nursery for the
employee's children, a very high-end lunch area, and adjacent
private park. If needs change, the park can convert to parking.
ONVIA BUILDING, Seattle, WA
The Onvia.com Building is a full block corporate development with
95,000 sf of office plus structured parking with many employee
amenities in Seattle. The four-story office ells around a large
naturally landscaped plaza and integrates with a separate
conference center building at the street corner. The restful plaza
includes a pond and seating for relaxing or strolling opportunities.
The service area and parking are underground on two levels.
ZETRON BUILDING, Redmond, WA
Zetron centralized their office and manufacturing headquarters into
this four-story 210,000 sf facility. The facility includes basement
parking and storage area and substantial areas dedicated to
greenbelt and wetlands.
THE GILBERT, Seattle, WA
A 3-story traditional brick apartment complex on top of bustling
Queen Anne hill with 54 units and 9,500 sf of street front retail with
the basement parking accessed from the alley.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
L A N C E M U E L L E R & A S S O C I A T E S
L A N C E M U E L L E R , A I A
P R E S I D E N T
Education: University of Washington
College of Architecture - 1962-1967
Professional
Registration: Licensed Architect, State of Washington, 1973.
Other States; California, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon.
Certificate - National Council of Architectural Registration Boards,
1974.
Professional
Affiliations: Member - American Institute of Architects
Lambda Alpha International Land Economics Honorary
International Conference of Building Officials
Experience: 1965 to 1970: Worked in three small Seattle architectural
firms.
1970 to present: Joined Richard Bouillon & Assoc./Architects in 1970.
Became owner of firm in 1973 upon death of R. Bouillon. Renamed
firm in 1975. Experience covers a wide variety of project types
including shopping centers, large retail stores, apartments, banks,
business parks, distribution centers, manufacturing buildings, offices,
parking garages and restaurants and planning of major office and
business parks.
Responsibility: Project conceptual and preliminary design and design development.
Project administration, contractual agreements and general office
administration.
Honors: National Association of Industrial and Office Parks
2005 Hall of Fame Inductee
EXHIBIT 35
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
EXHIBIT 36
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Wetland A
O
L
W
M
O
H
W
M
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
D
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
W
a
v
e
A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
r
m
Wav
e
A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
r
m
s
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
I
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
2
5
-
f
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
L
A
K
E
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
LEGEND
R
E
N
T
O
N
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
,
L
L
L
P
G
R
A
D
E
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
100' SHORELINE SETBACKLOT 7 (ISOLATED)
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
3
7
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Wetland A
O
L
W
M
O
H
W
M
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
D
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
W
a
v
e
A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
r
m
Wave
A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
r
m
s
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
I
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
2
5
-
f
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
L
A
K
E
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
R
E
N
T
O
N
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
,
L
L
L
P
LEGEND2ND LEVEL PLAN
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
3
8
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
AB - 1881
City Council Regular Meeting - 03 Apr 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Quendall Terminals Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Concur
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
EXT.: 7314
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City consider a
Development Agreement. The Land Use application consists of a request for Master Site Plan, Binding Site
Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and now a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed-use
development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190
square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space.
A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the subject land use application on April 18, 2017. The requested
Development Agreement establishes the new Enhanced Development Alternative and allows for an extended
time frame for the land use entitlements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10
years, with a possible 5 year extension, for a total of 15 years. A public hearing is required to be held by City
Council when considering a Development Agreement. However, there is an opportunity to consolidate the
required public hearing for the Development Agreement with the public hearing for the land use entitlements
with the City’s Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use
entitlements and the development agreement, the public will be able to comment on both the development
project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing. Se cond, the Hearing Examiner
would have the benefit of considering all aspects of the project and associated public comments when making
a decision on the land use entitlements and a recommendation to City Council. A consolidated public hearing
process would streamline and simplify the public process for the overall project. The final decision authority
on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the
City’s Hearing Examiner.
EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Development Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration recommends consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the
development agreement and deferring this process to the City's Hearing Examiner.
EXHIBIT 39
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR □ NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington (“City”), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns (“Developer”), is made and entered into this ____ day of
________ , 2016 (the “Effective Date”) pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal bo undaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the “Quendall Property” or “Property”)).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the “Project”), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner’s Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
“Initial Project Applications”).
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW (“SEPA”),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the “DEIS”) on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the “Addendum”). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the “FEIS”) and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City’s request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
(“the Development Agreement Statute”), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City’s Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the “Project-level SEPA Review.”
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____________, 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer’s applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners’
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties’ mutual satisfaction
(“Future Dock Proposal”). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the “SEPA Transportation Update”), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the “Update Notice”) will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer’s development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA’s oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasin g:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates (“Initial Term”). This Agreement shall remain in effect during i ts term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer’s request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather” or “safe harbor” clause that would
delay the City’s enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City’s Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Partie s intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City’s authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is proh ibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parti es, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully
set forth.
6.8 Dispute Resolution.
6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement,
the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This
mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the
other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute.
6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through
mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration.
The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By:__________________________
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By:__________________________
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ________________________
CITY OF RENTON
By:
Denis Law
Mayor
Date: ________________________
ATTEST:
By:___________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of _______, County of ________, personally appeared ________________,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-1-Map
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
11/11/2016
Exhibit A
Page 15
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
9
8
1
0
2
-
3
5
1
3
B
U
S
H
,
R
O
E
D
&
H
I
T
C
H
I
N
G
S
,
I
N
C
.
2
0
0
9
M
I
N
O
R
A
V
E
.
E
A
S
T
S
E
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
&
C
I
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
(
2
0
6
)
3
2
3
-
4
1
4
4
S
W
1
/
4
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
9
,
T
2
4
N
,
R
5
E
,
W
.
M
.
L
E
G
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
,
L
L
L
P
.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
R
E
N
T
O
N
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
A
T
E
:
1
1
/
1
1
/
1
6
J
O
B
N
O
.
:
2
0
0
9
0
5
0
.
0
3
11/11/2016
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
1
P
a
g
e
1
6
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RENTON AND QUENDALL TERMINALS, A WASHINGTON JOINT
VENTURE.
WHEREAS, Quendall Terminals, a Washington joint venture, made application to the City
of Renton for a Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit; and
WHEREAS, SEPA Environmental Review was completed for the Quendall Terminals
project, with the City issuing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on December 10,
2010, an Addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) and Mitigation Document on August 31, 2015, and a Consistency Analysis on February 9,
2017; and
WHEREAS, development agreements are authorized under RCW 36.70B.170‐210; and
WHEREAS, a development agreement and associated land use applications, LUA09‐151,
were presented for the Quendall Terminals project at a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner held on April 18, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner heard public comment presented at the public hearing
for the Quendall Terminals project and on May 9, 2017 issued a decision recommending that the
City Council approve a modified development agreement and associated land use applications
(LUA09‐151) subject to 46 conditions of approval; and
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
2
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at the
public hearing and the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation and has considered the
development agreement attached hereto as Attachment A which incorporates the Hearing
Examiner’s recommended modification;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the development
agreement between the City of Renton and Quendall Terminals, a Washington Joint Venture, the
form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2017.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of ___________________, 2017.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
RES:1725:5/12/17:scr
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RESOLUTION NO. _______
3
EXHIBIT A
FORM OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON AND QUENDALL TERMINALS, A
WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR □ NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington (“City”), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns (“Developer”), is made and entered into this ____ day of
________ , 2016 (the “Effective Date”) pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal bo undaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the “Quendall Property” or “Property”)).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the “Project”), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner’s Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
“Initial Project Applications”).
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW (“SEPA”),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the “DEIS”) on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the “Addendum”). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the “FEIS”) and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City’s request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
(“the Development Agreement Statute”), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City’s Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the “Project-level SEPA Review.”
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____________, 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the assoc iated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency o f
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer’s applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4 -9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners’
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties’ mutual satisfaction
(“Future Dock Proposal”). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the “SEPA Transportation Update”), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the “Update Notice”) will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reaso nable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update f ollowing year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer’s development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA’s oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates (“Initial Term”). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer’s request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirement s on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather” or “safe harbor” clause that would
delay the City’s enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting to the extent mandated by
the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the
City of Renton.
5.3 City’s Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City’s authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any por tion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully
set forth.
6.8 Dispute Resolution.
6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement,
the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This
mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the
other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through
mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration.
The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By:__________________________
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By:__________________________
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ________________________
CITY OF RENTON
By:
Denis Law
Mayor
Date: ________________________
ATTEST:
By:___________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of _______, County of ________, personally appeared ________________,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-1-Map
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
11/11/2016
Exhibit A
Page 15
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
9
8
1
0
2
-
3
5
1
3
B
U
S
H
,
R
O
E
D
&
H
I
T
C
H
I
N
G
S
,
I
N
C
.
2
0
0
9
M
I
N
O
R
A
V
E
.
E
A
S
T
S
E
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
&
C
I
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
(
2
0
6
)
3
2
3
-
4
1
4
4
S
W
1
/
4
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
9
,
T
2
4
N
,
R
5
E
,
W
.
M
.
L
E
G
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
,
L
L
L
P
.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
R
E
N
T
O
N
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
A
T
E
:
1
1
/
1
1
/
1
6
J
O
B
N
O
.
:
2
0
0
9
0
5
0
.
0
3
11/11/2016
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
-
1
P
a
g
e
1
6
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
2
.
a
)
Qu
e
n
d
a
l
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
of
th
e
Wh
o
l
e
Ju
n
e
12
,
20
1
7
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
of
La
n
d
Us
e
En
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
and
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
•
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
(1
1
‐18
‐09
)
:
•
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
to
be
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
–
“
A
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
”
,
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
10,
20
1
0
:
Ma
s
t
e
r
Si
t
e
Pl
a
n
,
Bi
n
d
i
n
g
Si
t
e
Pl
a
n
,
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Pe
r
m
i
t
,
an
d
a
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
•
Th
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
an
d
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
wa
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
on
Ma
r
c
h
16
,
20
1
7
.
–
69
2
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Un
i
t
s
–
42
,
1
9
0
SF
of
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
us
e
s
(r
e
t
a
i
l
an
d
re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
)
–
1,
3
5
2
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
–
1.
3
ac
r
e
s
of
pu
b
l
i
c
pa
r
k
sp
a
c
e
•
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
wa
s
is
s
u
e
d
on
Ma
r
c
h
20
,
20
1
7
fo
r
th
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
•
At
th
e
Ap
r
i
l
3,
20
1
7
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Me
e
t
i
n
g
th
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
de
f
e
r
r
e
d
th
e
public
he
a
r
i
n
g
fo
r
th
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
to
th
e
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
.
•
A co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
wa
s
he
l
d
on
Ap
r
i
l
18
,
20
1
7
,
fo
r
all
la
n
d
us
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
•
Ma
y
9,
20
1
7
th
e
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
a re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
on
al
l
la
n
d
us
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
“…
i
t
is
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ap
p
r
o
v
e
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
su
b
j
e
c
t
to the
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
be
l
o
w
.
It
is
al
s
o
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
approve
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
…
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
to
th
e
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
in
Co
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
of
La
w
No
.
2(
B
)
.
”
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ap
r
i
l
18
,
20
1
7
•
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
Te
s
t
i
m
o
n
y
:
–
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
fr
o
m
th
e
i
r
pr
o
j
e
c
t
te
a
m
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
,
th
e
property
ow
n
e
r
,
an
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
co
n
t
a
c
t
.
–
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
i
r
te
s
t
i
m
o
n
y
wa
s
up
d
a
t
e
d
re
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
s
an
d
pl
a
n
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
to
re
f
l
e
c
t
th
e
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
th
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
Qu
e
n
d
a
l
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Qu
e
n
d
a
l
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Up
d
a
t
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ap
r
i
l
18
,
20
1
7
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
Te
s
t
i
m
o
n
y
:
–
Ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
si
g
n
in
sh
e
e
t
–1
8
pe
o
p
l
e
at
t
e
n
d
e
d
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
–
5 me
m
b
e
r
s
pe
o
p
l
e
te
s
t
i
f
i
e
d
–
Of
th
o
s
e
wh
o
te
s
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
tw
o
sp
o
k
e
in
su
p
p
o
r
t
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
–
Sp
e
a
k
e
r
#1
‐
•
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
La
k
e
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Bl
v
d
.
,
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
ke
e
p
th
i
s
road
na
r
r
o
w
.
•
Vi
e
w
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
lo
w
e
r
Ke
n
n
e
d
a
l
e
•
Ac
c
e
s
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
by
a st
o
p
li
g
h
t
•
Ac
c
e
s
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
to
th
e
sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
fo
r
a do
c
k
an
d
se
a
p
l
a
n
e
Qu
e
n
d
a
l
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
Te
s
t
i
m
o
n
y
:
–
Sp
e
a
k
e
r
#2
•
Li
k
e
s
th
e
la
r
g
e
r
sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
se
t
b
a
c
k
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
•
Ap
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
s
th
e
be
a
u
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
ef
f
o
r
t
s
•
Re
q
u
e
s
t
s
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
sc
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
of
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
•
Re
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
in
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
Co
n
d
o
’
s
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
mi
x
e
d
in
c
o
m
e
–
Sp
e
a
k
e
r
#3
•
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
so
th
a
t
th
e
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
si
t
e
can be
cl
e
a
n
e
d
up
qu
i
c
k
l
y
–
Sp
e
a
k
e
r
#4
•
Su
p
p
o
r
t
of
th
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
–
Sp
e
a
k
e
r
#5
•
Co
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
ab
o
u
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
ca
u
s
e
d
by
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
tr
a
i
l
be
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
in
th
e
ar
e
a
.
Wi
t
h
a fo
c
u
s
on
co
n
c
e
r
n
s
fo
r
bi
c
y
c
l
e
sa
f
e
t
y
.
Qu
e
n
d
a
l
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Ne
x
t
St
e
p
s
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
of
th
e
Wh
o
l
e
to
ma
k
e
a re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
to the
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
fo
r
to
n
i
g
h
t
'
s
me
e
t
i
n
g
.
“
T
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
o
f
t
h
e
W
h
o
l
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
’
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
a
m
a
s
t
e
r
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
n
,
b
i
nd
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
o
f
t
h
e
W
h
o
l
e
a
l
s
o
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
’
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
i
n
C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
L
a
w
N
o
.
2
(
B
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Q
u
e
n
d
a
l
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
mi
x
e
d
u
s
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
L
U
A
0
9
‐15
1
)
.
Th
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
m
a
t
t
e
r
b
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
fo
r
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
.
”
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
fo
l
l
o
w
e
d
by
a 21
da
y
ap
p
e
a
l
pe
r
i
o
d
fo
r
al
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
and
th
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
Qu
e
n
d
a
l
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
HCMP HiIlis
Clork
Martin &
Peterson PS.
June7,2017
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
City of Renton
Office of the City Attorney
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
Re:HearingExaminer’:RecommendedFindingsofFact,C0?tlttJi0?I ofLaw and
Recommendation:QuendallTerminals?\/latterPlan,BindingSite Plan,5/yore/ine
SubstantialDevelopmentPermit,LU/109-75 7,ECF,ELY,S/l—.M,SM)
Dear Ms.Clark:
On May 9,2017,Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts issued the above-
referenced recommendation of approval for the QuendallTerminals project applications and
proposed Development Agreement (hereafter,the “Recommendation”).In the
Recommendation,the Examiner suggestedthat the City Attorney’s Office con?rm for the City
Council that the QuendallTerminals project enjoys vested rights.Accordingly,we wanted to
provide you the Applicant’slegal analysisregarding vesting.On behalf of the Applicant,
QuendallTerminals,we provide the following vesting analysis,which concludes that the
QuendallTerminals project is vested to the land use regulations in place on the date of
complete application.We also address the two language changes regarding vesting that the
Hearing Examiner offered for Council’s consideration.
BACKGROUND
As we have discussed,the Applicant has shared a common understanding with City
Planning Staff and the City Attorney’s Office for many years that the QuendallTerminals
project is vested to land use regulations in effect on the date the City issued its determination
of complete applicationon February 5,2010.At that time,the City’sland use regulations
provided for vesting upon submittal of a complete application for binding site plan approval.
RMC 4—7—230(N)(1),adopted by Ord.4950,02/11 /02.Subsequently,the Applicant spent
years,and more than a million dollars,developing its project proposal and taking it through
the City’senvironmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act.In the
Examiner’s own words,“[t]/7eapplicantand mg?’/aaoeundergonea monumental(fort in assuringt/oatt/9e
propoteddevelopmentiscompatibleu/it/9surroundinguse;and Jenyitine to tbe environmentalE0}t§l7‘dl7Zl.f ofit;
e/iallengingloeation.”Recommendation at 1.
Numerous City documents have recognized that the Project vested as of the date of
complete application,including the QuendallTerminals Mitigation Document,issued in
999 Third Avenue,Suite 4600 I Seattle,WA 98104 |206.623.1745 |f:206.623.7789 |hCmp.com l'1'fM FB!M S
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 2 of 6
August 2015 with publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)for the
Project,see Mit.Doc.at 10 (Exh.2)](Project vested to development standards in place at date
of complete applications,February 5,2010);the Staff Report issued in April 2016,see Staff
Report,April 19,2016,at 4 (Exh.1);and the proposed Development Agreement for Quendall
Terminals,see Draft Dev.Agrmt.Section 1,at 4 (Exh.20)(de?ning “Vesting Date”as
February 10,2010)2.These documents demonstrate the common view between the City and
QuendallTerminals that vesting occurred upon complete application,and that all of the
project review has been conducted under the land use regulations in effect on the vesting date.
The Applicant has relied upon its vested rights in proceeding through applicationreview and
approvals.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
As described above,the proceduralbackground for QuendallTerminals establishes the
factual basis for its vested rights.In addition,the legal doctrine of vesting compels recognition
of vested rights under the circumstances here.The Examiner has suggestedconfirmation from
the City Attorney’s office regarding vesting.For your consideration,we address the following
points in response to the EXaminer’s vesting discussion in the Recommendation:
(1)QuendallTerminals vested under the City of Renton’s binding site plan ordinance
in 2010,and its vested rights survive the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision in 2012;
and
(2)Neither the court’s holding nor its rationale in Gm/mm l\Iez;g/Jborbood/155’720.EC.
Arson,162 Wash.App.98 (2011)provide a basis for overiiding QuendallTerminals vested
rights.
Because QuendallTerminals vested under the City’sordinance,we need not address
whether the state subdivision code,ch.58.17 RCW,provides statutory vesting for binding site
plan applications.
1 “Exh.”references in this letter are to the Exhibits to the Staff Reports and as entered at the Hearing,as
enumerated at p.8 of the Recommendation.
2 We note that there is a minor discrepancy in the stated vesting date between the originalletter of determination
of completeness dated February 5,2010,and later references stating the date as February 10,2010,which we
assume is a typographicalerror that has been carried forward.For accuracy,the February 5 date should be used,
although the applicant is unaware of any land use regulatory changes adopted by ordinance between February 5
and February 10,2010.
Hillis Clark Martin &Peterson RS.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 3 of 6
A.The Quendall Terminals Applications are Vested under the City of
Renton Binding Site Plan Ordinance in Effect at Date of Complete Application.
1.QuendallTemzina/5Varied under CzylCode.
Applicantscan vest their project applications by virtue of state vesting statutes or local
vesting ordinances.See Enbéson e’7‘A.ts0c.Inc.v.McLemm,123 Wn.2d 864,873 (1994)(“Within
the parameters of the [vested rights]doctrine established by statutory and case law,
municipalitiesare free to develop vesting schemes best suited to the needs of a particular
locality”).The doctrine places limits on municipal discretion and permits land owners or
developers “to plan their conduct with reasonable certainty of the legal consequences.”Id,
quoting We5lMain Amory.D.Be//ewe,106 Wn.2d.47,51 (1986).At the time that Quendall
Terminals submitted its complete applications,including its application for Binding Site Plan,
the subdivision chapter of the Renton MunicipalCode included a vesting provision that
“[u]pon filing of a complete application for a binding site plan,the application shall be
considered under the binding site plan ordinance,the zoning,and other development
regulations in effect on the date of applicationfor the land uses and development identified in
the binding site plan application...”).RMC 4—7—230(N)That ordinance was in place when
QuendallTerminals received its notice of complete application from the City,and it is
unequivocal that the project vested under the-City Ordinance.The Examiner queries,under
the Graham decision,whether the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision may have affected
Project vesting.As addressed below,QuendallTerminal’s vesting was not disturbed by repeal
of RMC 4—7—230(N)
2.The Gm/mm Dm'Jz'0n2}I IzappoxzfetoQuendallTermimz/JVetting.
The Examiner raises a hypothetical question in his Recommendation,arising from his
reading of the Gm/Jam decision,regarding whether an applicationvests to a vesting ordinance.
Recommendation at 25.For reasons addressed below,the Examiner’s hypothetical is not
pertinent here because a plain reading of Renton’s vesting ordinance clearlyestablishes that the
QuendallTerminals applicationsvested to it.Nonetheless,we address Gm/Jam to explainwhy
the court’s rationale,distinguishing between “procedural”permit processing provisions and
“land use control ordinances,”is not material here.
The Pierce County ordinance at issue in Gm/mm imposed new permit expiration terms,
adopted after an applicant had submitted a complete subdivision application.The ordinance
set new permit processing requirements that vested applicationswere required to meet in
order to maintain valid permit status?’The applicant for the subdivision claimed that because
3 The Graham court did not conclude whether vesting itself was procedural or substantive in nature.
Rather it addressed the question of once vested,what regulations are you vested to.The court determined that
Hillis Clork Martin 8.Peterson P.S.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 4 of 6
its application was vested,the new permit procedures did not apply to it.The court found that
the permit expiration procedures at issue were procedural,not “land use control”ordinances
subject to vesting,because they did not have a “restraining in?uence on the development of
land.”The court reasoned that even a vested application can become subject to new
procedural code provisions that do not amount to land use control ordinances.Accordingly,
the court found that the new permit expiration provisions did apply to the applicant,and
because it had not complied with measures to maintain valid permit status after receiving
notice,the subdivision application had expired.
It was material to the court’s reasoning in Gra/yam that the permit expiration provisions
at issue were not found in the County Code chapter relating to land use regulations
themselves.Rather,they were in a separate chapter of County Code entitled “vesting,”which
chapter directly /z'mz’z‘ea'a developer’s vested rights.162 Wn.App.at 116.To the contrary here,
the vesting provision that governs QuendallTerminals was found within the City’ssubdivision
regulations,chapter 4-7 RMC,and in the section (.230)addressing requirements for Binding
Site Plans.Moreover,the Renton vesting provision by its own terms stated what provisions
binding site plan applicationsvest to:“the application shall be considered underz‘/yebz'aa’z'agsite
plan ordinance,the zoning,and other development regulations in i?eoz‘on 2‘/yodate ofapp/z'catz'oa...”
RMC 4—7—230(N)(1)(emphasis added).So by the very terms of the vesting ordinance,the
scope of the regulations to which the applicationvested included the binding site plan
ordinance in effect on the date of complete application,and that is preciselywhere the vesting
provision is found.Thus,the vesting analysisthat controls here is distinguishable from that
reviewed in Gra/Jam,because the language of Renton’s vesting provision itself determines the
scope of vesting.By its own terms,subsequent repeal of the vesting ordinance could not
undo QuendallTerminals’prior vesting.
Another irn ortant distinction from Gra/yam a lies here.In Gra/Jam the ermit
-...P .p ..,p
-
expiration provision at issue included important due process protections for the applicant.If a
permit applicationwas not timely acted upon,the county mailed notice to the applicant that
the a lication would be terminated in one ear,which eriod could be extended onl b thepp
:-
y P .-...y y
Coun Hearin Examiner.162 Wn.A .at 117.The notice eriod is critical to rotect due
I
5 PP P___P
process rights of developers,who can then act to complete their permitting process or seek
extension.At the same time,the ability to terminate inactive applicationsenables the County
to assure that vesting benefits those who are sufficientlyinvested in their projects to merit it.
In contrast to the bare bones applicationreviewed in Gra/yam,the Examiner for Quendall
Terminals found that “I /Joa /ioam‘aaa’Ifa baoeunder one a raommzmiale on‘in asiaria I/oaz‘I/Jo
...g g
proposeddeoe/opmom‘zs oompatzo/ewzl/9sarroaadzag2/365 and iemz'z‘z'oeloZ/oeeaoiromrzerzlaloomfraialr ofiii
oba//eain /oration.”Recommendation at 1.Moreover there was never an notice rovided that3g3YP
the set of “land use control ordinances”to which the applicant vested did not include the permit expiration
criteria set forth in the permit processing section of the Pierce County Code.That is a different set of facts and
law than is presented here.
HillisClork Martin &Peterson P.S.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 5 of 6
QuendallTerminals was at risk of losing its vested rights.To the contrary,numerous City
documents affirmed Project vesting subsequent to the repeal of the vesting provision.4 A
reversal of the vesting determination now would violate QuendallTerminals’due process
rights and result in signi?cant damages.We have no reason to believe the City would seek do
that,but given the EXaminer’s question,we feel compelled to identify that concern.
Finally,to the EXaminer’s hypothetical question,principles of fairness support a
conclusion that applicantsdo vest to vesting provisions of an ordinance.A vesting provision
itself is a land use control regulation,because it fixes in place all of the other land use control
regulations that apply to the application.If the rule were otherwise,then cities could do away
with a project’s vested rights by passing a “procedural rule”to undo vesting.The conclusion
that an applicant vests to a vesting provision can reside in harmony with the court’s ruling in
Graham,because the ordinance provision in question there did not repeal vesting,rather it
added procedural requirements that the court found did not constitute land use control
regulations.The applicant remained Vested to land use control regulations,although it was
required to comply with the new proceduralrequirements to keep valid applicationstatus.
B.Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Revisions to Development
Agreement Vesting Language.
The City Attorney incorporated language in Section 5.2 of the proposed Development
Agreement to ensure that its vesting provisions reserved to the City the authority to enforce
possible new stormwater compliance measures imposed upon the City under its NPDES
permitsThe provision creates an exception for new federal or state statutes,rules,court
decisions,etc.that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not
subject to a grandfather clause that would provide safe harbor for the Project.At the time that
Section 5.2 was proposed,state vesting doctrine as applied to NPDES requirementswas under
review by the State Supreme Court,but QuendallTerminals nonetheless agreed to the
provision.The recent decision in S720/Jomis/9Cozmgla Po//atioa Control HeanagtBoard,187 Wn.2d
346 (2016),held that the vested rights doctrine does not apply to stormwater regulations that
the State Department of Ecology requirespermittees (such as the City)to adopt and apply to
completed development applicationsunder the NPDES permitting program.This is consistent
4 Vesting is particularlyimportant here,because Renton’s COR zone mandates a master plan approval to guide
phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site.See RMC 4—9—200(A)(1),
Site Plans applications and building permit applications must be consistent with the Master Plan
approval,and a building permit cannot be issued until site planning is complete.Ri\'IC 4—9—200(B)
5 Section 5.2 as drafted by the City Attorney reads:“Vesting Exceptions.During the term of this Agreement,
the City shall not impose on the Project any modi?ed or new or additional Development Regulations,except any
new federal or state statutes,rules,regulations,administrative interpretations or court decisions that add
regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather”or “safe harbor”
clause that would delay the City’s enforcement responsibilitybeyond the life of this Agreement.”
HillisClork Martin &Peterson P.S.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Leslie Clark,Deputy City Attorney
June7,2017
Page 6 of 6
with the intent of the provision drafted by the City Attorney.Since the decision has issued and
is no longer “new”under the exception,we would not object to adding the new sentence
proposed by the Examiner,which clari?es that the City’s legal obligations under its NPDES
permit are exempt from vesting.
We are concerned,however,with the Hearing Examiner’s second proposed revision to
Section 5.2.He suggests striking the word “new”from the provision as drafted by the City
Attorney.With the express exemption from vesting for NPDES permit requirements,that
change is not necessary to address the concern raised by the City Attorney.Moreover,it
would create uncertainty regarding the single value the Applicantgains under the
Development Agreement:an extended permit duration vested to the land use control
ordinances in place at the time of complete application.The Project applicationshave
undergone an intensive review process with no other regulatory mandates having been raised
as warranting an exception from vesting,and the City’sauthority is well protected by the
exception as drafted.Use of the term “new”to qualify the exception helps assure a level
playing field for evaluating any future vesting limitation claims that might arise in a context
similar to the NPDES permit analysis.We ask that apart from adding the sentence regarding
NPDES requirements,Section 5.2 remain as drafted by the City Attorney.
On behalf of QuendallTerminals,we appreciate the opportunity to provide our
analysis of the Examiner’s vesting discussion.
Very truly yours,
Ann M.Gygi
AMG:kah
E-Mai/:ann.gygi@hcmp.com
Diretl Dial"(206)470-7638
Fax:(206)6237789
cc:Campbell Mathewson
ND:199581102 4827—4459~7577v1
HillisClark Mortin &Peterson RS.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 9, 2017
TO: Quendall Terminals development file (Master Plan, Binding Site
Plan, Shoreline and Substantial Development Permit;
Development Agreement); LUA09‐151, ECF, EIS, SA‐M, SM
FROM: Leslie Clark, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Response to Applicant’s June 7, 2017 Vesting Analysis
I. BACKGROUND
The Quendall Terminals land use application and associated development agreement
(collectively, the “Project”) are scheduled for consideration by the Committee of the Whole on
June 12, 2017, with action anticipated by the City Council on the same date.
On June 7, 2017, the applicant submitted a letter (the “Letter”) analyzing three vesting
issues raised in the Hearing Examiner’s May 9, 2017 recommendation on the Project. By
subsequent e‐mail communication on June 9, 2017, the applicant withdrew the Letter’s third
vesting issue.1 This memorandum responds to the two remaining vesting issues raised in the
Letter, explaining that the agenda bill and its exhibits already satisfactorily address both issues.
For that reason, no separate action is necessary in response to the Letter.
II. DISCUSSION
1. The City Attorney’s Office and the Applicant Concur that the Project Is Vested to
Development Standards in Effect on February 5, 2010.
The Letter first addresses the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation that the City Attorney
reconfirm that the Project remains vested. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner observed that the
RMC’s vesting provisions were amended after the Project’s application date of February 5, 2010,
1 The Letter’s now‐withdrawn third vesting issue objected to the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation to modify
vesting language in Section 5.2 of the draft development agreement. The City Attorney’s Office concurred with the
Hearing Examiner that the recommended modification comports with vesting law, and the applicant has now
withdrawn its objections. No separate action by the City Council is necessary on that issue.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
MEMORANDUM ‐ Quendall Terminals
Page | 2
June 9, 2017
and the Hearing Examiner suggested that such amendment may have affected the Project’s
vesting. In response, the City Attorney’s Office reconfirms that the Project remains vested,
concurring with the Letter’s analysis that the Project remains vested to the zoning or other land
use control ordinances in effect on February 5, 2010.
Recommendation: The agenda bill and its exhibits already satisfactorily reflect the
position of the City Attorney’s Office on the vesting question; no separate action is necessary.
2. The Applicant and City Staff Agree with the Hearing Examiner’s Recommendation
that the Project’s Development Agreement Should Specify that Stormwater
Regulations Do Not Vest.
Second, the Letter responds to the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation that the
Project’s development agreement specify that the Project does not vest to State stormwater
regulations. The Hearing Examiner’s recommendation is based on a December 2016 vesting
decision by the Washington Supreme Court in Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings
Board, 187 Wn.2d 346. Both the applicant and City staff are in agreement with the Hearing
Examiner’s recommendation.
Recommendation: The agenda bill and its exhibits already satisfactorily reflect the
position of the Hearing Examiner, City staff, and the applicant; no separate action is necessary.
cc: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator
Vanessa Dolbee, CED Current Planning Manager
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)