HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 03DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Denis Law Mayor
Office of the City Attorney Shane Moloney
M E M 0 RAN 0 UM
June 9,2017
Quendall Terminals development file (Master Plan, Binding Site
Plan, Shoreline and Substantial Development Permit;
Development Agreement); LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
Leslie Clark, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Response to Applicant's June 7, 2017 Vesting Analysis
I. BACKGROUND
The Quendall Terminals land use application and associated development agreement
(collectively, the "Project") are scheduled for consideration by the Committee of the Whole on
June 12, 2017, with action anticipated by the City Council on the same date.
On June 7, 2017, the applicant submitted a letter (the "Letter") analyzing three vesting
issues raised in the Hearing Examiner's May 9, 2017 recommendation on the Project. By
subsequent e-mail communication on June 9, 2017, the applicant withdrew the Letter's third
vesting issue.' This memorandum responds to the two remaining vesting issues raised in the
Letter, explaining that the agenda bill and its exhibits already satisfactorily address both issues.
For that reason, no separate action is necessary in respanse 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1 The Letter's now-withdrawn third vesting issue objected to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to modify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withdrawn its objections.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.
Senior Assistant City Attorneys Leslie Clark and Cheryl L. Beyer. Assistant City Attorney Alex Tuttle
Prosecuting Attorneys Iva Clark, Joseph S. Brown, Jason Mercer and Sotha Lor
MEMORANDUM -Quendall Terminals
Page I 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 seporate 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 Heorings
Boord, 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, CEO Administrator
Vanessa Dolbee, CEO Current Planning Manager
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
Vanessa Dolbee
From: Leslie Clark
Sent:
To:
Friday, June 09,2017 12:50 PM
'Ann M. Gygi'
Cc: Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee
Subject: RE: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flagged Flag Status:
Thanks, Ann. Confirming receipt.
Leslie
LESLIE CLARK I Senior Assistant City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way I Renton WA 98057
LClark@Rentonwa.gov I (425) 430-6482
From: Ann M. Gygi [mailto:ann.gygi@hcmp.com]
Sent: Friday, June 09,201712:33 PM
To: Leslie Clark <LClark@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Mathewson, Campbell <cmathewson@CenturyPacificLP.com>
Subject: Quendall Terminals Development Agreement
Hi Leslie, This is to confirm that, based on our conversation, Quendall Terminals withdraws its request to modify the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding Section 5.2 of the Development Agreement. This modifies our response
letter of June 7,2017, and we will accept the changes to Section 5.2 as recommended by the Examiner. Thank you.
Ann
Ann M. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue I Suite 4600 I Seattle, WA98104
d: 206.470.7638 I 206.623.1745 I f: 206.623.7789
ann.gygi@hcmp.com I www.hcmp.comlvCord
1
HCiV\P
Hillis
Clark
Martin &
Peterson ps.
Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney
City of Renton
Office of the City Attorney
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
June 7, 2017
Re: Heming Examimr's Recommended J:zndings ofT:act, ConduJiol1S of Law and
Recommendation: Qlfendal! Terminals (!vIaster Plan, Bindl12g Site Plan, SIJO/?!i",
Substantial Development Permit, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM)
Dear Ms. Clark:
On May 9, 2017, Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts issued the above-
referenced recommendation of approval for the Quendall Terminals project applications and
proposed Development Agreement (hereafter, the "Recommendation"). In the
Recommendation, the Examiner suggested that the City Attorney's Office confirm for the City
Council that the Quendall Terminals project enjoys vested rights. Accordingly, we wanted to
provide you the Applicant's legal analysis regarding vesting. On behalf of the Applicant,
Quendall Terminals, we provide the following vesting analysis, which concludes that the
Quendall Terminals project is vested to the land use regulations in place on the date of
complete application. We also addtess 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 Quendall Terminals
project is vested to land use regulations in effect on the date the City issued its determination
of complete application on February 5, 2010. At that time, the City's land use regulations
provided for vesting upon submittal of a complete application for binding site plan approval.
RMC 4-7-230(N)(1), adopted by Ord. 4950, 02/11/02. Subsequently, the Applicant spent
years, and more than a million dollars, developing its project proposal and taking it through
the City's environmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act. In the
Examiner's own words, ''[IJhe applicant and Jtaf[ have undergone a mGllumentai effort in assuring that the
proposed development IS compatible witb surrounding uses and sensili/;e to tbe emrironmental mnJ'imintJ of its
I."ha!!enging /Ol."fltion. "Recommendation at 1.
Numerous City documents have rccogni~ed that the Project vested as of the date of
complete application, including the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document, issued in
999 Third Avenue, SUite 4600 I Seattle, WA 98104 I 206.623.1745 I f: 206.623.7789 111crnp.com I
Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney
June 7, 2017
Page 2 of 6
August 2015 with publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FElS) for the
Project, see lVIit. 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 (Exb. 1); and the proposed Development Agreement for Quendall
Terminals, see Draft Dev. Agrmt. Section 1, at 4 (Exh. 20) (defining "Vesting Date" as
February 10, 2010/' These documents demonstrate the common view between the City and
Quendall Terminals that vesting occurred upon complete application, and that all of the
project review has been conducted under the land use regulations in effect on the vesting date.
The Applicant has relied upon its vested rights in proceeding through application review and
approvals.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
As described above, the procedural background for Quendall Terminals establishes the
factual basis for its vested rights. In addition, the legal doctrine of vesting compels recognition
of vested rights under the circumstances here. The Examiner has suggested conftrmation from
the City Attorney's office regarding vesting. For your consideration, we address the following
points in response to the Examiner's vesting discussion in the Recommendation:
(1) Quendall Terminals vested under the City of Renton's binding site plan ordinance
in 2010, and its vested rights survive the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision in 2012;
and
(2) Neither the court's holding nor its rationale in Graham NeighborhoodAss'll v. FG.
/1m,·., 162 Wash. App. 98 (2011) provide a basis for overriding Quendall Terminals vested
rights.
Because Quendall Terminals vested under the City's ordinance, we need not address
whether the state subdivision code, ch. 58.17 RCW, provides statutory vesting for binding site
plan applications.
1 "Exh." references in tIlis letter are to the Exhibits to dIe Staff Reports and as entered at the Hearing, as
enumerated at p. 8 of the Recommendation.
2 \Vc note that there is a minor discrepancy in the stated vesting date between the original letter of determination
of completeness dated February 5, 2010, and later references stating the date as Febmary 10, 2010, which we
asswne is a typographical error that has been carried forward. For accurac)', the rebrua1Y 5 date should be used,
although the applicant is unaware of any land use regulatory changes adopted by ordinance between February 5
and February 10, 2010.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney
June 7, 2017
Page 3 of 6
A. The Quendall Terminals Applications are Vested nnder the City of
Renton Binding Site Plan Ordinance in Effect at Date of Complete Application.
1. Quendall Temlinals Vested under City Code.
Applicants can vest their project applications by virtue of state vesting statutes or local
vesting ordinances. See Elickson & Assoc. Inc. I). McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873 (1994) ("Within
the parameters of the [vested rights] doctrine established by statutory and case law,
municipalities are free to develop vesting schemes best suited to the needs of a particular
locality"). The doctrine places limits on municipal discretion and permits land owners or
developers "to plan their conduct with reasonable certainty of the legal consequences." !d.,
quoting West Main Assocs. v. Bellevlle, 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 Municipal Code included a vesting provision that
"[u]pon filing of a complete application for a binding site plan, the application shall be
considered under the binding site plan ordinance, the zoning, and other development
regulations in effect on the date of application for the land uses and development identified in
the binding site plan application ... "). RMC 4-7-230(N)(1). That ordinance was in place when
Quendall Terminals received its notice of complete application from the City, and it is
unequivocal that the project vested under the City Ordinance. The Examiner queries, under
the Graham decision, whether the subsequent repeal of the vesting provision may have affected
Project vesting. As addressed below, Quendall Terminal's vesting was not disturbed by repeal
ofRMC 4-7-230(N)(1).
2. The Graham DedJion is Inapposite to Quendall Terminals Vesting.
The Examiner raises a hypothetical question in his Recommendation, arising from his
reading of the Graham decision, regarding whether an application vests to a vesting ordinance.
Recommendation at 25. For reasons addressed below, the Examiner's hypothetical is not
pertinent here because a plain reading of Renton's vesting ordinance clearly establishes that the
Quendall Terminals applications vested to it. Nonetheless, we address Graham to explain why
the court's rationale, distinguishing between "procedural" permit processing provisions and
"land use control ordinances," is not material here.
The Pierce County ordinance at issue in Graham imposed new permit expiration terms,
adopted after an applicant had submitted a complete subdivision application. The ordinance
set new permit processing requirements that vested applications were required to meet in
order to maintain valid permit starus. J The applicant for tile subdivision claimed that because
:; 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 Clark Martin & Peterson PS.
Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney
June 7, 2017
Page 4 of 6
its application was vested, the new pemtit procedures did not apply to it. The court found that
the pemtit expiration procedures at issue were procedural, not "land use control" ordinances
subject to vesting, because they did not have a "restrairllng influence on the development of
land." The court reasoned that even a vested application can become subject to new
procedural code provisions that do not amount to land use control ordinances. Accordingly,
the court found that the new pemtit expiration provisions did apply to the applicant, and
because it had not complied with measures to maintain valid permit status after receiving
notice, the subdivision application had expired.
It was material to the court's reasoning in Graham that the permit expiration provisions
at issue were not found in the County Code chapter relating to land use regulations
themselves. Rather, they were in a separate chapter of County Code entitled "vesting," which
chapter directly limited a developer's vested rights. 162 Wn. App. at 116. To the contrary here,
the vesting provision that governs Quendall Terminals was found within the City's subdivision
regulations, chapter 4-7 RMC, and in the section (.230) addressing requirements for Binding
Site Plans. Moreover, the Renton vesting provision by its own terms stated what provisions
binding site plan applications vest to: "the application shall be considered IInder the binding site
plan ordinance, the zoning, and other development regulations in efJect on the date ofappli<-ation ... "
RlVfC 4-7 -230(N)(1) (emphasis added). So by the very telms of the vesting ordinance,. the
scope of the regulations to which the application vested included the binding site plan
ordinance in effect on the date of complete application, and that is precisely where the vesting
provision is found. Thus, the vesting analysis that controls here is distinguishable from that
reviewed in Graham, because the language of Renton's vesting provision itself detcmtines the
scope of vesting. By its own terms, subsequent repeal of the vesting ordinance could not
undo Quendall Terminals' prior vesting.
Another important distinction from Graham applies here. In Graham, the permit
expiration provision at issue included important due process protections for the applicant. If a
permit application was not timely acted upon, the county mailed notice to the applicant that
the application would be terminated in one year, which period could be extended only by the
County Hearing Examiner. 162 Wn. App. at 117. The notice period is critical to protect due
process rights of developers, who can then act to complete their permitting process or seek
extension. At the same time, the ability to terminate inactive applications enables the County
to assure that vesting benefits those who are sufficiently invested in their projects to merit it.
In contrast to the bare bones application reviewed in Graham, the Examiner for Quendall
Terminals found t..l].at "[t]be applicant and stqJJ hat1e lmdergone a monumental effort in assllting that tbe
proposed development is compatible with slltrOlmdiltg lIses and sensitive to the environmental constraints if its
challenging location. "Recommendation at 1. Moreover, there was never any notice provided tllat
the set of "land llse 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.
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney
June 7, 2017
Page 5 of 6
Quendall Tenninals was at risk of losing its vested rights. To the contraty, numerous City
documents affirmed Project vesting subsequent to the repeal of the vesting provision. 4 A
reversal of the vesting detennination now would violate Quendall Terminals' due process
rights and result in significant damages. We have no reason to believe the City would seek do
that, but given the Exalniner's question, we feel compelled to identify that concern.
Finally, to the Examiner's hypothetical question, principles of fairness support a
conclusion that applicants do vest to vesting provisions of an ordinance. A vesting provision
itself is a land use control regulation, because it fixes in place all of the other land use control
regulations that apply to the application. If the luIe were othelwise, d,en 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 procedural requirements to keep valid application status.
B. Hearing Examiners 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 inlposed upon the City under its NPDES
permit.' The provision creates an exception for new federal or state statutes, rules, court
decisions, etc. that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not
subject to a grandfather clause that would provide safe harbor for the Project. At the time that
Section 5.2 was proposed, state vesting doctrine as applied to NPDES requirements was under
review by the St.'l.te Supreme Court, but Quendall Terminals nonetheless agreed to the
provision. The recent decision in Snohomish Co"nty v. PO!!"tiOI1 Control Hearings Board, 187 Wn.2d
346 (2016), held that the vested rights doctrine does not apply to stormwater regulations that
the State Department of Ecology requires permittees (such as the City) to adopt and apply to
completed development applications under the NPDES permitting program. This is consistent
~ Vesting is particularly important here, because Renton's COR zone mandates a master plan approval to guide
phased planning of deyelopment projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. See RMC 4-9-200(A)(1),
(B)(1)0'»). 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. R]\'[C 4-9-200(B)(2).
j Section 5.2 as drafted by the Cit)' Attorney reads: "Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement,
lhe City shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations) except any
new federal or state statutes, mies, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions that add
regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that afC not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor"
clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this l\greement."
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
Leslie Clark, Deputy City Attorney
June 7, 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 clarifies that the City's legal obligations under its NPDES
permit are exempt from vesting.
We are concerned, however, with the Hearing Examiner's second proposed revision to
Section 5.2. He suggests striking the word "new" from the provision as drafted by the City
Attorney. With the express exemption from vesting for NPDES permit requirements, that
change is not necessary to address the concern raised by the City Attorney. Moreover, it
would create uncertainty regarding the single value the Applicant gains under the
Development Agreement: an extended permit duration vested to the land use control
ordinances in place at the time of complete application. The Project applications have
undergone an intensive review process with no other regulatory mandates having been raised
as warranting an exception from vesting, and the City's authority is well protected by the
exception as drafted. Use of the term "new" to qualify the exception helps assure a level
playing field for evaluating any future vesting limitation claims that might arise in a context
similar to the NPD ES permit anaiysis. We ask that apart from adding the sentence regarding
NPDES requirements, Section 5.2 remain as drafted by the City Attorney.
On behalf of Quendall Terminals, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our
analysis of the Examiner's vesting discussion.
AMG:kah
E-l\IIaiL' ann.gygi@hcmp,com
Dim' DiaL-(206) 470-7638
Fax: (206) 623-7789
cc: Campbell Mathewson
ND: 1995H.O()2 4H27-4459-757hl
Very truly yours,
~71[4~
AnnM. Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S.
AB -1881
SUBJECT/TITLE:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPARTMENT:
STAFF CONTACT:
EXT.:
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
------~·Renton ®
City Council Regular Meeting -03 Apr 2017
Quendall Terminals Public Hearing
Council Concur
Community & Economic Development
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
7314
The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City consider a
Development Agreement. The Land Use application consists of a request for Master Site Plan, Binding Site
Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and now a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed-use
development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190
square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space.
A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the subject land use application on April 18, 2017. The requested
Development Agreement establishes the new Enhanced Development Alternative and allows for an extended
time frame for the land use entitlements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10
years, with a possible 5 year extension, for a total of 15 years. A public hearing is required to be held by City
Council when considering a Development Agreement. However, there is an opportunity to consolidate the
required public hearing for the Development Agreement with the public hearing for the land use entitlements
with the City's Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use
entitlements and the development agreement, the public will be able to comment on both the development
project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing. Second, the Hearing Examiner
would have the benefit of considering all aspects of the project and associated public comments when making
a decision on the land use entitlements and a recommendation to City Council. A consolidated public hearing
process would streamline and simplify the public process for the overall project. The final decision authority
on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the
City'S Hearing Examiner.
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.
v
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
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 D NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CI1Y OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
___ , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between lake Washington and lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-I (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, lUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendalf Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
"Initial Project Applications").
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
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 (URMC") in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
deSignations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master. Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
Draft Quendalf Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners'
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 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 SO percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction
("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, prOVided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock deSign, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
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. Ifthe SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.S Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, lUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (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 oftime.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would
delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City's authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is 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.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.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
commu nication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLlP
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
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
10015W 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
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
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 maya mediator who
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jOintly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The deciSion
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
Denis law
Mayor
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this __ day of ________ , 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDAll TERMINALS
By: _________ _
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By: _________ _
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: _______________ _
CITY OF RENTON
By: __________ _
Date: __________ _
ATIEST:
By: ____________ _
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ____ _
ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _
On this __ day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of , County of , personally appeared ______ _
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory eVidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print):. ________ _
My appOintment expires: _____ _
Draft QuendaIJ Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
STATEOF ___ _
ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _
On this __ day of ,2017, before me, a Notary PubliC in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-i-Map
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
Page 14
Exhibit A
SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS
LEGAL DESCR~PTION
AGENDA ITEM #8. c)
THAT PORTION Of GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING
LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED .I\.S
FOLLOI'JS:
BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
29;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5,
1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORT~ERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 FLET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTE 29'44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TR~E
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOUTE 56°28'50" W~Sl 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 59°24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A;
THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END
OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION;
ALSO THAT PORTION O~ SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF
LAKE WASHINC;TON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STl'"TE HIGHftiAY
NUMBLR 2.1\. AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-Of-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE
HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABL:Si1ED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964
UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A
[VllJNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER
RECORDING NO. 20080619001179.
11/11/2016
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546
BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03
11/11/16
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Page 15
Exhibit A-l
SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9012-01
/'
I
..l N66'2'12"W I /
. 1In.,r:.~1
300 0 150 300 lRUE POINT ;:--1 ..... ,.'0".
OF BEGINNING , III" --( IN FEET )
1 inch -300 tt.
~ ~& TAX ACCT, NO.
292405-9002-03 S~
~
'v-&'/
..,.:0«"'<-/ .,'<.~7
,,,\""'::;:.0-~ GOV'TI LOT 5 ~ ORDINARY HIGH GO~ /' .
WATER !lARK .;;.-
AT 18.8' //
ELEVATION <: N30'56'16"E
90.80'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
~tf ~'" S"~~.
.~ ,,~ Iff ,:".~....,
\:) ~ I ~ (5£ 80lH ST) I 1 CORNER
VAC N 44lH ST OF SEC. 29
REC. # 7602260427/ f-2
>' " -_., _ 1,113.05' l
'I 963.31' r
VAC N HT( ST
GOV'T LOT 1
-"'-BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. e:-:= LANO SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
.. 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 aRH SEADLE, Washington DATE: 11/11/16
98102-3513 JOB NO:200905003
Page 16
)::.
G')
~ -rrl s:
~
~
-!!.
e City of Renton
.!liD Office of the City Clerk
~ 1055 South Grady Way
• • Renton WA 98057-3232
." •. :< ,-
, < \ ,
'0'; ..• :-
',1 ',!,>,.:, '_;:Ii,'~).) OW
" •• , ,. 'j ~ '_, _,. 'II th r,'\,I.\r ,,' ['-
PM '":; I, L~
"-'''' o:~
o.~ IJ~' '. '--g'-: .' .... . ,--, -. ":
~ ,-~ ·;1
~\I:SPO'<;r c~ 4(,1
() '" k-.: G(f f~m .. &~/.',,!:.~;:~;.~;!:'"'''' ~ \~, .. :~a,I;I!VA:r.FI'l.~",,,,",-,,~'J :J ~·I .. -I;./ ·~,., ... l-""~'· I'I'N'I IH'WI'
.,) 1 '';: $ ODAt.
1-',~'r"ILI~ 7r;,~~' !-.;;w ,
M{IIIJj)H.(.OM LlP.:~onl· ""_,1,'
ADDRESSSE ~ RVICE REQU -"-" ESTED ",'" '\:'"
, __ C 1\1\.\ IN .~ 'I,"" l~~ V ~ -\.)2. \. ,><~;,~\~"
/ ~ , '--." ... """ .. r
",' ~ "
/Nu Lon~3,-.trr--n-h> AOCi~'\
D
IL .::: \ ",," .. ' J f".'',..'-'-.Y ()' Gj./ \ ,«-, \ ' .. ;,
'f><. .~«-;(. "
\ ';v"--' {'I""'." .
V ' .. '~""
.!liD ' Office of the City Clerk
,
/
Jim ~6v
/
11/1 N 41st PI
,fenton. WA 98056
e City of Renton
~ 1055 South Grady Way
• • Renton WA 98057-3232 ~>
f'.f"'-\ ~
( \ . ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
(\ \0 '0~./ V ;o,y ,+,,/\ ') \
r:-0'-JU )J \Y ,{x.
V'\.Y
31.~)
·=·~~b
,Y;'f·H "l,hU>iF;.>. ",...,,-~
." j . '''"l!Y;~~'"+'~~-''.l''~
CITY OF RENTOI\;
MAY 2 () 2017
KI::L1::1 VI::U
HI~<I:: 9 ~ G:ITYtGLERK'S OFF!~I<) ()" 5 ;' ;: 4,,' J. ?
[,J ;""'iT
:-~:-;-:.:;~~! """'8: s~~~o::~
1'IF' T\/;:"P.A>:tI::': A~ Ann~~~~~~
! ~I ll.,'=' ~ ~ -'n '~"""':' l.' i. 0:"'""" ..... '.1'"\-'_,_ l ..... ,··''Ji.nr.I .....
8[: qROS7~~~2S~ *~~7fi-A4l4~-1.6-,47
,! Ild!1 i, iii I h'I":I!!! I'll \ I: iill I'I'\! III, I, l.i \ l!iJi"!li'\
0'"
"'''' f-"" ",..J
OU ",>-
"'''' 0:'" 0.0:
''i\tSPO'~'i: c;;. --1Q.;<:'
(iii' __ ---ru' .. ~'A~,~""",.···,T' ~ (!I '" -'I;"""""",;,;"""\".<",.~,,.~ .. ,,,
::;-~ .. ' I :;-",~<I'iI"""""''''I''''''«r'F.r"",1V 3 il7v ~_'<m"" I'lltol V ItO'NI '.
I~' -: ~,,:! $ 00.45 3
t) I I ,~: 1-1-.~ "! '):' =' ~v'>' . .',-. \
MAILLt) FROM ZIP CODI-.:! ,.,,'t~,
Lvnn Manalo Poulos
CITY OF RENTOf\'
MAY 24 2U1f 777 1081h Ave NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, WA 98004
I;' :
,ECEIVED
: :::RK'S OFFICf
i'11 ),1;: -:.H . .iCji ::::: 1.03·6 000~S 12:: 2..,'
~ ... r •
~~"J~N -1'0 SE:iD~~
~nT nF IV~~A~' c ~S A~~~~~~~~
01~~~~,'C 70 ·~'Q~~~r~
qg~S7~ ~~'S~ ~1£4~-~~~j~-' ~ -~.
, I 'II I ,-\ ... I" I" ''''''. q!ljl'I;I~'1 I li',l1 Il,I'ilji /1!IJI11ll '1:,"1 ~'ll'H'"l,j!\:; _ I. _ " _ I ., \ , l "I 1 " ,
~ • 1055 South Grady Way 8 . City of Renton
.!m . Office of the City Clerk
• • Renton WA 98057-3232 \
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED \. ~)
f tY \\ ~}-.J{\~r 1-),/,;;7
V~CI/\~ \ or Qy-(( ./U/S: ~~ pJtR-fCO
8W8
215 C:""'Eq:.:W81S11/l'>3'l!'t~E
~:::;E.'-·\.,'l-'·~-LL
\i\! /\ ~,:jf,;;.,)
.ll r.1I-W 'J/
PH .,? L
0'" w'"
... "" a:-'
~~I;_SPOS, 4--10.
<) '" ,",~A_ ~I='~" ~ ",'" ~ Uloo~"""""''''''-'_'ll.''' Z 4 ·~AIFDII1VI."_--"
:;l , -1~1t<IYII<Wl.'f',
"':' w $ 00.453 0° ",I-
W'" a:'" a.U:
-(JrJD.:1::'/{;7:".-' r..,,:, ',' 11 2'~ll-!
it-'D: MAILED I-ROM ZIPCOD[ 98'."')
Sheng Wu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
CITY OF RENTON
MAY :3 02017
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S Of'FICt:
N 1 Xl c. ~'::'\l f.: J.\2);Jb Ul:'H::1::' /2:::. j"1.-;-
\", ,~ . ..", .. n •. ' ..,-.', .,1.... ....... "_" ,,-,
'.10"'1"" 0F:.! __ ::\'/~~ 4e;!_::.
J ~~ A~; :..'::;: TO
0:-.... ,.,,-,,,,-'='
....; '-,. '-" I... ,'.
A5 ~,~O~~SSEO
~ORWAnD
Be: 98057323255 ~1826-08798-1,J-38
I i \ ' 1111 ! 11'1' , I II , , II' i 'I ! ' 111, ' 1'1'11 " \' 1,1\ ! il! li I ; I ! I i 1 ' , ; ..
c~=== :j i 1!.1I UNITEDSTIJ.TES '
,First-Class ,IIail
1 I POSTIJ.L SERVICE'
"
~RM 3547 fee due $0.58 : POHage and Fees Paid
USPS
I:_~ __ -Restricted Data __ _ Pennil No. GIG
'I
"
I
'j
,I
" 'I
OLD:
NEW:
e"'~ , ~ City of Reo"," \ <-.. -; ~m -Office of the OtyClerk -.. rl--'Y
~~ 1055 South Grady W~ \I ~
_ Renton WA 9-8057-]232 ~ . ~\
ADDRESS SERVICE Re:OUESTED ~I
"'-v'~ l Gt, ~ /~\ G~{x0\
~~
?6 Cf;!:BCNi'1P saiOi
HILLIS CLARK AL4RTIN & PETERSON PS
1221 2ND A VEST£ JOO
SEATTLE WA 98101-2989
999 3RD AVE STE 4600
SEATTLE fYA 98104-4084
H~1is dari::Martlll &i>Ete:l'5Qn, P5_
1221 Sealnd A.W, Ste 500
Seattle. WA 98101
-~-, ~"-.. J
CITY OF RENTe
~lAY 19 2017
RECEIVED
CT! CLERK'S OFFIC>
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON W A 98057-9998
D:i 12· 17 21:2] ~700700000480 c!: I proc:20]7G511 df:20160702
PLA:-.IET: Id:OO Codc.03620184510L98-1129<J810 L293!f:!5 1,111 11 1111 11' Ii I, 11111 111 , 11111" 111 111 1,1 11 1' III '111 11 11, 111111
!I .11 UNITED STIJ..TES !!
POSTIJ.L SERVICEI! FORM 3547 fee due $0.58
,i First-Class Mail
; I Postage and Fees Paid
"USPS 'I
)LD:
lEW:
Restricted Data 'I Permit No. GIO
®.'~. ',-Otyoll«o"",
", ~ OffiO!ofthe:OtyOerk ~~ lOSS South GradyWay
, Renton WA 98057-3232 e
loti'
~SU
ADO!<1SSSEIMCE REQUESTED '" s \
CITY OF RENTOh (~v ))>/£/\)'. Jeffery Kahyer
V W Y Road Constnlc:tion Northwest, Inc..
0 "-' ~ P.O. 50, 188
MAY 22 2017
" -Renton.VVA 98057-0188 RECEIVED ~ '\..)
ROAD CONSTRUCT!ON NORTHWEST INC
PO BOX 188
RENTON WA 98057-0188
PO BOX 2228
RENTON WA 98056-0228
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE'
!,n .. II'UII'lf.II,1.111"Ulhll.II'l1ul .. l'I,II'htIIILtll'I.
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON W A 98057-9998
I,
ii
I
I
II
.J
~ .4 UNITEDS;JlTES II
, POSTJlL SERVICE I ,
I _ i I
Ii
Ii , 8·· CIty of',"","
~ ... Office ¢f the GIY Oe-rll ~"\.. 1055 Sollth Grady Wa'l
. • Renton WA 9'SQSH232
ORM 3547 fee due $0.5:
Restricted Data
C"'"""""" 381.0 ParlcAIte N
I ! First-Class -Mail
I
' Postage and Fees Paid
I USPS
, Permit No_ G I ()
CITY OF Ra TON
-2)n i MAY 2 2 ~~,
RECEIVEL '" .
ii' ClTv c'L"i':RK'fF-~F ,I~"
i
I 26 ORSCNMP s-eoss IIII[·u".IIIlJ·j,I,II";'H'III,r"/I',IlJ,11Ihi ll",I., .. r··lIf J ~~====~============================================~
OLD:
NEW:
CYRUS M MCNEELY
3810PARKAVEN
RENTONWA 98056-1520
317024THAVES
FEDERAL WA Y WA 98003-5235
05; 1 J 17 21 :22 4800620000539 cI: [ prodO 170513 dT:20 161212
PLANET: Id:OO Code;03620184j I01984119'l8056[ 52010
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON WA 98057-9998
I, ,11,111 11 ,1111,11 11" 1I1I '11 11 , 'Ill" 11111' 111111' I, III Ii 'II 'II
'I. 4 UNI'TED STATES 1 .. 1 I! First-Class Mail
I FORM 3547 "ee due $0 58 Postage and Fees Paid
I, POSTIlL SERVICEii Restrict:~ Data • i~;:::t No GIO ~o=:~~~~~~~~~~g'g~~~~_J =-il
I
,I
\1
I d
II
'I
Janet L!o GOllY R.. sanford
U02N42ndpi
RenuJn, WA 98056
II
I: 26 ORSCNMP 99Q56
OLD:
NEW:
SANFORD
flO2 N 42ND PL
RENTON WA 98056-2169
381 MAPLE LEAF LOOP
CLE £LUM WA 98922-3116
05: 1_~:17 21:22 4800620000540 cl:! proc:201705 13 etf:20161222
pr t. ,n;T· r.-Hlll rrvl .. ·n"lI',"J1l1 !i:.1'\ III I O!L1I O<;Sl.QIII1,\",':11 f.OflJ
CITY OF RENTOI,
MAY 222017
RECEIVEC
CITY CLERK'S OFFiCt
tNT 1
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON W A 98057-9998
i
III, III, I, 1111" 111",,1 1,11,11111,1,1,1, II ,11111111,,111111'1111
r.;,:~ ~
----------------------r--.------
'First-Class Mail Ii I!.?J UNITED STIJ.TES •
,I POSTIJ.L SERVICE RM 3547 fee due $0.58 ! Postage and Fees Paid
iiusps
,'--
'I ,
I
~~ \".. OflkeoftheGtyOerk ® 0,,01'00"'0
~ 1055 South GradyWiJ'/
-• Rentoll WA 98C57-3232
Restricted Dala __________ . ____ ~ _ ! I Permit ,"'/0. GIO
CIlY OF RENTO,'-
MAY 222017 I,
FAYE .lANDERS
2717 Aberl1el!!n A.ve NE
Renton. WA 98056
'-" Y ,-,[ERr S OFF"', •
·1 --._-"''''''''<''''''''''""'''~,",,",
-'===~=-=------===-=
~'T H~CEiVED III
'v,-Ii
~I
OLD:
NEW:
FAYE I lANDERS
2717 ABERDEEN AVE NE
RENTON WA 98056-2211
ll450RAINIERAVE SAPT 219
SEATTLE WA 98178-3967
05/13: 17 21 :22 4800620000537 ~!: 1 proc:20 170513 elT:20 L 70S03
. PLA:\,jET: [d:OO Code:03620184510198409098056221117
OLD:
NEW:
Oty of Renton
Office of the Gty Oerie
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 980SH232
AOORESS SE!'WICE REQUESTED
RiLEY
2Q ORBONMP 9&056
3607 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N
RENTON WA 98056-1509
11000 NE 10TH ST APT 434
BELLEVUE WA 98004-8563
05/13,'17 21 :22 480()62000()538 d: J proc:20 I 705 I J etf:20 161 020
PLANET: Id:OO Codc:()3620 \8451 0 1984099980561509{l7
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON WA 98057-9998
'1 1'11" ,I 'I '11 111" 'II, 111 1, 'I '11 11" 1111" I' 11 1111' 1'11111111"
i
I
CITY OF RENTOr..; :
lim /tilt!\'
':z.---_ ....
3607lilol! W.uhinston BM:I N
Itemon. WA 98Cl56
MAY 222017
'~ RECEIVED
qlrY C~ERK'S OFF!Ce
i
I
I
_____ !i
==================~J
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTOi-l W A 98057-9998
"111 111 111 II I' 11",111" III' III"" II ,1,1110 ,1'11 111'" II" I, III
r..:;t,:: M
, • l' UNITED STIlTES ,!
, POSTIlL SERVICE iORM 3547 fee due $0.5-
Amit Ra/Urle
HilB.5 Clark MOirtin & Pe1efsotI. P.5.
1221 Second /We. Ste 500
Se;rttfe, W!I. 'JIlI!:'1
CITY OF RENTm,
~jAY 19 2017
RECEiVED
7
-O-aCN"'p 9"'-' CITY CLERK'S OFF,": ,I
... <"'< I .. /',dl .. lTuHuUII·/Il,I,./I.III"I/f.!IlIl,'III,lh'trljlh·/
··C.-.=-... _. ~=============~~~~~=dl ~----.
OLD:
NEW:
f{[LLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON PS
1221 2NDAVE STE 500
SEATTLE iVA 98101·2989
999 3RD A VE STE 4600
SEATTLE fV,4 98104·4084
05: 12/1 7 21:23 4700700000479 cl: 1 proc:l0 170511 eff20160702
PLA:\ET: Id:OO Code:03620 18-1510 193-11349810 1~93925
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRA.DY WAY
RENTON WA 98057-9998
I"'" I'll'", II ,11'1' 111"'1, 'I' III' h"" II, ,11 11' 11111' ,I "'I'
1.11 UNITED STIlTES !!
i POSTIlL SERVICE, I FORM 3547 fee due $0.58
: First-Class Alai!
Postage and Fees Paid
,USPS
I _... .. ~,
I
"
I
"
Oty of Renton
OfI'ice of the City d@flc.
1055 South Grady Way
Rentoo WA MOS7-3232
Restricted Data
Wltlnie & YUn Slhon
1211 N 42nd PI
Renttm. WA 9SCS6
26 ORSDNNP 98056
! Perm'J No. GlO
CITy OF" RENTOl-;
MAY 22 2017
ti.~:~;: ~
II Ii Ii
I
i
I
I
II ~====~==~======~~--=================================
OLD:
NEW:
SIHON
1211 N 42ND PL
RENTON fV,4 98056-2170
12025 SE 76TH ST
NEWCASTLE WA 98056-1776
05Il]:17 21:22 4800620000536 d:i proc:20170513 elr2016Q516
PLANET: ld:OO Codc:0362018451{) 1984081980:5621 7011
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON W A 98057-9998
'I,,' III' h 'III 'II' I, '1,111,1 1, '1,1 1,,1,111 h I' I' I' I, 1,1 ,11 111' ,I
e"'·. Gty 0' ""'00 1 ~~ Oftk2 aftne Ot)' Gerk
~ 1055 South Grady way
. • Renton WA 98C57-ill2
,,"0_
H<ms Oari. Martin & Peterson, P 5.
122l SKtlnd /tNe. SIt! SOO
5e~. WA. 98101
~-~'--~--.-------. --J
. First-Class ,trail
Postage and Fees Paid
!'USPS
______ I Pt;J-:--,!}jJ_l,!'q~QLQ _________ I i
!j
CITY OF RENTOt'-. Ii ,
MAY 19 2017
A RECEIVED
c,ITY CLERK-S OFFIC"
I
76 OPSCNMP 9910j ,.I.f'II,I,I",fI·,II,qf"lr,I ... II,lr,IIl,','ul','hdlllM,
OLD:
HILLIS CLARK AL4RTlN & PETERSON PS
1221 2NDAVE STE 500
NEW:
SEATTLE WA 98101-2989
999 3RD A VE STE 4600
SEATTLE WA 98104-4084
O'i. 12 17 21.23 -1.700700000-1.78 cl: 1 proc:20170'i1 1 dl:20 160702
I'LA~ET-Id:OO Co •. k:036201845101lJ::!-I. IJ5lJ81012lJg925
City of Renton
Office of the City Clerk
'055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057·3232
"RVICE REQUESTED
;:: __ .r.r:.:;..""'!:_-S.!~0
76
~Ii'~
o R~-f1tfi >-'i!<¥fJ
TO THE POSTMASTER OF
.: ... ~"r' ~
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON W A 98057-9998
I' Ir' III, IIIII 11/1111.11 •• 11 01 ,11", 'III '1"10 ,1"1 1, 11 11'11'11"
CITY OF RENTO~
MAY 222011
Rvan Durkin
12215econd Ave, 500 Galland Building RECEiVED --
CITY CLERK'S OFFly-Seattle, WA 98101
,..,~.,..,'''''' f., ~I'. L ... ; ..., .... ,~ • ""'
A_TT,::~"'::T=:C~ -
'JNA_3_E TO
r-,",,~.:r~~1"'·
f~ 0 '1-"~ ::_ ~::~ 0 ~ f.~
=OF".T;·\?D
City of Renton
Office of the City Clerk
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057-3232
=:RVICE REQUESTED
26 "'"'C
DR a.ffti~Fi·,. ffi1¥
AMY LIETZ ROBERTS
ALR DESIGN INC
1006 NE 34th
Renton. WA 98056-1938
$ 00.45 3
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 222011
RECEiVED
CITY CLER~'S OF1"ICE
3025/1.9::1 7
?~TJR~ TO SENDER
ATT~~~T~G -r107 ~f~OWt;
J~iA3L~ TO =OR~ARD
~ l;; 1-:1l' 1 i!!!! 1'11 j, j!! j !il;'! i Ii! ,Ii i II! 1;1 !i~l!; i i( :!~ t: ~ i :_~
e City of Renton
.!ED Office of the City Clerk
~ 1055 South Grady Way
• • Renton WA 98057-3232
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
yrr/\
eGO. ,,\.-' s-\ NJ':Y D~)
0:v-l-'VV \..;vP'
q3:;Og2~173~':";E;t,7
76
S:Q~3r Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC
1111 3rd Ave, #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
,
= 'WD
Df~Sl:;lt.jJ"!F? :-311.fi3it.::)
aU)
~~
Ir-'
0" ",>-
LU'" Irlr
o.U::
;o..(J".$ pOsr. 4--1Q
Q '" '" ~~'::=I'."' __ "'oo, ~ ~-;;-~~ .. ....;..,~
:J -I'IINI ~ H""'" ~
)21M $00.453
Jor4;'7G2::'C Mt.Yil.:'(117
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 98(1:.1'
CITY OF RENTal"
MAY 1 G 2017
,. , ...... i.
'.,! 'II "11
980 N~5 ~03GJ~GCO~05j~4.!~7
r::OR'r'tA'FiJ Tlr~iE :::-X:;;: 'f\:Tj'i TO: $'t;"N[J
: FeSTER PEOPER ~LLC
1_11l ~RD ~V~ ST~ ?@~Q
S5ATT~E WA 98l01-3296
RETurN TO SENDER
Ii! II i i II i i! U II i Ii!! Ii iii i III tt III iii t iii i! Ii! iii i! I!! iii iiI! i! I
I H;'n II I '.11111~11 I j II I I I H. LI! I
---------------._----_._---
Office of the City Clerk "1Pr®iID~@J]l e
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057-3232
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
0'" IU'"
f-" ",-' aU
",f-lU'" ",,,,
0..;;:
\>-~'iSPOsJ':
II'''''''. .. ",4' ""''''''' -,.-.n : "IN.....-="'IIL -..I.' . ,,-.. ~ !::::\" ~~' i."~ 5 ~ --I'IINI¥II"WI~
• ,J 2 ",M $ OO.45~
" ... : 000427G:220 MAY,3 201~
. MAILED FROM liP CODE 9805
CITY OF RENT()I' ..
MAY 172017
( (; \;) xf',\C;\ ~,~) ~\y\'<. (C5& ( ~ Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L. P.
··:O_J--?
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
':"'13-') ~)S2el7 3 :49867
1201 -, . -, •.. -c .. ;+~ #1 htltl
Seatt
;..t;rY.:D
~'E9~j4"1!·1Yii4
jlir XI = 980 DE :l.iB6 0005/15./17
D 1.... .•
~';:: Til R l,' TO S;:; N D';: l;,'
A,"f"·TE!'.;p",'E!)' -NO" ;'.N()~\fN
UNA3~e TO FORWARD
~"~~~~ ___ r~ ,~~~~_ .• ~~ft_ ~~ A.
~OUJ/~'~'JJ ~~~U-~~~Ol-~~-~J
iii' II i , i \l ' iii , i ' , I \I i Ii iJ Ii ii i ' I ' iI il i ' i d Ii ii ii Ii i Iii I ' 1 iI iii i
I I , .
i \
I ~ i '\
8 City of Renton
. ~ Office of the City Clerk
~ 1055 South Grady Way
• • Renton WA 98057-3232
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
\ \~
\C; (~"" ~ ,r---.. 0\ ,/ ~ ~ ~.... Julie Varon r r-::-'Iy/ ('..," \ "', /-1100 N 41st PI U U '(X....v ~ "-' Renton, WA 980561595
V .~-J
~' t V"'''''
NSN
~iEj;':i5E:~~~~ >J';:iq~
NI XI ~
0'" W'" 1-'" ",--'
0" .,1-
w'" ",«
a.i:L
~~\:-SPOS7: 4' 4Q«,
§~~ili: p,--!·t~ ............ _
~ , _I1INIVIU)\!VI',
,) 2 1M $ 00.453
0004276~:'CI ML.Y11 2()~ 7
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 9"0 C, 7
CITY OF RENTOI'I
MAY 17 2017
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
980 DE ~ 0005/1.Sj'l7
RETURN TO SENDER
~f) SUCH f>,!l_IMP'E,R.
u: N A'5 i... E TO -r: Cri\.'W'A'R,·u
Be: 98057323255 s05Z6-00473-11-43
I' I, i' i" Ii, i i II i;' i j, I, 'I "\ \ II'\" ill i'! Ii" \ iiilll " i ji' i II ii,
i
l
I ,
I
\
1
e City of Renton
.,!II) Office of the City Clerk
~ . 1055 South Grady Way
• • Renton WA 98057-3232
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
~O~
IJJ", ~--'
\--.
0'-'
)Y
"'~
:;\.:> ' . . Q.r .1
l,16 J/\ ~. ' .. -. ,J>.V Jj' x;:!L-~. v>--~ \\ '--~ "'"'~" ~? '" ;;r ( /l :::,::~ ':';:~,:" ",,,
Dc 1
~"\£SPO,.')"'l: ~ '1Q
Q "' k: ~....-:=-;t.;=.!':'-_. z ~ ~..........,.....-
:J --l'IINI~IIIII(II1"
021M $ 00.45 3
0')04:/6'22') M':'/"i' 2011'
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 981) 5 j"
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 172017
RECEIVED
'!TY CLERK'S OFFICE
tH)05/~5/7 (},~ V *0 RETURN TO SENDER
UNCLAI~ED
JNABLE TO FO'RWARD
c.;;:::p-:r::;::'.;£fj:::jC;S, U [II C
_ ..... "-"-"-' ';'~l)'!) I :>:::. :: 3 :
:3 c: 980573~325S *~526-00474-11-43
i'l 'I,!!"ii ,illl'lli'l;ill!'II,i,!,!! "il,jilll'ii'I!;'L"';'ill
~ .. ~~-~--.-.-~--------
~ 1055 South Grady Way
• • Renton WA 98057-3232 ® City of Renton
~. . Office of the City Clerk
s\ ._'0 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Jim Hanken
----~ .~.-------.~-.-..
II
. ~.. '. ,p,,''iSPoS'-!,..,
0'" -J!! ~~ '''"t: ,_ ,-, wen Z I ~....."...,._ ~:5 "J'-111M"
g;:.1 02 1M $ 00_453
~~. • ..;: QOO'~27622C rI/-t..\ 11 '2')1-'
Q.L1: .. ..; MAilED FROM ZIP CODE 9f3'~J~~7
r c\> O'A ~9.-( t" V~~~' Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc.
1111 Third Ave, Sulie 1800
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 17 2011
D~
Seattle. WA 98101
~.,' ." .. ~'!."'t;~_:_. ~ .. " i
J Tr-
76 D/=i!aR:fW~1,?> ~~C
MOT
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICI'
, "~-" ...
RETURN TO SENDER
M ""'.', -," ••• ,. ... '" ~ ~ i _ ... , ... '
n t= ! __ T \11= P 1\ Pi J;:; JI,,, 1\ n n.R' i: ~ It:: ):" 0 --UtiA6~E-T6 ;::OR'tlARO---"
Be: 930573.23255 *e426-0'3.97Z-1~-45
i, iii' i, j, ii' I i Ii iii ii' Iii iii, i, i il i\ I \ i", iii I' i i lI i "1 1'1,1" il
Date
Reference
INVOICE/REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
May 18, 2017
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley ln N
Renton, WA 98056
Copy of HEX Report -Quendall Terminals
Payment for requested materials. The costs are as follows:
Description
Copies (43 @ .15/each)
Postage Fee
TOTAL DUE
Make checks payable to: City of Renton
Attention: City Clerk Division, 7th Floor
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Charge
6.45
1.82
$ 8.27
PLEASE PLACE CHECK IN RETURN ENVELOPE ADDRESSED TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT
THANK YOU
May 12,2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, loP.
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Denis Law Mayor
City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC
Subject: REVISED CONTACTS: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation
RE: Quendall Terminals, LUA-09-1S1
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Recommended Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of law & Recommendation dated May 9,2017. This document is immediately
available:
• Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at
www.rentonwa.gov/cityclerk.Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the
right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful links." The
Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by
project name.
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055
South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above
project number; and
• For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the
Hearing Examiner Documents is $6.45, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost
is subject to change if documents are added).
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
If you have any further questions, you can email JasonSeth.CityClerk.at (425) 430-
6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov.
Megan Gregor, CMe, MUS
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Brad Nicholson, POR
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Clark Close, Senior Planner
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Gillian Syverson, Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
May 11, 2017
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 NE 28 th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Denis Law Mayor
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation
RE: Quendall Terminals, LUA-09-1S1
Dear Mr. Nicolson & Mr. Mathewson:
The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Recommended Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law & Recommendation dated May 9,2017. This document is immediately
available:
• Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at
www.rentonwa.gov/cityclerk.Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the
right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The
Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by
project name.
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055
South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above
project number; and
• For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the
Hearing Examiner Documents is $6.45, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost
is subject to change if documents are added).
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
If you have any further questions, you can email JasonSeth.CityClerk.at (425) 430-
6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov.
Megan Gregor, CMC, MLiS
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Clark Close, Senior Planner
Srianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Gillian Syverson, Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (118)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Quendall Terminals
Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline and
Substantial Development Permit
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LA WAND
RECOMMENDATION
13 LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Summary
The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft.
of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the
development agreement.
The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed
development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints
of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009,
the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square
feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office
space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access, open spaces, landscaping,
view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures
composed of46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
appealed. By the date of the April 18,2017 hearing, the appeal had been withdrawn and only five
members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor ofthe
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
project.
One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the
project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is
the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the
past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake
sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better
understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process
is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the
City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup
action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used
to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is
anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the
upland portions of the site, including placement of a soil cap across the project site and shoreline
restoration in a 1 OO-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation
activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land
use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished.
EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need for the proposed development agreement since
the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the
project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit
expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards
during the extended expiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is
two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration
periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park
space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street
activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and
a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development
agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the
function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area.
The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation) are traffic
and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to 1-405 and
NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to
improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the
WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the
project use the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary
to assess a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project,
off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections.
As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will
have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic
calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at
the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation
will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even
with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the
City streets to the south of the project.
View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is lillie question that the multiple
six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale
neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the
applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a
building that is I IS feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts, the proposal includes a widened
central road (Road B) to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining
properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback requirements.
Testimony
Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner's Recommendation. It is solely
provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary
should be construed as a Finding uf Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signifYing any priurity or
importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an
accurate rendition of the testimuny, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing.
Staff Opening Presentation:
Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to
examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23, the City Council expressly authorized
the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4.
Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement.
Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time
frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the
site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and
that precise details of design will be reviewed and approved during subsequent site plan review. The
heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and
north of the project.
The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to
fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now
referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re-
evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10,
20 I 0 for the term ofthe agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either
when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to
fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains.
The site is a former creosote facility and was subsequently designated a superfund site. The EPA will
be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain
how the project site would be configured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort.
In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline
assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline
buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the
clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA.
There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to
site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks.
There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill
and a 38-foot setback from the Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor
width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi-private plaza spaces. Pursuant to
Condition 27, Lots 1 and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the
EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas, they proposal will
have to be amended. Condition 4 I requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped
water line. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement.
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider are-opening of the
hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the
Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the
discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site
plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the City
Council.
Applicant Presentation:
Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations.
She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project.
She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The
applicant has the burden of proof in establishing consistency with decision criteria. The examiner is
also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision
on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed
minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development
agreement.
Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal
property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage
yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the
prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned
the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development
agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit
review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and
remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation
mitigation, including both on and off-site roadway improvements, a transportation demand
management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and
compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the [-405 and NE
44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of
Transportation (,'WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were
assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the
analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The
WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual
time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be
completed. Without the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of
north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project.
To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be
placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded
that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as
opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use [-405 than the southern City
streets. On-site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The
transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and
programs to reduce reliance upon single-occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should
effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it
easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency
certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has
adequate capacity to serve the development. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering
for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of
mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation
information available to the City, such as the work associated with the [-405 WSDOT interchange
improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off-setting traffic impacts.
Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last
two years, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been
geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the
beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and
restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A
pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian
oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the
street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards
the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with
Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the
project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects
have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly
environment. The project is consistent with the City's design standards.
Campbell Mathewson, project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation,
landscaping and recreation areas, Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The
binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline
permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for
a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject
to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was
800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the
project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met
with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of
the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was
significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square
feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic
impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the
applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation
of approval. However, the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff
report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront
retail and the public park along the southwest corner of the site and the potential for a new dock. The
buildings were also set back another 20 feet. Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City'S zoning
regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included
buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be
compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review.
Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining
uses. The project signiticantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of90 feet
from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space
for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative, There are courtyards
between residential blocks, pedestrian orientation in design, added retail use and restaurants and trails.
The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park.
The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by
the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the
first time in decades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants
and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended
in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April I L 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee
Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the
development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the
1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development
agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five.
Public Comments:
Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern.
He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently
has to twelve-foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive
characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing, Last year it was changed
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going
between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes arc still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened
as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted
that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little
bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view
of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box
entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third
issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would
be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public
access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock.
Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated
the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the
parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She
also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed-use site and she doesn't
want it to be an elitist area.
Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and
grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can
be cleaned up as quickly as possible.
Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development
agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the
applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of
residents and also that the developer has been very accommodating.
Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near
the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle
safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during
pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts.
Staff Rebuttal:
In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor
was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so
to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts,
a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were
implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the
recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil
contaminants being moved with pile driving, the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic
impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the
parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also
require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. In response to examiner questions, Mr.
Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking
structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Applicant Rebuttal:
Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety
plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a
result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site.
In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about
a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation
measures. The project includes a thorough 20 16 staff report along with a 20 17 update for the enhanced
alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions
of approval. Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one
of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found
the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets
and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides
for public access and use of shore I ine areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks
and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the
project.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April II, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at
page 2 of the April II, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April IS,
2017 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the April IS, 2017
public hearing as well:
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 39
Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17,2017
Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15,2017
City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
Google Maps
City of Renton power point
Notebook dated April IS, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Notebook dated April IS, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Larry Toedtli CV
Bob Wells Resume
Lance Mueller Resume
Street B rendering
June 6, 2016 Site Plan P 1.0
June 1,2016 Site Plan PO.O
April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
S
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
I. Applicant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle,
WA,98101
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18,2017 at 10:00 am in the
City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary
if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
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
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A. Proposal. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-
use buildings. The proposal would include 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential
density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be
constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building
height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposed 1 to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-
way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via
the development of new internal Roads A-E. The primary site access from public streets
is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear
feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 -
133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development
agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen
years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park
space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork,
etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public
access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed
complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10, 20 10.
I The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
C.
Site Conditions/Superfund Designation. The subject site has received a Superfund
designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners
are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin
construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying a remedy for
clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.
The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated
from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater,
surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology
transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA,
which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial
investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of
contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City's land use review.
Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit IS) to define
the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in
the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the
Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2,
for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to
include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland
portions of the site (Main Property), including placement ofa soil cap across the entire Main
Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts
associated with cleanupiremediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA
process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been
accomplished.
Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental
impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement
("FE IS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from
the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation
Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is
recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed
for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in
an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred
alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the
development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the
applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the
range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 20 I 0 through
2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures
are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Consequently, the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the
April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced
Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
with the "proposal".
4. Surrounding Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north
is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the
east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) right of way, 1-405 and
undeveloped COR zoned property.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most
significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area
regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse
impacts to critical areas.
The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical
Areas Map and is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. Due to the baseline
assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas
would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located
in the 100-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the
extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the
project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the
recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands
and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specitically
reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DE1S
assumes wetland butTer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on
adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site-specific site plan review should
include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the
criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the
buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots I and 6), Recommended
Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots I and 6 shall be increased to ensure
compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers
are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the
overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per
RMC 4-9-200(J) a new application would be required.
As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C I 0, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different
than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine
whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any
difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include
impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition
is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording
of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
II
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be
submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD.
It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources.
Pages 3.6-14 -3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline
resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the
DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake
Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and
sedimentation control plan (TESCP), induding 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
storm water regulations. Storm water runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped
storm water system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution-generating
surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The storm water outfall pipes would be
situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed
during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation.
Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The
subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows
for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake
Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi-story
structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These
impacts were evaluated in the DE IS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of
the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred
Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center
of the site. [n addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the
property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking
garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights-of-
way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures F 1 -
FI5 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west
view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of
74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of
80 feet.
At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would
completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between
the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and
appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However,
in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating
view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The
maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes
almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant
has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view
corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks, which are significantly wider
than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are
MASTER PLAN, BINDING S[TE PLAN, SSDP and DA
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from
the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all
reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development
potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed
by the applicant.
C. Noise. Privacy and Dust. The City'S noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative
standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It
is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the
project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a
Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise,
control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8
RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City'S noise ordinance
regarding construction hours. With these measures in place, noise and dust impacts are adequately
mitigated.
The proposed building layout provides semi-private court yards between each residential tower
which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy.
The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an
opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the
retail/restaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics
of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window
coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
D. Drainage. Adequate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant
adverse drainage impacts. The City's stormwater regulations assure that stormwater impacts are
fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 storrnwater manual is applicable to the project.
As noted in Conclusion of Law ("COL") No.2 of this recommendation, more current storm water
regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater
regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts.
Storrnwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth,
Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this
analysis mitigation measures AI, AIO, AI I, B2, and B7 were established and will become a
condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private,
the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A storm water covenant
for allowing the City access to inspect the storm water facility and assigning maintenance
responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding
site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained
a condition of approval requires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents
for City review and approval identifying the developer! property owners! HOA responsibilities for
the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
13
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E.
A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be
submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site
is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is
proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is
proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City storm water standards. Storm
water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall
be followed in the design and construction of the project.
The project was reviewed by the City'S Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project
specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14,2009. As noted in Exhibit 16,
the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include
an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality
impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation
for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre-and post-
developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and
developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology.
Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts
via the City'S design, view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund
toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is
by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and
enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing
view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building
and site design is subject to general design review at the master plan stage and detailed design
review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies
with the District "C" design standards for master plan review.
The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping
standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the
Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure E1, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and
constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The
applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re-submittal dated
12-16-2015, Exhibit 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide
landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a I D-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east
of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). AID-foot wide landscape
buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C
along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative
would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires
that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as
shown in Exhibit 11.
Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and
Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All
street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required
MASTER PLAN, BJNDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
14
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to be 4' x 8'. The provided eoneeptuallandscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper
inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a
final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas
prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of
the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan.
Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface
parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted
in Mitigation Measures F4, 012 and 013.
F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation
since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's
tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project
site subsequent to remediation.
O. CompatibilitvlBuilding Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding
uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the
west and R-l 0 property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic
issues addressed elsewhere, the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining
the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings
along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at
a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern comer of the
project site.
As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on
adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, F1, F8, F9, FlI, and
F15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and
Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures,
the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site.
H. Lighting. As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting
proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review
for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition
F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures BII and F7 to ensure
that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
downlighting and shielding among other techniques.
Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other
common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions FI3 and H9 and the design
standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re-submittal of the Preferred
Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F 13 and H9 or
compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires
MASTER PLAN, BrNDINO SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F 13 and 119
and the design standards forthe common areas.
I. Loading and Storage Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and
storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include
loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and
restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at
off peak hours.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the
King County parcel fronting the site and a I O-inch water main extending into the project site.
There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The
development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SOC) fee and
water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic,
landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SOC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction
permits.
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department
and police protection by the City of Renton Police Department. Police and Fire staff
indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if
the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided
to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet
wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire
apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum
I ~O-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 I ~O-foot
shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail.
Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot
shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line
required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface.
Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that
the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail
which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. As
previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space.
Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and
Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park
demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service
standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this
application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation
mitigation measures (Gl -GI3) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas.
The amount of on-site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant
would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards.
However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off-site
park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on-site park and open
space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to
mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project.
As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2
requires that approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas" and "Other
Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall
include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. The "Other Related
Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks,
paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of
Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other
Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with
Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the
trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is
for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources
Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with
the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition G 10 requires that the trail be
enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive
signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the
trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials.
Mitigation Document condition GIl requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill
residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the
surface parking lot located in the southwest comer of Lot 5. This design is not in
compliance with condition GIl. Based on the above analysis the provided materials
were not compliant with conditions G2, G7, G 1 0, and GIl. As such a recommended
condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any
other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G 10, and GIl
for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community
Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan
recording.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
D.
The Development Agreement adds a 1.3-acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours
of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park
hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public
use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director
prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding
site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy
of the first building on the site.
The "street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide
distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not
been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that
Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the
roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe
pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the
sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex, 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian
connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline,
However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing, For example, the
sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private Street E either
north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley
Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge
along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show
stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the
buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian
circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space,
parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended
condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete
connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3, The
approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording,
Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian
circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when
planned public transit becomes available, The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a
recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public
right of way, Lake Washington Blvd, and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this
condition.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
18
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street
infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum.
For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal, additional transportation analysis was
included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the
Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of
the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS
Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation
measures, with or without the 1-405 improvements, staff determined that significant
transportation impacts are not anticipated.
The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently
operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts
were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT
improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project
using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's
necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without
the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and
southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange
project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming
treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor.
The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent
people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current
congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets.
The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour
vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips,
no net change in AM peak our trips and IS more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred
Alternative. As to the preferred alternative, page 1-14 ofthe DEIS addendum concluded that
"{t}he existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would
adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at filII build-out in 2015, with the
additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative
constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is
within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 20 I 0
through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the
DEIS addendum against DE IS Alternative I traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak
hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative I clearly generated far
more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited
information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
\0
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative I, the
traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection
level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DE IS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation
on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows
intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where
WSDOT has not completed 1-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6
shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three
intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table
3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections.
Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any
intersection except for the Lk Wa BlvdlN 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any
of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection.
The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative
analyzed in the April 2016 staft' report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center
turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group,
in a memorandum dated January 12,2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit
21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal
because single-lane approaches at each of the Street 'A' intersections would provide
acceptable traffic operations.
Conditions H I-I-! 15 of the Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary
to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires
frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel
lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing
roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document,
provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the
site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along
two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The
private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including
landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing
landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at
the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and
6-foot wide sidewalk on south side ofthe access.
The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property
owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of
existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the
applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who
owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N,
and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval
requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should
be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause
some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off-site improvements, such as
southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly
north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures
Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the
mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation
Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In
addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some
inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements
evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the
inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully
depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the
Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as
shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the
internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation
Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian
walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation
coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has
resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become
private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard
street cross sections is not required. However, the design of the streets shall meet minimum
standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be
required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of
public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of
approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways
and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on
street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for
pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street
cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each
building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those
areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 -IS-foot sidewalk is
required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground
floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6
feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to
account for the curb width, and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross-
section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant
amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit
review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the
amended cross sections.
A couple members of the public at the April 18,2017 public hearing expressed concern over
increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
21
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Condition H5 of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming
treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south ofN 41 st Street to encourage primary trips
generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified
that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern
street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers
would elect to use 1-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site.
Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition H5 adequately addresses concerns over
increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also
expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the
project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the "scenic" character
of the road and turn it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be
some legitimacy to this concern, the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and
functionality considerations integrated into the City'S street standards that require the
additional street width.
F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall
development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N
42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross
the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road
right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are
two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive
approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail-road right-of-way.
This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A
recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City
identifying rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review
application and construction permit application submittal.
Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed
through an internal street system, identified as Roads A-E. The applicant has indicated that
Roads A - C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private
streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City
is not willing to accept the proposed public rights-of-way dedications and Roads A - C shall
become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A - C will be private
streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement
for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The
public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property
Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any
additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School)
and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated
that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
22
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot
specific site plan review.
A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City
as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities.
Transit was evaluated as a part of the DE1S and E[S Addendum. Currently no public transit
service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is
provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St.
interchange and [-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include
Bus Rapid Transit on [-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the
[-405INE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted, Mitigation Document conditions H3
and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage
future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available.
Currently there are no non-motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site,
however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition, the existing rail
road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is
identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails"
planned multi-purpose trail corridor. [n February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating
alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi-purpose trail
at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the
primary form and most readily available form of alternative non-motorized transportation is
bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and
restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation
Document (page 26) to mitigate system-wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity
transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the
applicant shall prepare a TOM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include
on-site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above
analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in
the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure
weather-protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking
should be provided at a ratio of [0 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and
restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents
shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City'S Transportation
Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation
would not use the multi-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore
a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north
and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-
purpose trail.
26 I. Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously
noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
23
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the
lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B I 0 requires
that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be
incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake
side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake
side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details
of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval
requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site
plan review and construction permit application. In addition, should the EPA ROD eliminate
the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires
that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction
permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline
master programs requirements for significant public access.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit
applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement.
However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made
recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It
is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding
site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should
be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City
Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline
applications.
The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City
Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications
are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement
with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7-
230(1)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement"
significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two
provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan
applications that are merged with development agreements.
In contrast to the binding site plan application, shoreline substantial development permits are classified
by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type II permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and
master site plan approval as Type III permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short, the three
permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
24
2
3
4
5
6
RMC 4-S-0S0(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number
procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not
classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the
examiner (see Ex. 23) coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision
mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-S-0S0(G)(examiner recommendation
coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be
considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the
Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure.
2. Vesting. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The
7 examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows:
S
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vesting. FOF No.2 of the April
19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a
complete binding site plan application on February 10, 2010. The proposed development
agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period often to fifteen years. The law is not
actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards.
Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement,
rather than issue a legal opinion that may contlict with that of the City Attorney's Office the
examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation
from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when
the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited
to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when
evaluating the vesting issue.
Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local
ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of
land" vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a
binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional
language in RCW 5S.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs ..... at the time afully
completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat
approval of the shorl subdivision, has been submilted ... " A binding site plan is neither a
subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land
division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature
intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a
complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do
so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains.
The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant
submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7-
230(N)(I) provided in 20 10 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding
site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time
of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting
legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham
Neighborhood Ass 'n v. F. G. Associates, 162 Wn. App. 9S (20 II), a court ruled that permit
expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
influence on the development ofland. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance
has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting, or whether it is a procedural
ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is nol subject to vesting.
Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development
agreement to reflect the fact that storm water regulations are not subject to vesting.
The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County
stormwater manual. The storm water manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King
County stormwater manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently
ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology
("DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish County v. Poliution
Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater
system is governed by a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition S5.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit
requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase II NPDES permit
" ... shall apply to all [land use} applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall
apply to applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started
construction by January 1. 2022 ... " In short, new Phase 11 permit requirements not
integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't
started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its
superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start
by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit
will apply.
The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in
proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to
"any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations
or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce
that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the
City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement."
(emphasis added).
However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not
"new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development
agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something
from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in
the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to
remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following
should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
26
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase 11 National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton.
2.5 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property IS zoned and has a
comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR).
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval for all development in the COR
zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities.
Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property
pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(l). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any
nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria
for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by
RMC 4-7-230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9-
190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") use
regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through
corresponding conclusions of law.
Master Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level oldetail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
he evaluatedfor general compliance with the criteria and 10 ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development ofa site plan injiill compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluale compliance with the specijic reqllirements discussed heloll'. (Ord. 5676. 12-3-
2012)
4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan
review will be evaluated for general compl iance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude
development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of
approval, building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more
specific design features to be addressed during site plan review.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans. policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies,
especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-/00.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 222 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District "c" and consistent with
Design District "C'. development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and rejuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the puhlic benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
allractive natural jimtures;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
2 References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No. __ ." References to findings from this
recommendation are "FOF No. __ ." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any
updates to the findings addressed in the April II, 2017 memo to the examiner, Ex. 19.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
28
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 and 6, no ort~site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by
FOF 6(0), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(1), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E)
and lighting by FOF 5(H).
RMC 4-9-200(E){3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation oj impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Pro visions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration oj the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No.5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that
the mixed-use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well-integrated environment for
residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities.
Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA,
however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking
trail. dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E)
and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy. define open spaces and generally
improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circu/ation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than
directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation "ystem, including
the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
MASTER PLAN. BINDING SITE PLAN. SSOP and OA
29
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one
on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining
properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for
safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(0).
Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outl ined in FOF No.
5(1). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No.
6(H).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areasior passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(I): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline
as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF
No. 6(1).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the natural systems at the site
(i.e. critical areas) will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
25 Finding of Fact No.6.
26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. llowever, due to the
seale of the project statT anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton
for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is
governed by the proposed development agreement.
Binding Site Plan
RMC 4-7-230(C):
APPROVAL CRITERIA.
Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the
following criteria are met:
I. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more
contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan
procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions
shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district. New nonconjhrming
lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff
report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots
I, 6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified
through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that
lots I, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead oflots because these areas would not be
buildable if created.
The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or
tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a
part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and
placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
2. Ifminimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met,
the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of
this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-I 50.
15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium
site creation is required.
3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or
mixed-use zone.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
16. The site is locatcd within the mixed-use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval.
4. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply
with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards olthe underlying zoning
district. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met. the binding site plan shall
he processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D.
a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements
and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application
is submitted.
b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan
application. the site shall he brought into conformance with the development standards
of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations
where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other
circumstances. the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at
the time a completed application is submitted.
c. Under either new construction or existing development. applicants for hinding site
plan may propose shared signage, parking. and access if they are specifically authorized
per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5, and other shared improvements as
authorized in other sections of the City's development standards.
17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable
comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant
has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed
as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition
H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared
parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on
the binding site plan prior to recording.
5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5-
010.
18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building
permit approval.
6. Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or
in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways,
water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by
the binding site plan.
MASTER PLAN, BfNDlNG SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
32
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.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This criterion is satisfied.
7. Access to Public Rights-oj-Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan
shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means oj direct
access or access easement approved by the City.
20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a
private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted
in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that
each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan
for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a
recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to
roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted,
constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior
to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless
a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review.
8. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing oj open space, parking, access,
signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan
and the provisions oj RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions of use,
maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment oj shared open space, parking, access, signage
and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants,
easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism.
21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No
shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a covenant
or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA
responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded
with the Binding Site Plan.
9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any
subsequent development oj the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded
binding site plan.
22. As conditioned, the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision
for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded
binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this
standard.
10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed Jor dedication, the applicant
shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan.
23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
33
II. Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of
2 flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction orprotective improvements may be
required as condition of approval.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
\3
14
IS
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the
City's critical area regulations, As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal complies with the
City's critical area regulations.
Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
that have been modified by approval or a shoreline variance.
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permilled,
prOVided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or deSignee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90. 58. 020 regarding shorelines
of statewide significance and relevant poliCies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed
in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the
proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No.
6(1). The commercial use regulations further require that parking is to be provided at frequent locations
and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured
parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use
regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the
shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(1). The development agreement adds a 1.3-
acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations
further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as
determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS
mitigation requires a I OO-foot setback. The proposal complies with this I OO-foot setback except for a
proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval requires the water line to be moved outside
the I OO-foot setback.
The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for
shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
34
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
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications
are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the
applications, subject to the conditions identified below, It is also recommended that the City Council
approve the proposed development agreement for the reasons identified in the summary of this
recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The
permit applications should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation
Document dated, August of 20 15.
2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined
through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside
through the binding site plan.
3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common
landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public
art/gateway features, and habitat restorationlrecreation as determined by the EPA ROD
shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of
Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding
Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot,
unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any
delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety
or welfare.
4. The minimum partial sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be
maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit II and shall be
identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures E I, E2,
and F5,
5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk
when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for
each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
6. Lots I, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the
Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts
as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Grov,th Protection
Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
35
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review,
this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
S. Roads A - C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an
easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C,
and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent
development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding
site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording.
10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the
hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to
Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
II. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
12. Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to
Mitigation Measures:
• B I 0 -public trail
• G2 -public trail and open space
• G3 -Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
• G7 -trail signage
• G9 -crosswalk
• G I 0 -trail amenities
• H3 -frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
• H4 -trail
• H5 -traffic calming measures
• HS -fire access road
• HI 0 -bicycle lane
• H II -HIS -off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
signalization
shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and
C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
36
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements
matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be
provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide
sidewalk on south side of the access. These otl~site improvements shall be designed,
permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a
minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking
garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan
review.
16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve
uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be
permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the
ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot
specitic site plan review.
17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit
per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is
required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be
demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
18. To ensure the semi-private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed
design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan
review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and
amenities as approved by the Director.
19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to the approval of any sign permit for the site.
20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows:
a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington
b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility)
21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum
width of 74 feet and the semi-private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall
maintain a minimum width of 80 feet.
22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-designed to reduce to
the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake
maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
37
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of
these buildings shall be completed at site plan review.
23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units
on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for
the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking
plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review.
24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals
site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building
proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5.
25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of
the building on Lot 5 and the SW comer of the building on Lot 2. The details of the
design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for
lots 2 and 5.
26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the
infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval
prior to recording.
27. [fthe ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e.
the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots I
and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that
all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. [fthe
change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site
development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required.
28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-purpose trail.
29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of
construction permit review.
30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities
built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property
owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan.
31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping,
open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be
maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and
approval identifying the developer/property ownerslHOA responsibilities for the
maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and
Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
38
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 11, 2017 memo to
exam mer.
33. A minimum IS-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to
binding site plan recording.
34. A minimum IS-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City
of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department
prior to binding site plan recording.
35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on
the subject site.
36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that
will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which
should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works
Department.
37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the
proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the
easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation
shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording.
38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the
center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the
facility.
39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be
completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application
for the site.
40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the
timing identified above per condition of approval 12.
41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the
front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end
shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and
utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road
compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time oflot specific site plan review.
42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified
on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another
mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
39
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public
vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way.
This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be
recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of
Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation.
44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review
application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and
construction permit issuance.
I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density
for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units
per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum
II.
Ill.
permitted density to be shared among the entire property.
A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted
for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common
landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved,
a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance
with the approved phasing plan.
A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the
proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and
Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on
the recording Binding Site Plan.
IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the
Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a
Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD
issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed
baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project
V.
changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C 1 O.
The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials
to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G I 0, and G II for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the
Community Services Administrator.
VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered
common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed
VII.
pursuant to condition of approval 3.
An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian
pathway system, including an evaluation of on-site crosswalks to ensure
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
40
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
VIII.
IX.
pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate
compliance with mitigation measure H3. H4 and H9. The tina I approved
pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon
recording.
An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active
recreation area. per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review
and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion
of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot.
A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation
measure F 13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including
but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special
landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community
Services.
X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a
crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-
of-way.
XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and
public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the
required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be
provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B I 0, G3,
G2, G 10, G II and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department.
An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the
amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16.
Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the
design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above
under XIII.
The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated
conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan
Reviewer:
a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property
frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The
existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to
the location of the proposed new Road A.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
XVI.
XVII.
XVlll.
XIX.
XX.
b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be
within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot
buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the
building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area.
c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main.
d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the I OO-shoreline buffer.
e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton
regulations.
If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access
from the project, which includes: I) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive
signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane
and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots
2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new
public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant
public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking
agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying
compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared
parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division.
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.
Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the
roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
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.
24 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
25
26
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the
hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
42
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
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Decision issued May 9, 2017.
Hearing Examiner
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
43
May 11,2017
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 N E 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Denis Law Mayor
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation
RE: QuendaU Terminals, LUA-09-1S1
Dear Mr. Nicolson & Mr. Mathewson:
The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Recommended Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law & Recommendation dated May 9,2017. This document is immediately
available:
• Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at
www.rentonwa.gov/citvclerk.Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the
right side of the screen located under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The
Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by
project name.
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055
South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above
project number; and
• For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the
Hearing Examiner Documents is $6.45, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost
is subject to change if documents are added).
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
If you have any further questions, you can email JasonSeth.CityClerk.at (425) 430-
6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov.
Megan Gregor, CMC, MliS
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Clark Close, Senior Planner
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Gillian Syverson, Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (118)
May 11, 2017
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
)
) §
)
JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and
says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the
age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 11th day of May, 2017, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed
in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail Hearing
Examiner's Final Decision dated May 9, 2017, RE: Quendall Terminals (LUA-09-151) to the
attached P~is of record. {I(/t~tci~
Megan Gregor, CMC, MLlS, Deputy City Clerk
SCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 11th Day of May, 2017
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Allison Hanson
WSDOT
600 108th Ave NE, 405
Bellevue, WA 98004
AMY LlET2 ROBERTS
ALR DESIGN INC
1006 NE 34th
Renton, WA 98056-1938
Anne Woodlev
7920 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Bob Wells
Lance Mueller and Associates
130 Lakeside Ave S
Seattle, WA 98122
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles & Rebecca Tavlor
1252 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Christine Chen
1128 N 41st PI .
Renton, WA 98056
Connie Tavl.9-L-->" .. \
/
William Popp Associates
14400 Bel Red Rd, #206
Bellevue, WA 98007
Amit Ranade
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Barbara Smith
Harris & Sm'ith Public Affairs
P.O. Box 1478
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 NE 28th St
Renton, WA 98056
Campbell Mathews
Century Pacifi
1201 Thir ve, #1680
Seatt ,WA 98101
Charlie Conner
CHG SF LLC dba Conner Homes at Piper'
s Bluff LLC
12600 SE 38th St, Suite 250
Bellevue, WA 98006
Chuck & Svlvia Holden
3609 Meadow Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Cvrus McNeelv
3810 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
, r " it
AARON BELENKY
1800 NE 40th St, H4
Renton, WA 98056
Amv & Kevin Dedrickson
1012 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
ANNE SIMPSON
3001 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056-2516
Bob & Mary Becker
1007 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Brad Nicholson
South End G' Back
2302 8th St
Re on, WA 98056
Bud Worlev
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N, #B-205 "--" '~.-; ~~1-, ,.,-I :·:A . ....: ,.) l.o
Carol O'Connell
1241 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Christine Breen
1021 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 980S6
Clair Hong
Environmental Protection Agency I
Region 10
1200, ECL-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101
DAN & KRISTV FOSTER
1813 NE 26th PI
Renton, WA 98056-2292
Dan Mitzel
111 Cleveland Ave
Mt. Vernon. WA 98040
Ed Goines
Seattle Sea hawks
12 Sea hawks Way
Renton. WA 98056
FAYE JANDERS
2717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton. WA 98056
Glen St. Amant
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn. WA
Inez Petersen
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, #1
Renton. WA 98056
Jeanne Demund
2811 Mountainview Ave N
Renton. WA 980562520
Jessica Winter
7600 5amd Point Way
Seattle, WA 98115
Jim Hanken
Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc.
1111 Third Ave, Sutie 1800
Seattle, WA 98101
John Hansen
4005 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Julie Varon
1100 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 980561595
DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS
3605 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056-1509
Elisabeth DUrr
1206 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Gretchen Kaehler
Department of Archaeology & Historic
Prevention
PO Box 48343
Olympia. WA 98504
Inez Petersen, J.D.
Starfish Law PLLC
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 1
Renton, WA 98056-1909
Jeffrey Coats
5201 SE Ripley Ln N, Suite 105
Renton. WA 6
JH Baxter & Co.
Albno Properbes, Inc. &
800 S Third St
Renton. WA 98057
Jim Roy
1111 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
John Murphy
New Home Trends, Inc.
4314 148th 5t 5E
Mill Creek, WA 98012
KATHLEEN DOW
1210 N 42ND PL
Renton. WA 98056
'I', j ';
Diane Espev Jackson
2419 Talbot Crest Dr S
Renton. WA 98055
Farrel & Jonell Wilson
4063 Williams Ave N
Renton. WA 980S6
Gary Pipkin
1120 N 38th St
Renton. WA 98056
Gwendolyn Hi~h
155 Yakima Ave NE
Renton. WA 98059
Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford
1102 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Jeremy Porter
Aspect Consulbng
401 2nd Ave S, Suite 201
Seatte, WA 98104
Jim Hanken
15543 62nd Ave
Kenmore. WA 98028
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Jon & Marilyn Danielson
1308 34th 5t
Renton. WA 98056
Keith Preszler
3818 Lake Washington Blvd
Renton, WA 98056
Kelly Smith
6811 Ripley Ln N
Renton. WA 98056
Kim Douthitt
5901 143 PI SE
Bellevue. WA 98006
Larry Reymann
1313 N 38th St
Renton, WA 98056
Laurie Baker
3107 Mountain View Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
LOUIS TIBBS
807 N 33rd St
Renton. WA 98056-1901
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle. WA 98138
Mike & Sharon Glenn
8825 114th Ave SE
Newcastle. WA 98056
Mimi MacCaul
Patty Witt
1204 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley Ln
Renton. WA 98056
Kyle Stanlev
12131113th Ave NE, Suite 203
Kirkland. WA 98034
Larry Toedtli
11201 NE 58th PI
Kirkland. WA 98033
(
Leslve Bergan
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2
Renton, WA 98056
Lynn Manalo Poulos
777 108th Ave NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue. WA 98004
Michael Christ
Immersion Services LLC
1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50
Renton. WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Mistv Blair
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave, SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Paul & Susan Siegmund
1006 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
KEVIN POOLE
627 High Ave 5
Renton, WA 98057-3918
Larrv & Linda Boregson
1013 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Laura & James Counsell
1122 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
Lawrence Hard
4316 NE 33rd St
Seattle, WA 98105
Linda Baker
1202 N 35th 5t
Renton. WA 98056
Marcos Santos
1209 N 31st St
Renton, WA 98056
Michael Mullinaux
1415 N 24th St
Renton. WA 98056
Mike Cera
8300 Avalon Dr
Mercer Island, WA 98056
Nancv Dennev
3818 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Paw Thao
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Raiendra Agrawaal
1113 N 29th St
Renton, WA 98056
Rich Wagner
2411 Garden Ct
Renton, WA 98056
Robert & Sonva Tobeck
1003 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
Roger Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC
1111 3rd Ave, #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Ave
Renton, WA 98056
Ryan Durkin
1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building
Seattle, WA 98101
Scott Greenberg
Development Services Director, City of
Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th St
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Spencer Albert
Albert International, LLP
2442 NW Market St, Suite #722
Seattle, WA 98107
SUSAN MILLER
806 N 30th St
Renton, WA 98056
THEO & KIM BROWNE
1409 N 37th St
Renton, WA 98056
Ramin Pazooki
WSDOT
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133
Richard & Kathleen Bergquist
7244 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
/
Robert Wils~9. ... _ -......
./
Ronald & Sachi Nicol
1030 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
SALLY ROCHELLE
3626 Lk Wa Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056-1508
Sheng Wu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Van Til
Vulcan
50S 5th Ave S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Susan Stow
1309 N 36th St
Renton. WA 98056
Tim Flvnn
Aspect Consulting
401 2nd Ave S, Suite 201
Seattle, WA 98104
,-
j{,
i :!
Ricardo & Maria Antezana
1025 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Richard Ferrv
7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Rocale Timmons
SECO Development, Inc.
1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50
Renton, WA 98056
Ronald & Vanessa Brazg
1019 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
RoV & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Sally Scott
Bad Bad Address See Notes
Renton, WA 98056
Sherry and Robert Cline
4267 Williams Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Sue & Mac iahnke
1717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056
Suzanne & Donald Orehek
4103 Wells Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Tim Riley
3607 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Tom Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton. WA 98056
Trudy Neumann
922 N 28th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Winnie & Yuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Tom Jones
KPFF Consulting Engineers
1601 5th Ave, Suite 1600
Seattle. WA 98101
Victor Chiu
1128 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Yvonne & Garv C. Pipkin
1120 N 38th St
Renton. WA 98056
TONY BOYDSTON
3920 NE 11th PI
Renton. WA 98056-3537
William Skilling
3814 E Lee St
Seattle. WA 98112
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM
Date: April 18, 2017
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Gillian Syverson
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office
Project Name: Quendall Terminals
LUA (file) Number: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, SSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Cross-References: N/A
AKA's: N/A
Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee
Acceptance Date: 11-18-2009
Applicant: Robert Wilson
Owner: Quendall Terminals
Contact: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P.
PID Number: 2924059002
ERC Determination: DS Date: 3-20-17
Appeal Period Ends: 4-3-17
Administrative Decision: N/A Date: N/A
Appeal Period Ends: N/A
Public Hearing Date: 4-18-17
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom: j~ CV i..c C<2']\J'i'":_"dv..-n";1 It CCVl11CI L Ij(ci /17 HEX Decision: Date:
Appeal Period Ends:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation.
The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 -7 story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the
development would consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square
feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65
acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be
provided for 2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along
Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements include
remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements.
2/15/10 -ERe issued Determination of Significance. Comment period ends March 5, 2010.
12/10/10 -Issued Draft EIS. Comment period ends January 10, 201l.
1/5/11 -Comment period extended to January 25, 2011.
1/21/11 -Comment period extended to February 9, 2011
2/14/11 -Scheduled for ERC DEIS comment discussion.
Location: 4503 Ripley Lane N, Renton, WA 98056
Comments:
Denis Law Mayor
April 11, 2017
Community & Economic Development C. E, "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Parties of Record
Various
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendaii Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 5 Grady Way. The Staff Report to the
Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available:
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa,gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0,15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report
is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4,00 (this cost is subject to change if
documents are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Department of Comr lityand
Economic Development
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal
described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERe)
Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the
proposed action is Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond
those identified in the 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 201S Mitigation
Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Copies are
available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov).
PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals
PROPONENT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, l. P.
PROJECT NUMBER: LUAD9-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential
impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed
Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is
intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692
residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces
and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the environment are
addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health,
Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land & Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks & Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk & Scale.
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax
and postage (if mailed), or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website,
Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the
existing environmental documents.
Publication Date: March 24, 2017
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental
Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the
proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Quendall Terminals
lUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
4350 lake Washington Blvd N
DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on
21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The
Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new
Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development
Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is
intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and
restaurant], 1,3S2 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The
following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency
Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse
Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics!Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural
Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton webSite, Rentonwa.gov.
Qu~ndall TerminJls i A~enc!<!s -NClice d ]<;';u~nc~ ~nd A;:J.dJ.bdl[~ I::IS COIlSlst<.'llt:y Anal}'Sl5
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Enclosure
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
Ramin Pazooki, W5DOT, NW Region
larry Fisher, WDFW
Duwamish Tribal Office
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals I LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
~-DJ~
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
QUe'ndaH T .. rminals I Applicant -:-<iJti:e of Is:;'..):!nc .. and A~(!ilabili\y EIS Conslslenq' An.:i)-,<;l5
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
M E M 0 RAN DUM
April 11, 2017
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
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 parkingjcommerciallevel. The applicant has
proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to
the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583
linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a
Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the
following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and
street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier
and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake
Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the
remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term
to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation
vesting would be maintained.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing ,iner
Page 2 of7
April 11, 2017
The following Exhibits should be added to the Recorded:
Exhibit 19 -Memorandum to Hearing Examiner, April 11, 2017
Exhibit 20 -Draft Development Agreement
Exhibit 21-Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 22 -Notice of Issuance of Consistency Analysis
Exhibit 23 -Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing
Findings of Fact (FOF): (the following FOF's are identified with letters to eliminate and
confusion with the original staff report)
a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
(Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative
would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95
units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include
the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains,
artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake
Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the
remaining buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible
extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be
maintained.
• A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments.
b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the
sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative
relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the
Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be
contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. If
the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should
be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner should be completed.
c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS
Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced
Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis
determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are
within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing _ .. _ .. Iiner
Page 3 of 7
April 11, 2017
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated.
d. A detailed master site plan has not been provided incorporating the changes
identified in the Enhanced Alternative. As such, staff recommends as a condition
of approval that a final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City
for Review and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that
incorporates both the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative
and all the conditions of project approval. The final details master plan shall be
approved prior to the approval of any site specific site plan review or recording
of the binding site plan.
e. Staff does not expect that the changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative
would impact the analysis and associated recommended conditions ofthe 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 ond 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 recydables 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.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing ,iner
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, Storm water: The
Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1,
2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated
stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff
recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be
removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable
stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction.
viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact at Public Services, Transportation: The
Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate S,829 daily, 43S AM peak
hour and S45 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 ofthis
turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated
January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The
analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the
Enhanced Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the
Street 'A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a
result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly.
Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency
Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The
Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the
Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in
the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With
implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the
1-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not
anticipated
ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development
Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public
use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying
that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation, An
easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site
plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the site.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing _ .. _ .Iiner
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 Aft expiration date shall be as identified in the Development
Agreement. Exhibit 20set 1:1'1 the i-IeariRg haFRiRer fer the Master liite PlaA, see ~Q~ 2€i.
12. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-70B-
170.
New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan,
Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative
described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff
report and any new conditions or modified conditions below.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition
that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing
Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering
the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff
report to the Hearing Examiner.
Amended Conditions of Approval:
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage
improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped
planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east-north side. The new private
,
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Ex_miner
Page 6 of 7
April 11, 2017
access to be located at the Ripley Lane (Sea hawks Way) access shall include 8
feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the
access. These off-site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed,
and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
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 ofthese buildings shall be completed
at site plan review.
32. AR)' €JEteAsisR te the prejeet apprevee seyeRa JaRlciary 1, 2Q22 SF 9b1i1aiRg aRB
e8R5tr~etieA P€Fffiits sblt:Jmittea that \\'8b1ld eK-teRB the J:)rejeet ee'l9REi JaRl;Jary
1, 2Q22 sRalll:!e Sl,Il:!jeEt ts tRe l,Illdated stsFmwateF manl,lal, in effeEt at tRe
time-,
41. A 1ll,lI:!IiE IlFsmenade 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 IlFSmenaae fire lane and utility
maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture,
public art, water features, etc. Design of the IlFsmenades 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 sRalll:!e SeEl,IFed fFsm King CSl,lnty SF stReF fl,ltl,lFe IlFSllerty S'HneFS
af the Fail raaa Fight af wa.,. ta pre ... ieJea vehisl.llar aRB J3'€e€striaA assess te the
IlFSIlSSea de'lelsllment aErsss tRe Figi'1t sf lIIay. Ti'1e easement si'1alll:!e Rates sn
ti'1e finall:!iRding site Illan andsi'1alll:!e reEsrdea EsnwrreRtly 'IIiti'1 tRe l:!iRding site
~ Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for
public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the
right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan
and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already
recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access
documentation.
44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of
the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior
to a Record of Decision (ROD) ana NRQ Settlement completed by the EPA. A
copy of the final ROD and NRQ 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 Cl0.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing E .. _ ... iner
Page 7 of 7
April 11, 2017
44. XIV. A traRs~ertatieR st~EI'/shall be eeffi~leteEi te aRalyze the ReeEl fer a eeRter
tllFR laRe iR ReaEi A. ge~eREliRg ll~eR the ellteeffie ef this stllEly, Road A street
designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane aeeerEliRgl'l 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 ~~blie ~reffieRaEle 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 ot 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
sign age shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on
the project site.
44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review
and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both
the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions
of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located
in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and
constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure
construction.
44. XX. A detailed public park deSign, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval
of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
....
Denis Law Mayor
March 27, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals/lUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for land Use applications.
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Quendal! terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
•
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners
H'llIis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gyg'l
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
Department of Comr-· ·nity and
Economic Developm_ .. t
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal
described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERe)
Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the
proposed action is Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond
those identified in the 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2015 Mitigation
Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Copies are
available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov).
PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals
PROPONENT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P.
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential
impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed
Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is
intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692
residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces
and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the environment are
addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health,
Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land & Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks & Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk & Scale.
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax
and postage (if mailed), or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website,
Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FE IS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the
existing environmental documents.
Publication Date: March 24, 2017
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, LP.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Qut'lldali Tcrmln;Jh I Applicant· N01i.:~ of bsuJnc~ 1ml Alailabthl: [IS «JI151~t<!'nC) Analysis
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental
Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the
proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
4350 Lake Washington Blvd N
DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on
21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The
Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new
Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development
Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is
intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and
restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The
following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency
Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse
Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics!Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural
Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
QUl:."ndnll Term!nals ,I Agel1::io:; -Nou(~ of hsu.lnce lnd A\'Ji1Jbdll~' -[is Consist,:ncy AnalysIs
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
•
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Enclosure
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot CtJltural Resources Program
Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region
larry Fisher, WDFW
Duwamish Tribal Office
US Army Corp. of Engineers
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
oFcoIVlMluNlrrY~i::;Ea~~,~~~~l~W~~~I)M ~~IT-PL.A.NNING,DlVISION
On the 23rd day of March 2017, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
ERC documents (Agency letter, Determination, Copy of Notice of Issuance, Copy of ERC Signature Page. This
information was sent to:
PSE AGENCY
KC DEPARTMENT OF PERMITIING AND ENV. REV/SEPA AGENCY
CITY OF KENT, AICP PLANNING AGENCY
CITY OF NEWCASTlE COMMUNITY DEV. AGENCY
CITY OF TUKWILA, JACK PACE AGENCY
METRO TRANSIT GARY KREIDT AGENCY
SEATILE PUBLIC UTILITIES SEPA COORDINATOR AGENCY
WDFW, LARRY FISHER AGENCY
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE FISHERIES DIVISION
HABITAT PROGRAM AND SEPA REVIEWER, KAREN WALTER AGENCY -EMAIL ONLY PER KAREN REQUEST
WSDOT NW REGION, RAMIN PAZOOKI AGENCY
DUWAMISH TRIBAL OFFICE AGENCY
US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS SEPA REVIEWER AGENCY
KC WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ENVIRON AGENCY
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCY
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ENVIRON REVIEW SECTION AGENCY
WA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEPA CENTER AGENCY
-.~ .... /
(Signature of Sender): ~ ~ •..
J 7
"'-"\\\\\\11
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) __ /~\.. Y po""",
) ss ' , ... 0 '''''''''''''' J.z-.A "
'<; • _":'-~ "'~ ':'<-' II
COUNTYOF KING ) ff~ OTA.f-.ll'!j. r,',/'i
.:-(.1 ~ ..,.", ~ .... ' ~
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instru~ ana;c'know • ge~
it to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument'~'",e. ~·9l~'1 1 ~ § ,,' "1,<· ~~ 0 -O..c-1",,,\\\\.,,, ... 0-<:" ~
Dated: 1Y? ,",de: J) 201 f f(ccL" . .e ' WAStl\~ ....... .;2'
, No Public in and for the State of Washingtb'i\
Notary (print): ____ ....l.H=b:..;i L+_\)_ILI (LfJ""",)",c'(.,;,5~_--:,.-________ _
My appointment expires: A V 7'~) C i? i-tV~ "') ~ '" '\
v
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
DEPARTMENT OF ,COMMUNITY
AFFIDAVIT
-PLANNING DIVISION
On the 23rd day of March 2017, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
ERC documents (Applicant letter, ERC Report with signature page). This information was sent to:
Robert Wilson Applicant-No address not sent
Campbell, Matthewson, Century Pacific, L.P. Contact
Brad Nicholson, South End Gives Back Contact
Please see Attached Parties of Record
t1. .
(Signature of Sender): ,;::+>~ ~ U ,~
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
) """\\\1\1\"
", .... , Iv\.. Y Po III/ COUNTY OF KING
~ ~C?""""""""111', ~~
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrW'ne~~~
it to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrum~~ tt? ~.~.L t\ %
Dated: 111 ('-cciv
',: -4 ~.oo i:1 ::.
D . J7 ~ &8\.\C, : ::.
:,..I,. '111 8, .i"
o ary Public in and for the State of.. I",,~n"" A\ .:: WAS~\~(>~
" , . "'-~ ~-, ....
Notary (print):' ___ .l.t!.1.!L14.",i:!,f' _.l.P .... c.a.rlu"'-.C:c.<..',;,.\ _____________ _
My appointment expires: AA Qd d'l eJo (--! .. '0 v I
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
•
Richard Ferry
7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Roger Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC
11113rd Ave, #3400
Seattle. WA 98101
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Ave
Renton. WA 98056
Ryan Durkin
1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building
Seattle. WA 98101
Scott Greenberg
Development Services Director, City of
Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th St
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Spencer Albert
Albert International, LLP
2442 NW Market St, Suite #722
Seattle. WA 98107
SUSAN MILLER
806 N 30th St
Renton. WA 98056
THEO & KIM BROWNE
1409 N 37th St
Renton. WA 98056
TONY BOYDSTON
3920 NE 11th PI
Renton. WA 98056-3537
William Skilling
3814 E Lee St
Seattle. WA 98112
Robert & Sonya Tobeck
1003 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Ronald & 5achi Nicol
1030 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
SALLY ROCHELLE
3626 Lk Wa Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056-1508
ShengWu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Steve Van Til
Vulcan
505 5th Ave S, Suite 900
Seattle. WA 98104
Susan Stow
1309 N 36th St
Renton. WA 98056
Tim Riley
3607 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Trudy Neumann
922 N 28th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Winnie & Yuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Robert Wilson
Ronald & Vanessa Brazg
1019 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Roy & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Sally Scott
Bad Bad Address See Notes
Renton. WA 98056
Sherry and Robert Cline
4267 Williams Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Sue & Mac iahnke
1717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton. WA 98056
Suzanne & Donald Orehek
4103 Wells Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Tom Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton. WA 98056
Victor Chiu
1128 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin
1120 N 38th St
Renton. WA 98056
Hillis Clark Marttn & Petterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Stte 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Allison Hanson
WSDOT
600 108tth Ave NE, 405
Bellevue, WA 98004
AMY LIETZ ROBERTS
AlR DESIGN INC
1006 NE 34tth
Rentton, WA 98056-1938
Anne Woodlev
7920 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Brad Nicholson
Soutth End Gives Back
2302 NE 28tth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
Bud Worley
4100 Lake Washingtton Blvd N
Rentton, WA 98056
Carol O'Connell
1241 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Charlie Conner
CHG SF LLC dba Conner Homes att Pipe~
s Bluf LLC
12600 SE 38tth Stt, Suitte 250
Bellevue, WA 98006
Chuck & Sylvia Holden
3609 Meadow Ave N
Rentton, WA 98056
Cyrus McNeelv
3810 Park Ave N
Rentton, WA 98056
William Popp Associattes
14400 Bel Red Rd, #206
Bellevue, WA 98007
Amitt Ranade
Hillis Clark Marttn & Petterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Stte SOD
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann GVRi
Hillis Clark Marttn & Petterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Stte 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Bob & Mary Becker
1007 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Matthewson
Centtury Pacifc, LP.
1201 Third Ave, #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles & Rebecca Tavlor
1252 N 42nd pi
Rentton. WA 98056
Christtne Breen
1021 N 41stt PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Clair Hon~
Environmenttal Prottectton Agenr;y
Region 10
1200, ECL-l22 Sixtth Ave, Suirte 900
Seattle. WA 98101
Dan Mittzel
111 Cleveland Ave
Mtt. Vernon. WA 98040
AARON BELENKY
1800 NE 40tth Stt, H4
Rentton, WA 98056
Amy & Kevin Dedrickson
1012 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
ANNE SIMPSON
3001 Mounttain View Ave N
Rentton, WA 98056-2516
Brad Nicholson
Soutth End Gives Back
2302 NE 28tth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Matthewson
Centtury Pacitc, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suitte #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles Wittmann
907 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Christtne Chen
1128 N 41stt PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Connie Taylor
DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS
3605 Lake Washingtton Blvd N
Rentton. WA 98056-1509
Diane Espev Jackson
2419 Talbott Crestt Dr S
Rentton. WA 98055
Elisabetth Durr
1206 N 27tth pi
Rentton. WA 98056
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Gwendolvn H i,lth
155 Yakima Ave NE
Rentton. WA 98059
Janett l. & Gary R. Sanford
1102 N 42nd PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Jessica Wintter
7600 Samd Pointt Way
Seattle. WA 98115
Jim Hanken
Wolfsttone, Panchott & Bloch, P.S., Inc.
1111 Third Ave, Sutte 1800
Seattle. WA 98101
John Hansen
4005 Park Ave N
Rentton. WA 98056
KATHLEEN DOW
1210 N 42ND Pl
Rentton. WA 98056
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley Ln
Rentton, WA 98056
Dima.
Farrel & Jonell Wilson
4063 Williams Ave N
Rentton. WA 98056
Glen Stt. Amantt
Muckleshaatt Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn. WA
Inez Pettersen
3306 Lake Washingtton Blvd N, #1
Rentton, WA 98056
Jefrev Coatts
Hollenbeck, Lancastter Miller &
Andrews, A.A.l.
15500 SE 3Dtth PI, Stte 201
Bellevue. WA 98007
JH Baxtter & Co.
Alttno Properttes, Inc. &
8005 Third Stt
Rentton. WA 98057
Jim Rov
1111 N 41stt PI
Rentton. WA 98056
John Murphv
New Home Trends, Inc.
4314 148tth Stt SE
Mill Creek. WA 98012
Keitth Preszler
3818 lake Washingtton Blvd
Rentton. WA 98056
KEVIN POOLE
627 High Ave 5
Renttan. WA 98057-3918
Ed Goines
Seattle Sea hawks
12 Sea hawks Way
Rentton. WA 98056
FAYEJANDERS
2717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Rentton. WA 98056
Grettchen Kaehler
Departtmentt of Archaeolog'¥t Histtoric
Preventton
PO Box 48343
Olvmpia. WA 98504
Inez Pettersen, J.D.
Sttarfsh Law PlLC
3306 Lake Washingtton Blvd N. Suitte 1
Rentton, WA 98056-1909
Jennv Manning
120S N 10tth PI
Rentton. WA 98057
Jim Hanken
15543 62nd Ave
Kenmore. WA 98028
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27tth PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Jon & Marilvn Danielson
1308 34tth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
Kellv Smitth
6811 Ripley Ln N
Rentton. WA 98056
kim Doutthitt
S901143 PI SE
Bellevue. WA 98006
Larrv & Linda Boregson
1013 N 42nd pi
Rentton. WA 98056
Laurie Baker
3107 Mounttain View Ave N
Rentton, WA 98056
Len & Patt Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Linda Baker
1202 N 3Stth Stt
Rentton. WA 98056
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle, WA 98138
Mike & Sharon Glenn
8825 114tth Ave SE
Newcasttle. WA 98056
Mike Cero
8300 Avalon Dr
Mercer Island, WA 98056
Nancv Dennev
3818 Lake Washingtton Blvd N
Rentton. WA 98056
Paw Thao
4100 Lake Washingtton Blvd N
Renttan. WA 98056
Ricardo & Maria Anttezana
102S N 42nd PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Larrv Revmann
1313 N 38tth Stt
Rentton. WA 98056
LAWRENCE DIXON
DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC
Len & Patt Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Rentton. WA 98056
LOUIS TIBBS
807 N 33rd Stt
Rentton. WA 98056-1901
Michael Christt
Immersion Services LLC
1083 Lake Washingtton Blvd N, Suitte 50
Rentton. WA 98056
Mike Battn
3410 Park Ave N
Rentton. WA 98056
Mimi MacCaul
Patty Witt
1204 N 42nd PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Raiendra A~rawaal
1113 N 29tth Stt
Rentton. WA 98056
Rich Wa~ner
2411 Garden Ctt
Rentton. WA 98056
Laura & James Counsell
1122 N 41stt PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Lawrence Hard
4316 NE 33rd Stt
Seattle. WA 98105
Leslve BerR;an
3306 Lake Washingtton Blvd N, Suitte #2
Rentton. WA 98056
Marcos Santtos
1209 N 31stt Stt
Rentton. WA 98056
Michael Mullinaux
1415 N 24tth Stt
Renttan. WA 98056
Mike Battn
3410 Park Ave N
Rentton. WA 98056
Mistty Blair
Departtmentt of Ecology
3190 160tth Ave, SE
Bellevue. WA 98008
Paul & Susan SieRmund
1006 N 42nd PI
Rentton. WA 98056
Ramin Pazooki
WSDOT
PO Box 330310
Seattle. WA 98133
Richard & Katthleen BergQuistt
7244 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Richard Ferrv
7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Roger Pearce
Fostter Pepper LLC
1111 3rd Ave, #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Ave
Rentton, WA 98056
Rvan Durkin
1221 Second Ave. 500 Galland Building
Seattle, WA 98101
Scott Greenber.'!!
Developmentt Services DirecttQrCitty of
Mercer Island
9611 SE 36tth Stt
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Spencer Albertt
Albertt Intternattonal, LLP
2442 NW Markert Stt, Suitte #722
Seattle, WA 98107
SUSAN MILLER
B06 N 30tth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
THEO & KIM BROWNE
1409 N 37tth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
TONY BOYDSTON
3920 NE 11tth PI
Rentton, WA 98056-3537
William SkillinJl:
3814 E Lee Stt
Seattle, WA 98112
Robertt & Sonya Tobeck
1003 N 41stt PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Ronald & Sachi Nicol
1030 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd pi
Rentton, WA 98056
SALLY ROCHELLE
3626 Lk Wa Blvd N
Rentton, WA 98056-1508
5henf!! Wu
1222 N 42nd pi
Rentton, WA 98056
Stteve Van Til
Vulcan
505 5tth Ave 5, Suitte 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Susan Sttow
1309 N 36tth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
Tim Rilev
3607 Lake Washingtton Blvd N
Rentton, WA 98056
Trudv Neumann
922 N 2Btth PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Winnie & Vuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Robertt Wilson
Ronald & Vanessa Brazg
1019 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
RoV & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Sallv Scott
Bad Bad Address See Nottes
Rentton, WA 98056
Sherrv and Robertt Cline
4267 Williams Ave N
Rentton, WA 98056
Sue & Mac iahnke
1717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Rentton, WA 98056
Suzanne & Donald Orehek
4103 Wells Ave N
Rentton, WA 98056
Tom Baker
1202 N 3Stth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
Victtor Chiu
1128 N 41stt PI
Rentton, WA 98056
Yvonne & Garv C. Pipkin
1120 N 38tth Stt
Rentton, WA 98056
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Centu ry Pacific, l.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
~-DJ~
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
(Juo:nd,lll Terminals l Apphcnnt -:--lotice of ISSUJ.!l';~ and Av,lliahillty r.lS Consistency Analysis
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic Development Department
C. E. "ell ip"Vi ncent, Ad mi nis tratar
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
lUA09-151, E15, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, l.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.S-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 201S).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would S stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
City of Renton Department of Cor
Quendall Te""'inals
March 16, 2017
,ity & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 012
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Ertrf. D::..(I .. dV,frt d'idiiati€ fc·r PlHt'iOI:if at
REFtc.r Cit',Io-.all. Fit'i;3r'Cf DE:part·;-·fnt F F!c'or
for 51~ PH hare CClp~' c·r car b;: CCrwt'I;:'r3Cl'fC for
fr€.2 c'r· Cit,!, (·f Rgntor wfb~iti2. Rfrtc'r~wd.gc",' Quendall
Terminals
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
When Recorded, Return to:
CIIT CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Uuendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Uuendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit Al
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR D NOT YET ASSIGNED
. ~. . . , "
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
____ , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-l (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Pagel
DEPARTMENT OF COMIV lTV
AND.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement
Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public
review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the
EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in
the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be
mitigated. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055
South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from
a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the
Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced
Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the environment are addressed
in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and
Shoreline Use, AestheticsjViews, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk
and Scale.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/
ENVIRONMEN,AL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTJ,NCY ANAYSIS
PAGE 2 df 2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1't Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Kelly Beymer, Administrator
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
q
3/l0)17 //:L---
, 'iiiCkM.MarSI1a Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
:2-00-1( Cz. U \ ... S~
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
•
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, E15, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, loP.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, loP.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft, of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
CIt? of Kenton Deportment of Comn r & Economic Development vironmental Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 of 2
• Uuendall Terminals
March 20, 2017
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
DEPARTMENT OF COMJI.,.."JITV
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement
Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERe) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for publiC
review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the
EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in
the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be
mitigated. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055
South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
9~Seattle, WA 98101
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, 5M, DA
Campbell Mathewson
Century PacifiC, L. P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from
a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the
Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced
Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the environment are addressed
in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and
Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk
and Scale.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
•
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILlTY!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTJNCY ANAYSIS
PAGE2of2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1't Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
3 /2 0)0 ~---
"'RiCkM:MarSha, Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
:?-rM'(( CZ. U, '-S~
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
;
,DEPARTMENT OF MMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:
Quendall Terminals
Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
Kelly Beymer, Community Services Administrator
Rick Marshall, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator
Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager
Monday, March 20, 2017
2:30p.m.
6th Floor Conference Room #610
LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, BSP, SM, SA-M
Location: 4503 Ripley Ln N
Description:
cc: D. Law, Mayor
J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
J. Seitz, Transportation Systems Director
C. Long. Economic Development Director"
J. Henning, Planning Director·
B. Bannwarth, Development Engineering Managere
L Warren, City Attorney"
S. Maloney, Assistant City AttorneV-
P. Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Angela St. John. Fire Marshalill
J. Medzegian, Council
(Do/bee)
Non-Consent
Denis Law Mayor
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
March 16, 2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for land Use applications.
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Uuendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Environmental Review Committee (ERe) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or
vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit O. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals NOff~Hold" Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
..
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & EClJNIJMIC U~V':LU",,··e.,,· PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT. OF SERVICE BY IVIJ.\.lLI~'l:I
On the 13th day of March 2017, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
"Off-Hold" Letter of documents. This information was sent to:
Please see attached for complete mailing list
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WAS u ,,,r.:TlnYr
COUNTY OF KING
)
) ss
)
Owners, Contacts, Parties of Record
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrument and acknowledged
it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrumel\l.""\\\\\\I\ ,'.' "PO III .' \..1 IA,I/ \ \ ' . ..-;;-... .:-O"": ......... ,\\\\'"'.II,..~ '1/
Dated: '\\'\j"h,},) \?,)..cq 'h)J ')<en,,\.) tv~' -<,-.,.,,~~ '/'/ 'l"
) Not Public in and for the State of was;': aP "+ ... <f% %
~ -. -:. -"
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires:
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, BSP, SM, SA-M
(/l ~ 'I ". ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ~ u"<:> ..-It ~ (fa\.\; ;i! E
-A'II • 9 :.<.: = \'0 "I •• ",,,';:,,,,,..: " ~ ~ WAS"'\~ ,$
, -, .... '
I i'l\\\\\\""
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P,S,
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Allison Hanson
WSDOT
600 108th Ave NE, 405
Bellevue, WA 98004
AMY LIETZ ROBERTS
ALR DESIGN INC
1006 NE 34th
Renton, WA 98056-1938
Anne Woodley
7920 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 NE 28th St
Renton, WA 98056
Bud Worley
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Carol O'Connell
1241 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Charlie Conner
CHG SF LLC dba Conner Homes at Piper's
Bluff LLC
12600 SE 38th St, Suite 250
Bellevue, WA 98006
Chuck & Sylvia Holden
3609 Meadow Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Cyrus McNeely
3810 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
William Popp Associates
14400 Bel Red Rd, #206
Bellevue, WA 98007
Amit Ranade
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann Gygi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Bob & Mary Becker
1007 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles & Rebecca Taylor
1252 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Christine Breen
1021 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
Clair Hong
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10
1200, ECL-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101
Dan Mitzel
111 Cleveland Ave
Mt. Vernon, WA 98040
AARON BELENKY
1800 NE 40th St, H4
Renton, WA 98056
Amy & Kevin Dedrickson
1012 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
ANNE SIMPSON
3001 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056-2516
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 NE 28th St
Renton, WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles Witmann
907 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Christine Chen
1128 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
Connie Taylor
DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS
3605 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056-1509
Diane Espey Jackson
2419 Talbot Crest Dr S
Renton, WA 98055
Elisabeth Durr
1206 N 27th PI
Renton, WA 98056
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Gwendolyn High
155 Yakima Ave NE
Renton, WA 98059
Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford
1102 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Jessica Winter
7600 Samd Point Way
Seattle, WA 98115
Jim Hanken
Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc.
1111 Third Ave, Sutie 1800
Seattle, WA 98101
John Hansen
4005 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
KATHLEEN DOW
1210 N 42ND Pl
Renton, WA 98056
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley Ln
Renton, WA 98056
Dima.
Farrel & Joneli Wilson
4063 Williams Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Glen St. Amant
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA
Inez Petersen
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, #1
Renton, WA 98056
Jeffrey Coats
Hollenbeck, lancaster, Miller & Andrews,
A.A.L.
15500 SE 30th PI, Ste 201
Bellevue, WA 98007
JH Baxter & Co.
Altino Properties, Inc. &
800 S Third St
Renton, WA 98057
Jim Roy
1111 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
John Murphy
New Home Trends, Inc.
4314 148th St SE
Mill Creek, WA 98012
Keith Preszler
3818 Lake Washington Blvd
Renton, WA 98056
KEVIN POOLE
627 High Ave 5
Renton, WA 98057-3918
Ed Goines
Seattle Sea hawks
12 Sea hawks Way
Renton, WA 98056
FAYE JANDERS
2717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056
Gretchen Kaehler
Department of Archaeology & Historic
Prevention
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504
Inez Petersen, J.D.
Starfish Law PLLC
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 1
Renton, WA 98056-1909
Jenny Manning
1205 N 10th PI
Renton, WA 98057
Jim Hanken
15543 62nd Ave
Kenmore, WA 98028
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th PI
Renton, WA 98056
Jon & Marilyn Danielson
1308 34th St
Renton, WA 98056
Kelly Smith
6811 Ripley Ln N
Renton, WA 98056
kim Douthitt
5901143 PI SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Larry & Linda Boregson
1013 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Laurie Baker
3107 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Linda Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton, WA 98056
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle, WA 98138
Mike & Sharon Glenn
8825 114th Ave 5E
Newcastle, WA 98056
Mike Cera
8300 Avalon Dr
Mercer Island, WA 98056
Nancy Denney
3818 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Pavy Thao
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Ricardo & Maria Antezana
1025 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Larry Reymann
1313 N 38th 5t
Renton, WA 98056
LAWRENCE DIXON
DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
LOUIS TIBBS
807 N 33rd St
Renton, WA 98056-1901
Michael Christ
Immersion Services LLC
1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite SO
Renton, WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Mimi MacCaul
Patty Witt
1204 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Raiendra Agrawaal
1113 N 29th 5t
Renton, WA 98056
Rich Wagner
2411 Garden Ct
Renton, WA 98056
Laura & James Counsel!
1122 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
lawrence Hard
4316 NE 33rd St
Seattle, WA 98105
Leslye Bergan
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2
Renton, WA 98056
Marcos Santos
1209 N 31st St
Renton, WA 98056
Michael Mullinaux
1415 N 24th St
Renton, WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Misty Blair
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave, 5E
Bellevue, WA 98008
Paul & Susan Siegmund
1006 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Ramin Pazooki
WSDOT
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133
Richard & Kathleen Bergquist
7244 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Richard Ferry
7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Roger Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC
1111 3rd Ave, #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Ave
Renton, WA 98056
Ryan Durkin
1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building
Seattle, WA 98101
Scott Greenberg
Development Services Director, City of
Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th st
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Spencer Albert
Albert International, LLP
2442 NW Market st, Suite #722
Seattle, WA 98107
SUSAN MILLER
806 N 30th St
Renton, WA 98056
THEO & KIM BROWNE
1409 N 37th St
Renton, WA 98056
TONY BOYDSTON
3920 NE 11th PI
Renton, WA 98056-3537
William Skilling
3814 E Lee St
Seattle, WA 98112
Robert & Sonya Tobeck
1003 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
Ronald & Sachi Nicol
1030 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
SALLY ROCHELLE
3626 Lk Wa Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056-1508
ShengWu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Van Til
Vulcan
505 5th Ave 5, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Susan Stow
1309 N 36th St
Renton, WA 98056
Tim Riley
3607 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Trudy Neumann
922 N 28th PI
Renton, WA 98056
Winnie & Yuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Robert Wilson
Ronald & Vanessa Brazg
1019 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Roy & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Sally Scott
Bad Bad Address See Notes
Renton, WA 98056
Sherry and Robert Cline
4267 Williams Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Sue & Mac jahnke
1717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056
Suzanne & Donald Orehek
4103 Wells Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Tom Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton, WA 98056
Victor Chiu
1128 N 41st PI
Renton, WA 98056
Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin
1120 N 38th St
Renton, WA 98056
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way, Suite 728
Renton, WA 98057
1111 11f11l111~11I11111
20170808000589
AGREEMENT Roc: $89.00
8/81201711:57 AM
KING COUNTY, WA
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendali Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: That portion of Government Lot 5 in S. 29, T. 24N, R. SE, W.M., ...
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit AI
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR 0 NOTYEf 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 12th day of June, 2017 (the "Effective Date")
pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.706.170 et seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to
this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3 acres
more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard, a'nd that
certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right of way to the
east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King County, Washington,
and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall
Property" or "Property")).
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Pagel
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 ofthe Hearing Examiner's Decision.
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Developer is currently working on a remediation
plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the remediated Property.
The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable development authorized by the
Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Master Plan and subsequent necessary and/or appealed
land use decisions. Such development shall contain at minimum the attributes identified as
Project Elements in Section 3 and comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the
approved Master Plan. Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-
remediation site conditions and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For
instance, if remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to
occur first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan that
is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any subsequent land
use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding
Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which applications were
deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the "Initial Project Applications").
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"), the
City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10, 2010, on the
Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on the DEIS, Developer
developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the DEIS, and office space was
removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the Preferred Alternative are set forth
in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151 and attached to the Staff Report to the
Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012,
which addressed the Preferred Alternative (the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact
Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 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 ofthe specified SEPA mitigation measures.
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
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.
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for development of
the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together with all other terms and
conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the Parties acknowledge that Project
applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject to hearing and decision by the Renton
Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-
070(J).
J. The City's Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes proposed
under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in accordance with SEPA,
and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing SEPA review. The DEIS,
Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together constitute the "Project-level SEPA
Review."
K. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing, as authorized by City Council, on
this Development Agreement on April 18, 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated land use
decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set forth
herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of the
Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date.
Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision ofthe Hearing Examiner on the Master Plan,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications under lUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline
Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and responsibilities for
the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall Property under the Enhanced
Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but not limited to Developer commitments
that development of the Master Plan shall be consistent with the vested land Use Policies and
Regulations and the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use
decisions for the project. It is the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased
according to the principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the Project
Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be taken
through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a public
park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, open for
public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains,
artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the lakeside frontage of
residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50
percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the development of a
public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and City shall jointly develop a
future dock proposal for permitting and environmental review that addresses public and
Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction ("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be
responsible for obtaining all required permits. The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the
Future Dock Proposal and construct the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both
the City and Developer approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions.
Should the EPA or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the
developer will work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal, design and
permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this agreement. The
Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public access within this first ten
(10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to the Future Dock Proposal shall be
permitted, constructed, and final inspection completed prior to final occupancy of the last
building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as defined in
Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with SEPA (the "SEPA
Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In order to impose
requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner shall be required to
provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger has occurred, that the SEPA
Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be performed. The Transportation Update
shall result in written findings and conclusions, and may result in a recommendation for
reasonable new future permit conditions and mitigations for the Project, if required based on
changed conditions and associated Project impacts. Ifthe SEPA Transportation Update
identifies significant adverse transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the
original SEPA transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address
such unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.S Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over parking,
building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all other buildings
shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation document
issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the Hearing Examiner in the
Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will include any new transportation permit
conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the
Transportation Update following year five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new
transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as
a result ofthe Transportation Update following year 10 ofthe Initial Term ofthis Agreement, if
a permit extension under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased consistent
with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any subsequent land use
approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for purposes of Developer's
development program, including in response to market conditions. The City and the Developer
acknowledge that, generally, site remediation under EPA's oversight will occur before Project
development, provided, however, that during remediation the Developer may install certain
Project infrastructure components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the
following phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such Buildings are
defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure and
mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final inspection if the
phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to provide pedestrian and
vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking areas for bicycles and vehicles,
site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B 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.
Quendal/ Terminals Develapment Agreement Page 6
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of
Decision, or (ii) the 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 ofthe 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.
5.2 Vesting EKceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall not
impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development Regulations, except any
federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions
that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce that are not subject to a
"grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the City's enforcement responsibility
beyond the life of this Agreement. Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting
to the extent mandated by the Phase" 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 36.708.170(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
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
with consideration. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of Developer and the City. If any provision of this Agreement is
determined to be unenforceable or invalid by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall
thereafter be modified to implement the intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable
under law, (ii) the Parties agree to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the
court decision, and (iii) neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of
this Agreement until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this Agreement
must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion of the Quendall
Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other obligations under this
Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or any NRD settlement.
Notwithstanding the foregOing, upon request of Developer, a designated City official may
approve administrative minor modifications to the Development Standards, which
administrative modifications shall not be deemed amendments to this Agreement.
Administrative minor modifications mean those changes to the Development Standards that do
not materially increase impacts on transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking
into account agreed upon mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce
buffers or open space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written
consent of Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this
section.
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.708.190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be
recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is made and entered into for
the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their successors and assigns. No other person
shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind which a
party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and
either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional courier services), (ii) sent by
facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first class, or (iii) deposited in the u.s.
mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth with
each signature. Notice by hand delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If
deposited in the mail, notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at
any time by notice to the other party may designate a different address or person to which such
notice or communication shall be given.
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with respect to
this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more
facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this Agreement
are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify
the terms and conditions ofthis 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 maya 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
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
action brought in King County Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled
to recover all costs and expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or an
arbitrator equally.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by
the City and Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this a'S day of ~ , 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
,
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authoriled Representative , ,
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President ~
Date: q.5 06-~
COY~~
By: C
Denis Law
ATIEST:
By:. __ ~~~~~~ ______ __
Quendol/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OFW"'H,,"cro N
ss:
COUNTY OF 1(1'" Ii>
On this :2 '> 1'-day of .) vl..'1 ,2016, before me, a Notary Public in and forthe
State oflNlWtJ6JQo,lCounty of IC,..J& , personally appeared II: 06Er?T CV6/N " 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.
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement
1011\<:: d ,rJ6 tt>l..J
Notary (print): D) iv1 IKu0 [? II<"
My appointment expires: C -0'· 17
Page 12
STATE OF' \ ~}!\(,,<~-v"\,
. ( ) ss:
COUNTY OF ("::0 )
,), };~ ," \ On this .a.!,Laay o~ 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Oenis 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.
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-l-Map
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
Exhibit A
SU?VEYOR'S NETES A\D BOJ~CS
~ESA~ DESCRIPTION
7HAT ~ORTION OF GOVERN~E~T lOT 5 IN SECTIO~ 29, TOWNSHIP 2~
i'JO~TE, R.n.};GE S E.;S7, Ii: .N., AN~ SHORE!'J~.NDS SSCOND CLP'lS.s AJJOIK'It-jG
LYING WESTE:RLY OF THE NORiilERN PACIfIC R.",ILRO.",C RIG'iI-OE"-;·;l'.Y 1'.~;D
SOUTHERLY OE" A LINE, !S KING COJNTY, ~AS'iINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
fO~LO;';S :
EEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTE LINE Of SAID SECT:ON
29;
:HENCE ~OR~H 89~58r36'1 WEST ALONG TES SOC7H ~I~E OF SA!C LOT 5,
1,113.01 FEET TO THE: WESTEF~Y ~INE OF SAID NORT'iERN ?AClf:C
""'.1 LPO.",::; RIGHi -O'-~;.",Y;
THENCE: NORTH 29'44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGET-O,-WAY
LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REf ERR:;:] TO ?S POINT A;
TEENCE CONTINUING NORIE 29'44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO IHE TRJE:
POINT OF BEGINNING Of THE LI~E HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOJTH 56°28'50" W~ST 222.32 f2ET TO A POI~T ~~ICf BEARS
NORTH 59'24'56" WEST :80.0: fEET fROM SAID POINT A;
TE~~;:E NOR:E 59~2~'5E'r WSS~ 70 ~EE IN~ER ~ARB~R L~~~ Ar:D :H~ E~;J
OE" SAID L!~E D~SCR:P~IOK;
A:jSO "i""HAT ?O?zTIO~; C~ 51-.rD GSVE:R~::--E::~;T LOT 5 L"r'lNG SOC:~Efl.STF.R:='JY 0:-
~.L.KE ~.'_;S:-rH~GTD>J 3J:';~Ei.'AFJ, 'i:SSr:'E2LY 0:-S:::Or\J.z;,RY S'.=-.r..':-E !-rI~:-1~\A'!'
\j~8~R 2A AKJ NORTHWESTER~Y OE" IHE RIGHT-Of-WAY Of ~U3~IC STATE
HIGH-~_l..'.:· NUr~~BE.R -•. :;'3 ::STF.BL:Si-1ED BY O:::ED ?SCORDED J.4.~;U~.?<.~· 15, 196':;
JNC~R RECORDI~G NO. 5657'08;
h~;D EXCEPT THA: PO~718N THEREO~ CONVEYED TO CITY Of RENTO~;, A
t-!~~:ICIPA:' CO:i=1.PO?,-,~.T::OK BY D:::EJ RECOEJE~) J\';~·!E : 9, 2JCE UL"DEE
2ECO~DIKG KG. 20:50E19001179.
ll/lli20l6
CENICRY P~:!FIC, :LLP
JA~I~ A. 3£:L, PLS ~J. 375~E
BR2 JOB ~J. 2009250.C3
l:/ll/:'E
B~S~. ROEJ & 2IICEIHGS, INC.
2009 HH:OE AVE~;"J~ El-.ST
SEAT7LE r l1A 9S102
(2:I E) 323-414<;
,RSC.WM
TAX ACCT. NO.
292405900203 ..,,---
300 0 150 300 TRUE POINT --J...
OF BEGINNING /
NO.
292405-9001 -01
.-<
I ..:
.... ....
.0 ....
..c
><
til
.. -~ I I
( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 300 ft.
~ ~&-S~
TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9002-03
.Ii ~.,1 A~"7l
100.01
PClNT,/IA • ----"':..
0""~' /"
_\\)",<-/" V •
~;-,,<V
I .... ,tf
~ ~ ORDINARY HIGH
WATER MARK
AT 18.8'
ELEVAllON
:;..1"",' ~
." ~::--0,' Gg:;'" ~ LOT S
SW 1/4
SECTION 29,
T24N,4SE
OF BARBEE
246. PGS. 25-39.
NO. 20080208000182
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON. WASHINGTON
,
(SE 80TH ST) I 1 CORNER
VAC N 44TH ST OF SEC. 29
REC. I 7602260427, ~
1,113.05' L
- -963.31' r
VAC N 44Tr ST
GOV'T LOT 1
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS. INC.
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
2009 MINOR AVE EAST
SEATTLE. Washington
98102-3513
(206) 323-4 i 44
DAlE 1i/11/16
JOB NO 2009050 03
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office. 3190 160th Ave Sf· Bellf'vuef "V4. 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000
711 for Washington Relay Serlf;ce· Persons with a speech disability can ca/l877-833-6341
July 10, 2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
120/ Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: City of Renton Permit LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA -Approved
Century Pacific, L.P. -Applicant
Shoreline Substantial Developmeut Permit (SDP) #2017-NW-3808
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
On June 28, 2017, we received notice that the City of Renton conditionally approved your
application for an SDP. Your permit is to construct a mixed-use development consisting of 692
dwelling units, 42,190 square feet of commercial uses, 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of
parks/open space. This work will occur in the High Intensity shoreline environment designation
of Lake Washington, a shoreline of statewide significance.
By law, local govemments must review all SDPs for compliance with:
• The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW).
• Ecology's SDP approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC).
• The City of Renton Local Shoreline Master Program.
Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to
Ecology. We have received your approved SDP.
What Happens Next?
Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days
from June 28, 2017, the "date offiIing." This waiting period allows anyone (induding you) who
disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to tbe state Shorelines Hearings
Board (SHB). You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities
authorized by this permit.
The SHB will notify you by letter iftbey receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the SHB
before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. You may reach them at
(360) 664-9160 or http://v,ww.eluho. wa.gov/Board/SHB.
®
Century Pacific, L.P.
July 10,2017
Page 2
r'
If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at
the SHB website above or on the website of the Washington State Legislature at
http://apps.leg. wa. gov Iwac.
Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Misty Blair, Shoreline Specialist, at
(425) 649-4309.
Sincerely,
Amelia Petersen, Section Assistant
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Cc: Vanessa Dolbee -City of Renton
Denis Law Mayor
June 21, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
State Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for Quendall Terminals
File No. LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, 5A-M, SM, DA
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The
permit was issued by the City of Renton on Monday, June 12, 2017. A Determination of Significance
issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee on February 19, 2010. Following which a
Draft EIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS were issued December 10, 2010, October 19, 2012, and August
31, 2015 respectively. All EIS documents can be found on the City's Website (enter Quendall
Terminals into the search field) The appeal period ended on September 24,2015. One appeal was
filed, which was ultimately dismissed by both the appellant and the applicant. No other appeals
were filed.
We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-
14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have
any questions or need additional information or have difficulty finding the project web page.
sin~e7'
'lIt:UU~iL-{jj/~
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Enclosures:
cc:
Motion by City Council
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Development Agreement -includes legal description
Copy of Master Application
Notice of Application
Office of Attorney General
Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Campbell Mathewson, Altino Properties/ Applicant/Owner
Shoreline Cover Letter 09-151 (003)
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
JUN 12, 2017 -CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING -MOTION SHEET
Agenda
Placement
4.a)
7.a)
7.b)
7.c)
7.d)
7.e)
7.f)
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSENT
AGENDA
CONSENT
AGENDA
CONSENT
AGENDA
CONSENT
AGENDA
CONSENT
AGENDA
CONSENT
AGENDA
SW Langston Rd Street Vacation II (VAC-17-001): Council
approved the request to vacate under the condition that the
utility easement for PSE is secured in the requested area.
AB -1929 Community & Economic Development
Department recommended approval of the Renton
Community Marketing Campaign contract with Atlas
Advprti<inl' in the amount of $90,000.
AB -1906 Municipal Court requested authorization to
transfer the Court Security Officer from a contracted
position to a City employee by establishing a new Court
Security Officer position at salary grade a04, and approving
the associated budget adjustment.
AB -1923 Transportation Systems Division recommended
entering into a five-year contract with BergerABAM, Inc. in
the amount of $322,364, for the purpose of construction
management and inspection services for the NE 31st Street
AB -1924 Transportation Systems Division recommended
entering into a professional services agreement with Gray &
Osborne, Inc. in the amount of $125,283.03 for the purpose
of designing the Renton Ave. S Resurfacing Project.
COUNCIL CONCUR
REFER TO FINANCE
cbMMITTEE
TO FINANCE
CbMMlttEE
AB -1925 Transportation Systems Division recommended
entering into a Cooperative Agreement with the Washington
State Department of Transportation for design and HAvlAtllllll\
construction ofthe 1-40S/SR 167 Interchange Direct
Connector
AB -1926 Transportation Systems Division recommended
entering into a Utility Agreement with the Washington State
Department of Transportation in the amount of $136,630,
for the purpose of coordinating and participating in the
design process of the water main relocation along the SR
167 corridor.
Staff Contact
Amanda Askren
Cliff Long
Bonnie
Woodrow
Derek Akesson
James Wilhoit
Vicki Grover
Vicki Grover
Jason Seth
Judith Subia
Kim Gilman
Jim Seitz
Bob Hanson
Heather Gregersen
Jim Seitz
Bob Hanson
Heather Gregersen
Jim Seitz
Heather Gregersen
Jim Seitz
Heather Gregersen
Li Li-Wong
7.g) I CONSENT I AB -1927 Transportation Systems Division recommended l'II:FI:R1O. i£~:f6, .::.;i:;'li: Vicki Grover Jim Seitz
AGENDA entering into a Utility Agreement, with the Washington State ::MNSrrdftf~fj(IJltl'iW Abdoul Gafour
Department of Transportation, for the purpose of (~!i~!t§~t~.im:i:.·!::,3l:~r: Heather Gregerse
coordinating and participating in the design process of the
water main relocation at S. 14th St., along the 1-405 corridor.
B.a) I UNFINISHIOD I Council President l'avOllepresented a report recommending COUNCIL CONtuR I Vanessa Dolbee I Jennifer Henning
BUSINESS concurrence with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation Judith Subia
to approve a master site plan, binding sit€! plan, and
shoreline sUbstantial development permit sUbjectto the
conditions identified in the recommo;'rldatioh. The
Committee of the Whole also recommEmded concurrence
witH the Hearhg i:xaminer's recommendation to approve the
development agreement sUbject to the modific:ations
recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B); for the
construction of the Quendall Terminals mixed use
development (LUA09-151). The City Council has final
reviewing authority over Development Agreements and
.assoicated land use permits when merged (RMC 4-B-080G).
the proposed master site plan, binding siteplah and
shoreline substantial development permit are all consistent
With applicable code criteria subject to 46 cohditiohsof
approvaLThe Committee further recommended that the
resolution regarding this matter bepresented for reading
8.b) I UNFINISHED I Finance Committee Chair Perssonpresented a report I COUNCIL CONCUR I Jamie Thomas I Natalie Wissbrod
BUSINESS approving for payment on June 12, 2017 claims vouchers
5416-5417,5427-5436,10017-10018; 356794-356800,
356808-356826,356843-357109 and four wire transfers and
one payroll run with benefit withholding payments totaling
$5,345,081.08 and payroll vouchers including 629 direct
and 28 payroll vouchers totaling $1,278,797.72.
B.c) I UNFINISHED I Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report I COUNCIL CONCUR I Ron Kahler I Linda Moschetti
BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to
approve the allocation of funds to purchase a John Deere
Z970R Commercial ZTrak mower. The total estimated cost
of the mower is $13,309. The adjustment for this purchase
will be included in the upcoming 2nd quarter budget
adjustment ordinance.
8.d) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Leslie Betlach Todd Black
BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to Jamie Thomas
award the professional engineering design contract for the Misty Baker
Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park Facility Structural Repairs
project, to PND Engineers, Inc.in the amount of $204,000.00.
The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and
City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract.
8.e) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Jason Seth Leslie Betlach
BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to Todd Black
award the construction contract for the Sunset Jamie Thomas
Neighborhood Park, Phase I project, to Road Construction Misty Baker
Northwest, Inc.in the amount of $2,351,010.48. The
Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City
Clerk be authorized to execute the contract.
8.f) UNFINISHED Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report COUNCIL CONCUR Jan Hawn Jamie Thomas
BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to Chris Seese
approve the refinancing plan to issue around $6.12 million
with approximately $280,000 in issuance premium to
refinance $6.19 million of the outstanding 2007 Water
Sewer Revenue Bonds. The Committee further
recommended the corresponding ordinance with all the
associated documents be presented for first reading.
8.g) UNFINISHED Planning & Development Committee Chair Prince presented COUNCIL CONCUR April Alexander Angie Mathias
BUSINESS a report recommending concurrence in the staff Judith Subia
recommendation to concur with Mayor law's appointment
of Ms. Laura Bloch to the Community Plan Advisory Board-
City Center for a term expiring April 30, 2018.
8.h) UNFINISHED Planning & Development Committee Chair Prince COUNCIL CONCUR John Collum Judith Subia
BUSINESS recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to
adopt a Citywide ordinance and enter into an interlocal
agreement with King County for preservation services to
establish the necessary framework to preserve, protect,
enhance and perpetuate Renton properties which reflect
significant elements of the City's, county's, state's and
nation's cultural, social, economic, architectural, historic,
ethnic, and other heritage. The Planning and Development
Committee further recommended that an ordinance be
prepared and presented for first reading when it is
complete.
9.a) RESOLUTION(S): Resolution No. 4311: City Center Community Plan COUNCIL ADOPT Angie Mathias Chip Vincent
THE RESOLUTION Judith Subia
AS PRESENTED
9.b) RESOLUTION(S): Resolution No. 4312: Quendall Terminals Development COUNCIL ADOPT Vanessa Dolbee Jennifer Henning
Agreement THE RESOLUTION Judith Subia
AS PRESENTED
9.c) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5846: Bond Refinancing COUNCIL REFER THE Jan Hawn Jamie Thomas
FOR FIRST ORDINANCE FOR Chris Seese
READING: SECOND AND FINAL
READING AT THE
NEXT COUNCIL
MEETING
9.d) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5837: Pet Daycare Docket Ordinance (D-128) COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia
FOR SECOND AND THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES
9.e) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5838: Municipal Arts Commission Docket COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia
FOR SECOND AND Ordinance (D-129) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES
9.f) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5839: Light Intensity Commercial Docket COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia
FOR SECOND AND Ordinance (D-130) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES
9.g) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5840: Tree Retention and Land Clearing COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia
FOR SECOND AND Docket Ordinance (D-131) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES
9.h) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5841: Administrative Code Interpretations COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia
FOR SECOND AND Docket Ordinance (D-133) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES
9.i) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5842: Clustering Provisions Docket Ordinance COUNCIL ADOPT Chip Vincent Judith Subia
FOR SECOND AND (D-134) THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES
9.j) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5843: Shopping Carts COUNCIL ADOPT Paul Hintz Judith Subia
FOR SECOND AND THE ORDINANCE AS Cindy Moya I
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: I
ALL AYES
9.k) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5844: Vacating a Portion of right-of-way on COUNCIL ADOPT Jason Seth Amanda Askren
FOR SECOND AND SW Langston Rd. THE ORDINANCE AS Judith Subia
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL: Cindy Moya
ALL AYES
9.1) ORDINANCE(S) Ordinance No. 5845: MCIMETRO Access Transmission COUNCIL ADOPT Amanda Askren Cindy Moya
FOR SECOND AND Services Corp Franchise Agreement THE ORDINANCE AS
FINAL READING: READ. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES
10) NEW BUSINESS Council refer traffic safety on Maple Valley Highway and COUNCIL CONCUR Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman
traffic congestion around New Life Church on Maple Valley Kevin Milosevich
Highway be referred to Administration. Linda Moschetti
Melissa Day
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Quendall Terminals
Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline and
Substantial Development Permit
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RECOMMENDA nON
13 LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Summary
The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft.
of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the
development agreement.
The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed
development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints
of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November IS, 2009,
the project has been transformed from a proposal involving SOO dwelling units, 245,000 square
feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office
space and lOS less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access, open spaces, landscaping,
view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures
composed of 46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
appealed. By the date of the April 18,2017 hearing, the appeal had been withdrawn and only five
members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
project.
One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the
project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is
the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the
past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake
sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better
understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process
is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the
City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup
action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used
to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is
anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the
upland portions of the site, including placement ofa soil cap across the project site and shoreline
restoration in a I ~O-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation
activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land
use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished.
EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need for the proposed development agreement since
the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the
project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit
expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards
during the extended expiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is
two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration
periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park
space at the southwest comer ofthe project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street
activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and
a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development
agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the
function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area.
The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation) are traffic
and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to 1-405 and
NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to
improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the
WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the
project use the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary
to assess a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project,
off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections.
As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will
have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic
calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at
the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation
will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even
with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the
City streets to the south ofthe project.
View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little, question that the multiple
six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale
neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the
applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a
building that is 115 feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts, the proposal includes a widened
central road (Road 8) to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining
properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback requirements.
Testimony
Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner's Recommendation .. It is solely
provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary
should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signifYing any priority or
importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an
accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing.
Staff Opening Presentation:
Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to
examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23, the City Council expressly authorized
the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4.
Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement.
Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time
frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the
site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and
that precise details of design will be reviewed and approved during subsequent site plan review. The
heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and
north of the project.
The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to
fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now
referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re-
evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10,
20 I 0 for the term of the agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either
when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to
fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains.
The site is a former creosote facility and was subsequently designated a superfund site. The EPA will
be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain
how the project site would be configured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort.
In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline
assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline
buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the
clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA.
There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to
site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks.
There is a I ~O-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill
and a 38-fool setback from the Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor
width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi-private plaza spaces. Pursuant to
Condition 27, Lots 1 and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the
EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas, they proposal will
have to be amended. Condition 41 requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped
water line. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement.
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re-opening of the
hearing in response to denial of the development penn it to be a second hearing prohibited by the
Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staffleaves it to the
discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline penn it and binding site
plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the City
Council.
Applicant Presentation:
Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations.
She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project.
She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The
applicant has the burden of proof in establishing consistency with decision criteria. The examiner is
also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision
on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed
minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development
agreement.
Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall tenninal
property, His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage
yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the
prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned
the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development
agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for penn it
review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and
remediation can be completed prior to pennit expiration.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation
mitigation, including both on and off-site roadway improvements, a transportation demand
management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and
compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE
44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of
Transportation ("WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were
assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the
analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The
WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual
time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be
completed. Without the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of
north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project.
To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be
placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded
that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as
opposed to 1-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City
streets. On-site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The
transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and
programs to reduce reliance upon single-occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should
effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it
easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency
certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has
adequate capacity to serve the development. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering
for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of
mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation
information available to the City, such as the work associated with the 1-405 WSDOT interchange
improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off-setting traffic impacts.
Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last
two years, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been
geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the
beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and
restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A
pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian
oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the
street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards
the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with
Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the
project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects
have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly
environment. The project is consistent with the City'S design standards.
Campbell Mathewson, project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation,
landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The
binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building deVelopment. The shoreline
permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for
a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject
to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was
800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the
project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met
with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of
the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was
significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square
feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic
impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the
applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation
of approval. However, the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff
report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in tum lead to the waterfront
retail and the public park along the southwest comer of the site and the potential for a new dock. The
buildings were also set back another 20 feet. Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City'S zoning
regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included
buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be
compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review.
Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining
uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of 90 feet
from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space
for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards
between residential blocks, pedestrian orientation in design, added retail use and restaurants and trails.
The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park.
The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by
the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the
first time in decades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants
and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended
in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April II, 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee
Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the
development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the
1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development
agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five.
Public Comments:
Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern.
He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently
has to twelve-foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive
characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going
between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened
as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted
that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little
bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view
of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box
entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third
issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would
be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public
access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock.
Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated
the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the
parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She
also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed-use site and she doesn't
want it to be an elitist area.
Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and
grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can
be cleaned up as quickly as possible.
Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development
agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the
applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of
residents and also that the developer has been very accommodating.
Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near
the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle
safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during
pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts.
Staff Rebuttal:
In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor
was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so
to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts,
a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were
implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the
recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil
contaminants being moved with pile driving, the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic
impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the
parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also
require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. In response to examiner questions, Mr.
Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking
structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
\0
I I
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Applicant Rebuttal:
Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety
plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a
result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment ofthe project site.
In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about
a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation
measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced
alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions
of approval. Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years oftransportation experience, the project is one
of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found
the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets
and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides
for public access and use of shoreline areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks
and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the
project.
. Exhibits
Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April I I, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at
page 2 of the April II, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18,
2017 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017
public hearing as well:
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 39
Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017
Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16,20 I 7
Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
Google Maps
City of Renton power point
Notebook dated April 18,2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Notebook dated April 18,2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Larry Toedtli CV
Bob Wells Resume
Lance Mueller Resume
Street B rendering
June 6, 2016 Site Plan PI.O
June 1,2016 Site Plan PO.O
April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
\0
1 I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
I. Applicant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle,
WA,98\o1
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary
if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a
mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
A. Proposal. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-
use buildings. The proposal would include 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential
density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be
constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building
height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposed' to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-
way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via
the development of new internal Roads A-E. The primary site access from public streets
is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear
feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 -
133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development
agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen
years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park
space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork,
etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public
access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed
complete by City staffon its submittal date of February 10.2010.
I The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN. SSDP and DA
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
J J
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
C.
Site Conditions/Superfund Designation. The subject site has received a Superfund
designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners
are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin
construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying a remedy for
clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.
The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated
from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater,
surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology
transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA,
which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial
investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of
contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City'S land use review.
Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit J 5) to define
the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in
the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the
Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2,
for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to
include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland
portions of the site (Main Property), including placement of a soil cap across the entire Main
Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts
associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA
process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been
accomplished.
Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental
impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement
("FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from
the environmental review were compiled into 9 J conditions comprising the Mitigation
Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is
recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed
for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in
an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred
alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the
development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the
applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 2 J, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the
range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through
2015 SEPA review ofthe Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures
are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Consequently, the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the
April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced
Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously
MASTER PLAN, BrNDrNG SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
with the "proposal".
4. Surrounding Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north
is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the
east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) right of way, 1-405 and
undeveloped COR zoned property.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most
significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area
regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse
impacts to critical areas.
The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical
Areas Map and is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. Due to the baseline
assumptions described above under FOF 3(8) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas
would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located
in the I OO-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the
extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the
project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the
recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands
and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically
reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS
assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on
adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site-specific site plan review should
include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the
criteria if buffer averaging is used. Ifthe ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the
buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots I and 6), Recommended
Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure
compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers
are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the
overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per
RMC 4-9-200(J) a new application would be required.
As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C I 0, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different
than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine
whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any
difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include
impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition
is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording
of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
II
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
application, construction pennit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be
submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance ofthe ROD.
It is also detennined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources.
Pages 3.6-14 -3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline
resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the
DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake
Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and
sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City stormwater regulations. Following
construction, a penn anent storm water control system would be installed in accordance with City
stonnwater regulations. Stonnwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped
stonnwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution-generating
surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stonnwater outfall pipes would be
situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed
during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation.
Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The
subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows
for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake
Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi-story
structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These
impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of
the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred
Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center
of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the
property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking
garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights-of-
way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures F I -
FI5 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west
view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of
74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of
80 feet.
At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would
completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between
the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and
appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However,
in the absence of more specitic view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating
view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The
maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes
almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant
has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view
corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks, which are significantly wider
than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from
the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all
reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development
potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed
by the applicant.
C. Noise, Privacy and Dust. The City'S noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative
standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. [t
is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the
project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a
Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise,
control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8
RMC. [n addition, the project would be required to comply with the City'S noise ordinance
regarding construction hours. With these measures in place, noise and dust impacts are adequately
mitigated.
The proposed building layout provides semi-private court yards between each residential tower
which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy.
The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an
opportunity for views of Lake Washington, For those units located over Road B and the
retail/restaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics
of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window
coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
D. Drainage. Adequate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant
adverse drainage impacts, The City's stormwater regulations assure that storm water impacts are
fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 stormwater manual is applicable to the project.
As noted in Conclusion of Law ("COL") No.2 of this recommendation, more current storm water
regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. [n either event, storm water
regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts.
Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth,
Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this
analysis mitigation measures A I, Al 0, A I I, B2, and B7 were established and will become a
condition of this permit. Because the internal streets ofthe development are required to be private,
the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A storm water covenant
for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance
responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding
site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained
a condition of approval requires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents
for City review and approval identifying the developer/ property owners/ HOA responsibilities for
the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
I3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E.
A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be
submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site
is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is
proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is
proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City storm water standards. Storm
water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall
be followed in the design and construction of the project.
The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project
specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16,
the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include
an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality
impacts associated with development of the project site and should identity appropriate mitigation
for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre-and post-
developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and
developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology.
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 ofa superfund
toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is
by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and
enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing
view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building
and site design is subject to general design review at the master plan stage and detailed design
review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies
with the District "c" design standards for master plan review.
The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping
standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the
Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure EI, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and
constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The
applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re-submittal dated
12-16-2015, Exhibit II. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide
landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and aiD-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east
of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A IO-fool wide landscape
buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C
along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative
would be compliant with Mitigation Measures EI, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires
that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as
shown in Exhibit II.
Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and
Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All
street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
14
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper
inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a
final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas
prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of
the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan.
Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface
parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted
in Mitigation Measures F4, GI2 and G13.
F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation
since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's
tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project
site subsequent to remediation.
G. Compatibility/Building Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding
uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the
west and R-IO property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic
issues addressed elsewhere, the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining
the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling ofthe buildings
along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at
a minimum of 120 feet as well as a I .3-acre public park placed on the southwestern comer of the
project site.
As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on
adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, FI, F8, F9, FII, and
FI5 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and
Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures,
the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site.
H. Lighting. As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting
proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review
for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition
F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B II and F7 to ensure
that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
down lighting and shielding among other techniques.
Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other
common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions FI3 and H9 and the design
standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re-submittal of the Preferred
Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F 13 and H9 or
compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
IS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F 13 and H9
and the design standards for the common areas.
I. Loading and Storage Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and
storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include
loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and
restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at
off peak hours.
6. Adequacy of InfrastructurelPublic Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the
King County parcel fronting the site and a I O-inch water main extending into the project site.
There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The
development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and
water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic,
landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction
permits.
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department
and police protection by the City of Renton Police Department. Police and Fire staff
indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if
the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided
to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet
wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire
apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum
100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD, the road shall also serve as
a pedestrian trail. If EPA's ROD prohibits the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot
shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail.
Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot
shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line
required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface.
Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that
the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail
which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. As
previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space.
Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and
Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park
demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service
standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this
application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation
mitigation measures (G I -G 13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas.
The amount of on-site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant
would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards.
However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off-site
park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on-site park and open
space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to
mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project.
As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2
requires that approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas" and "Other
Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall
include a O.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. The "Other Related
Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks,
paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of
Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other
Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with
Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the
trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is
for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources
Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with
the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition GIO requires that the trail be
enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive
signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the
trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials.
Mitigation Document condition GIl requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill
residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the
surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in
compliance with condition GIl. Based on the above analysis the provided materials
were not compliant with conditions G2, G7, G I 0, and G II. As such a recommended
condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any
other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, Gl 0, and GIl
for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community
Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan
recording.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
D.
The Development Agreement adds a 1.3-acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours
of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park
hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public
use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director
prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding
site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy
of the first building on the site.
The "street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide
distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not
been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that
Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the
roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides. for an appropriate and safe
pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the
sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number ofpedestrian
connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline.
However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the
sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private Street E either
north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley
Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge
along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show
stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the
buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian
circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space,
parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended
condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete
connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The
approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upcn recording.
Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian
circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when
planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a
recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public
right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this
condition.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
18
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street
infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum.
For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal, additional transportation analysis was
included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the
Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of
the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS
Addendum and FE IS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation ofthe project mitigation
measures, with or without the 1-405 improvements, staff determined that significant
transportation impacts are not anticipated.
The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently
operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts
were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT
improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project
using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's
necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without
the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and
southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange
project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming
treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor.
The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent
people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current
congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets.
The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour
vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips,
no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred
Alternative. As to the preferred alternative, page 1-14 of the DEIS addendum concluded that
"[tJhe existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would
adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build-out in 2015, with the
additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative
constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is
within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010
through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the
DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative 1 traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak
hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative 1 clearly generated far
more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited
information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative I, the
traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection
level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation
on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows
intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where
WSDOT has not completed 1-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6
shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three
intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table
3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections.
Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any
intersection except for the Lk Wa BlvdlN 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any
of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection.
The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative
analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center
tum lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group,
in a memorandum dated January 12,2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit
21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal
because single-lane approaches at each of the Street • A' intersections would provide
acceptable traffic operations.
Conditions HI-H 15 of the Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary
to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires
frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel
lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing
roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document,
provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the
site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along
two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The
private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including
landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing
landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at
the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and
6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access.
The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property
owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of
existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the
applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who
owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N,
and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval
requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should
be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause
some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off-site improvements, such as
southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly
north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures
Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the
mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation
Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In
addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some
inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements
evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the
inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully
depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the
Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as
shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the
internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation
Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian
walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation
coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has
resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become
private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard
street cross sections is not required. However, the design of the streets shall meet minimum
standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be
required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of
public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of
approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways
and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on
street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for
pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street
cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each
building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those
areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 -15 -foot sidewalk is
required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground
floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from \0 feet in places to 8 or 6
feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to
account for the curb width, and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross-
section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant
amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit
review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the
amended cross sections.
A couple members ofthe public at the April 18,2017 public hearing expressed concern over
increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
21
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Condition H5 of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming
treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south ofN 41 st Street to encourage primary trips
generated by the project to utilize the \-405 corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified
that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern
street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers
would elect to use 1-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site.
Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition H5 adequately addresses concerns over
increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also
expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the
project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the "scenic" character
of the road and tum it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be
some legitimacy to this concern, the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and
functionality considerations integrated into the City's street standards that require the
additional street width.
F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall
development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N
42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross
the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road
right of way atN 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are
two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive
approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail-road right-of-way.
This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A
recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City
identifying rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review
application and construction permit application submittal.
Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed
through an internal street system, identified as Roads A-E. The applicant has indicated that
Roads A -C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads 0 and E would be private
streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City
is not willing to accept the proposed public rights-of-way dedications and Roads A -C shall
become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A -C will be private
streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement
for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The
public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property
Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any
additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School)
and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated
that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
22
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
\0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upcn lot
specific site plan review.
A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City
as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities.
Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit
service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is
provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St.
interchange and 1-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include
Bus Rapid Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the
1-405/NE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted, Mitigation Document conditions H3
and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage
future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available.
Currently there are no non-motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site,
however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition, the existing rail
road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is
identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails"
planned mUlti-purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating
alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a mUlti-purpose trail
at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the
primary form and most readily available form of alternative non-motorized transportation is
bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and
restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation
Document (page 26) to mitigate system-wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity
transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the
applicant shall prepare a TOM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include
on-site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above
analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in
the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure
weather-protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking
should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and
restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents
shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation
Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation
would not use the mUlti-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore
a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north
and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-
purpose trail.
I. Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously
noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
23
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the
lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B I 0 requires
that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be
incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake
side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake
side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details
of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval
requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site
plan review and construction permit application. In addition, should the EPA ROD eliminate
the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires
that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction
permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline
master programs requirements for significant public access.
Conclusions of Law
I. Authority. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit
applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement.
However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made
recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It
is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding
site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should
be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City
Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline
appl ications.
The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City
Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications
are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement
with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7-
230(1)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement"
significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two
provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan
applications that are merged with development agreements.
In contrast to the binding site plan application, shoreline substantial development permits are classified
by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type II permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and
master site plan approval as Type 1Il permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short, the three
permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number
procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not
classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the
examiner (see Ex. 23) coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision
mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation
coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DAibinding site plan review will be
considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the
Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure.
2. Vesting. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The
examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows:
A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vesting. FOF No.2 ofthe April
19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a
complete binding site plan application on February 10,2010. The proposed development
agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period often to fifteen years. The law is not
actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards.
Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement,
rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the
examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation
from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when
the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited
to identirying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when
evaluating the vesting issue.
Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local
ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of
land" vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a
binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional
language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs " ... at the time a fully
completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat
approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted ... " A binding site plan is neither a
subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land
division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature
intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a
complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do
so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains.
The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant
submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7-
230(N)(1) provided in 2010 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding
site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time
of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. [t raises the interesting
legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham
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 S[TE PLAN, SSDP and DA
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance
has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting, or whether it is a procedural
ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting.
Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development
agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting.
The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County
stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King
County storm water manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently
ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology
("DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish County v. Pollution
Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City'S stormwater
system is governed by a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition S5.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit
requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase II NPDES permit
" ... shall apply to all [land use J applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall
apply to applications submitted prior to January 1, 2017, which have not started
construction by January 1, 2022 ... " In short, new Phase II permit requirements not
integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project ifit hasn't
started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its
superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start
by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit
will apply.
The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in
proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to
"any new flderal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations
or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce
that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the
City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement."
(emphasis added).
However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not
"new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development
agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something
from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in
the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to
remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following
should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt
MASTER PLAN, BfNDlNG SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
26
2
3
4
from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton.
2.5 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property IS zoned and has a
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
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities.
Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property
pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A){l). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any
nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria
for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9·200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by
RMC 4-7 -230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9-
190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") use
regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through
corresponding conclusions oflaw.
Master Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications. the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
be evaluatedfor general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan infull compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan application.!, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676. 12·3-
2012)
4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan
review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude
development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of
approval, building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more
specific design features to be addressed during site plan review.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1\
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements. goals. objectives. and policies.
especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 222 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District "C" and consistent with
Design District "c" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses. including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses. streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating. designing and screening storage areas. utilities. rooftop
eqUipment. loading areas. and refuse and reeyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare. maintain privacy. and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
2 References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No. __ ." References to findings from this
recommendation are "FOF No. __ ." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any
updates to the findings addressed in the April 11, 2017 memo to the examiner, Ex. 19.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
28
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. The criterion is met, As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by
FOF 6(0), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(1), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E)
and lighting by FOF 5(H).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting andfilling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design CInd protection of planting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No.5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that
the mixed-use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well-integrated environment for
residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities.
Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA,
however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking
trail, dock and park, Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. SeE)
and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally
improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above.
RJVlC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: PrOViding access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than
directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when
feaSible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including
the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
29
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areasfrom parking and pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
bui/dings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one
on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining
properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for
safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(0).
Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No.
5(1). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No.
6(H).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline
as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF
No. 6(1).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
II. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the natural systems at the site
(i.e. critical areas) will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed lise.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No.6.
26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, jor phased projects.
MASTER PLAN, BeNDING SITE PLAN, SSOP and OA
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the
scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton
for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is
governed by the proposed development agreement.
Binding Site Plan
RMC 4-7-230(C):
APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the
following criteria are met:
1. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more
contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan
procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions
shall not exceed the number iflots allowed in the applicable zoning district. New nonconforming
lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff
report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots
1,6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified
through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that
lots 1,6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be
buildable if created.
The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or
tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a
part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and
placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
2. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met,
the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of
this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-150.
15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium
site creation is required.
3. Commercial or Industrial Property.· The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or
mixed-use zone.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
16. The site is located within the mixed-use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval.
4. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply
with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning
district. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall
be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D.
a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements
and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application
is submitted.
b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan
application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards
of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations
where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other
circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at
the time a completed application is submitted.
c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site
plan may propose shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically authorized
per RMC 4-4-080£3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100£5, and other shared improvements as
authorized in other sections of the City's development standards.
17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable
comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant
has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed
as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition
H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared
parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on
the binding site plan prior to recording.
5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5-
0/0.
18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building
permit approval.
6. Infrastructure PrOVisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or
in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways,
water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by
the binding site plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
32
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.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This criterion is satisfied.
7. Access to Public Rights-of-Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan
shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct
access or access easement approved by the City.
20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a
private road, which in tum will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted
in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have detennined that
each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan
for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a
recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to
roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be pennitted,
constructed, and detennined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior
to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building pennit for any individual lot, unless
a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review.
8. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking, access,
signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan
and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions of use,
maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access, signage
and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants,
easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism.
21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No
shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a covenant
or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA
responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded
with the Binding Site Plan.
9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any
subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded
binding site plan.
22. As conditioned, the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision
for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in confonnance with the approved and recoded
binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this
standard.
10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant
shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan.
23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
33
11. 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
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the
City'S critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal complies with the
City'S critical area regulations.
Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee mustfind that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
h. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these poliCies may be permitted,
provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW90.58.020 regarding shorelines
of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed
in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the
proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No.
6(1). The commercial use regulations further require that parking is to be provided at frequent locations
and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured
parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use
regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the
shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(1). The development agreement adds a 1.3-
acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations
further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as
determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS
mitigation requires a I OO-foot setback. The proposal complies with this I OO-foot setback except for a
proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval requires the water line to be moved outside
the 100-foot setback.
The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for
shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
34
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
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications
are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the
applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Council
approve the proposed development agreement for the reasons identified in the summary of this
recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The
permit applications should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation
Document dated, August of 20 15.
2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined
through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside
through the binding site plan.
3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common
landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public
art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD
shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of
Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding
Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot,
unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any
delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety
or welfare.
4. The minimum partial sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be
maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit II and shall be
identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures E I, E2,
and F5.
5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk
when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for
each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
6. Lots I, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the
Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts
as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection
Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
35
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1\
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review,
this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
8. Roads A -C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an
easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C,
and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent
development ofthe site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding
site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording.
10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the
hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to
Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
II. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
12. Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to
Mitigation Measures:
• B \0 -public trail
• G2 -public trail and open space
• G3 -Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
• G7 -trail signage
• G9 -crosswalk
• G \0 -trail amenities
• H3 -frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
• H4 -trail
• H5 -traffic calming measures
• H8 -fire access road
• HI 0 -bicycle lane
• HII - H 15 -off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
signalization
shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and
C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
36
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements
matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be
provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide
sidewalk on south side of the access. These off-site improvements shall be designed,
permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a
minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking
garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan
review.
16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve
uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be
permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the
ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot
specific site plan review.
17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit
per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is
required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be
demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
18. To ensure the semi-private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed
design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan
review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and
amenities as approved by the Director.
19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to the approval of any sign permit for the site.
20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows:
a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington
b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility)
21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum
width of 74 feet and the semi-private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall
maintain a minimum width of 80 feet.
22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-designed to reduce to
the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake
maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
37
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
features could include landscape benning andlor architectural details. Detail design of
these buildings shall be completed at site plan review.
23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units
on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for
the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking
plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review.
24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals
site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building
proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5.
25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of
the building on Lot 5 and the SW comer of the building on Lot 2. The details of the
design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for
lots 2 and 5.
26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the
infrastructure provisions ofRMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval
prior to recording.
27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e.
the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots 1
and 6 shall be increased to ensure compl iance with the critical areas regulations and that
all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the
change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site
development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required.
28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-purpose trail.
29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of
construction permit review.
30. A storrnwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities
built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property
owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan.
31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stonnwater, common landscaping,
open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be
maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and
approval identifying the developer/property ownerslHOA responsibilities for the
maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and
Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
38
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 11, 2017 memo to
examiner.
33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to
binding site plan recording.
34. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City
of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department
prior to binding site plan recording.
35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on
the subject site.
36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that
will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which
should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works
Department.
37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the
proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the
easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation
shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording.
38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the
center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the
facility.
39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be
completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application
for the site.
40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the
timing identified above per condition of approval 12.
41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the
front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end
shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and
utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road
compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified
on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another
mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
39
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public
vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way.
This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be
recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of
Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation.
44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review
application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and
construction permit issuance.
/. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density
for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units
per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum
permitted density to be shared among the entire property.
[/. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted
for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common
landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved,
a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance
with the approved phasing plan.
III. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the
proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and
Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on
the recording Binding Site Plan.
IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the
Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a
Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD
issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed
baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project
changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C I O.
V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials
to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G! I for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the
Community Services Administrator.
VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered
common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed
pursuant to condition of approval 3.
VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian
pathway system, including an evaluation of on-site crosswalks to ensure
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
40
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate
compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved
pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon
recording.
VlII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active
recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review
and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion
of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot.
IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation
measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including
but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special
landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community
Services.
X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a
crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-
of-way.
XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the fonn of bike racks for commercial and
public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent ofthe
required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be
provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design.
XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B 1 0, G3,
02, 010, Gil and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department.
Xlll. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the
amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16.
XIV. Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the
design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above
under XIII.
XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated
conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan
Reviewer:
a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property
frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The
existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to
the location of the proposed new Road A.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be
within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot
buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the
building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area.
c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main.
d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100-shoreline buffer.
e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton
regulations.
XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access
from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive
signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane
and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots
2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new
public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant
public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking
agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying
compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F 12. The TDM and shared
parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division.
XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and
Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the
specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of
project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the
roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of
any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
24 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
25
26
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the
hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
42
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
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Decision issued May 9,2017.
PhlA:Oibrechts
Hearing Examiner
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
43
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI1Y AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, EXHIBITS
Project Name: Project Number:
Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Date of Hearing
April 18, 2017
Staff Contact
Vanessa Dalbee, Current
Planning Manager
Project Contactl Applicant
Campbell Mathewson,
Century Pacific, L P., 1201
Third Ave, suite 1680,
Seattle, WA 98101
The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing:
Exhibits 1-18: Hearing Examiner Staff Report (April 2016) and Exhibits
Exhibit 19 -23: Memo to the Hearing Examiner (April 2017) and Exhibits
Exhibit 24: Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017
Exhibit 25: Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Exhibit 26: Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
Exhibit 27: City of Renton COR maps and GIS data:
Project location
Parcel 2924059002. South
of the Sea hawks VMAC
Training Facility
http://rp.rentonwa.gov/SilverlightPubliclViewer.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 Pl. 0
Exhibit 38: June 1, 2016 Site Plan PO. 0
Exhibit 39: April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 11, 2017
TO: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09-1S1
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 40.9S units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurantj,
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
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 fol/owing FOF's are identified with letters to eliminate and
confusion with the original staff report)
a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
(Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative
would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95
units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant), 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parkingfcommerciallevel. 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 ofthe Development Agreement. If
the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should
be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner should be completed.
c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS
Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced
Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis
determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are
within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 3 of7
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 SFwhich 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 recydables 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.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 4 017
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, Storm water: The
Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1,
2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated
stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff
recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be
removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable
stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction.
viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The
Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate S,829 daily, 435 AM peak
hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would
represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak
our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative.
Additionally, the center left-turn lane that was included as a part of
Street 'A' is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this
turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated
January 12, 2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The
analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the
Enhanced Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the
Street 'A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a
result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly.
Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency
Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The
Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the
Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in
the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With
implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the
1-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not
anticipated
ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development
Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public
use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying
that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An
easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site
plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the site.
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 stoff report are to remain except 05
identified below:
10. The project AFt expiration date shall be as identified in the Development
Agreement. Exhibit 20set 8'1 tAe i-IeariRg lilEaR'liRer fer tAe Master §ite PlaR, see ~Q~ 2e.
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 ofthe April 2016 staff
report and any new conditions or modified conditions below.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition
that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing
Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering
the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff
report to the Hearing Examiner.
Amended Conditions of Approval:
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage
improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped
planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east-north side. The new private
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 7
April 11, 2017
access to be located at the Ripley Lane (5eahawks Way) access shall include 8
feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the
access. These off-site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed,
and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
22. 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 shall be completed
at site plan review.
32. AR'( ellteRsisR ts tAe f3FsjeEt af3f3rs'/ea beysREI JaRblaFy 1, 2Q22 SF bYilaiRg aRa
eSAstrbletisR Ja€FFAits st::liaFAittea tRat '1181:1118 e)(teReJ t~e ~rejeet ae'tf8R8 JaRblary
1, 2Q22 sAall be sybjeet ts tAe Yf3E1ateEl stsFFR'NateF FRaRlJal, iR effeet at tAe
tifRe.,
41. A f3lJblie f3FBFReRaae 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 f3FBFReRaEle fire lane and utility
maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture,
public art, water features, etc. Design of the flFSFReRaaeS fire lane and utility
maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at
the time of lot specific site plan review.
43. t'.R eaS€FA€Rt 5Rall Be S€€b1F€8 frsFA l<iRg (SbiAty SF etl:l€r -A:itI::tF€ I3F8f3erty 9'Ia'R€rS
sf tAB rail Feas rigAt sf 'Nay 1:8 Jar9'1iaea 'Jei=liel:llar aAEI peeestriaR aeeess 1:8 tA€
!3FSI38S€e aevelSI3FAeRt aeress tR€ rig At sf 'Nay. TAB eaS8FA€Rt sRall Be Aetes SA
tAe fiAal eiRsiRg site ,alaR aRB sRall be reesreleel eSREbiFFeAtly with the biREiiRg site
~ Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for
public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the
right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan
and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already
recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access
documentation.
44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of
the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior
to a Record of Decision (ROD) aREI NR9 SettleFReRt completed by the EPA. A
copy of the final ROD aRa ~JR9 SettleFReRt issued by the EPA shall be submitted
to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct
and additional 5EPA review or major project changes are not necessary as
required in Mitigation Measure Cl0.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of7
April 11, 2017
44. XIV. A traAsllSFtatisA st\,ls'{ sAallee 6SFRIlIetes ts aAal,{ze tAe Rees fer a 6eAter
t~rA laAe iA Flsas A. 9slleAsiAg \,IlleR tAe elJtEeFRe sf tAis st\,lS'f, Road A street
designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane aE6sFsiAgly 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; Z)
A ll~eliE IlF8FReAaSe fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake
side of the development of Lots Z 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
sign age shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on
the project site.
44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review
and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both
the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions
of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located
in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and
constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure
construction.
44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval
of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vanessa,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday, April 17, 2017 5:52 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Quendall Homes
This communication will be disclosed at tomorrow's hearing. I want to give you a chance to prepare a response
to a jurisdictional question I will be asking you tomorrow:
RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), pasted below, provides that if a binding site plan is merged with a development
agreement. the City Council applies the binding site plan standards. Consistent with this, RMC 4-7-230(D(4),
pasted below, authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on significant binding site plans except
when merged with development agreements. From these provisions, it appears that once a binding site plan is
merged with a DA, the City Council makes the final decision on the site plan and also holds the hearing on
it. How did staff come to a different conclusion? Also, how does staff reconcile the one hearing rule of RCW
36.70B.060, pasted below, with the request to re-open the hearing if the DA is not adopted? What happens if
the DA is revised instead of rejected?
RMC 4-7 -230(H)2. Review Authority: Pursuant to chapter 4-8 RMC, the Community and Economic Development
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section, unless the
applicant elects to have the binding site plen application merged with a Type III permit site plan application or
a development agreement under chapter 36.70B RCW. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a Type
III site plan, then the Hearing Examiner is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this
Section. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the City Council is hereby
authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. The final decision on
a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No administrative
appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. If a binding site plan is merged with a planned urban development
application, the review authority shall be determined pursuant to RMC 4-9-150. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5519, 12·14-
2009; Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012)
RMC 4-7-230(1)4. Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with
a development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by residents in the area of
the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the
Hearing Examiner for public hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing will be given as
for a Type III permit hearing. Binding site plans merged with development agreements shall be approved by City Council
pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. (Ord. 5519, 12-14-2009)
RCW 36.708.060
Local governments planning under the growth management act to establish integrated and
consolidated project permit process-Required elements.
Not later than March 31, 1996, each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall
establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project permit process that may
EXHIBIT 24
1
be included in its development regulations. In addition to the elements required by RCW 36.70B.050,
the process shall include the following elements:
(1) A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW 36.70B.070;
(2) A notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required by
RCW 36.706.110;
(3) Except as provided in RCW 36.708.140, an optional consolidated project permit review
process as provided in RCW 36.706.120. The review process shall provide for no more than one
consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision
hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent
open record appeal hearing;
(4) Provision allowing for any public meeting or required open record hearing to be combined with
any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the project by another local, state,
regional, federal, or other agency, in accordance with provisions of RCW
• 36.70B.090 and 36.706.110;
(5) A single report stating all the decisions made as of the date of the report on ali project permits
included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing
and any recommendations on project permits that do not require an open record predecision hearing.
The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the
agency's authority under RCW 43.21 C.060. The report may be the local permit. If a threshold
determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the local
govemment, the report shall include or append this determination;
(6) Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21 C.075, if a
local govemment elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determinations or project permit
decisions, the local govemment shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing
on such appeal. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an
appeal for some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is provided after the open record
hearing, it shall be a closed record appeal before a single decision-making body or officer;
(7) A notice of decision as required by RCW 36.70B.130 and issued within the time period
provided in RCW 36.70B.080 and' 36.708.090;
(8) Completion of project review by the local govemment, including environmental review and
public review and any appeals to the local government, within any applicable time periods under
*RCW 36.70B.090; and
(9) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter or
chapter 43.21C RCW.
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Vanessa,
FredWarnock <frednock@comcast.net>
Monday, April 17, 2017 4:30 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Denis Law; Chip Vincent; Jay B Covington
Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Follow up
Flagged
EXHIBIT 25
Thanks for your quick response to my email. Unfortunately for us we were gone February through
March and did not get your March notice of the meeting. We have our mail forwarded while we are
gone, but it's hit and miss. Your document didn't get to us. We don't receive the Renton Reporter. so
we didn't get that notice as well. All that being said, I would like you to put my comments into the
record as follows ............... ..
1. How is the city or state going to deal with the addition of 600 plus cars pouring into Lake
Washington Blvd, when we currently have back ups on the boulevard a mile long during rush hour?
2. It would appear that the majority of the traffic will use 43rd St as access to and from
Quendall. Why not divert more of the traffic to the other two exits rather than 43rd St, which is the
main entrance to Barbee Mill?
Best regards
Fred Warnock
From: "Vanessa Dolbee" <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>
To: "FredWarnock" <frednock@comcast.nei>
Cc: "Denis Law" <DLaw@Rentonwa.gov>, "Chip Vincent" <CVincent@Rentonwa.gov>, "Jay B
Covington" <Jcovington@ Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 20171:42:04 PM
Subject: RE: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Fred,
Thank you for your e-mail. I am assuming you are referring to the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development Project,
City File number LUA09-151. There are two projects going to public hearing tomorrow, so please let me know if my
assumption is incorrect. In terms of public notice for the Quendall Terminal public hearing, the original notice was sent
to all parties of record on March 16, 2017 as a part of the attached "off hold notice". Notice of the Public Hearing was
also provided in the Renton Reporter, published on April 7, 2017. The letter sent out last week was simply providing a
reminder to all parties of record of the hearing date and providing notice of the availability of an updated Staff Report
transmitted to the Hearing Examiner. The project staff report to the Hearing Examiner describing the proposal has been
1
available on the City's website for over a year, since the cancellation of the original proposed hearing date of April 19,
2016.
Understanding, attending a Tuesday morning public hearing can be difficult due to work schedules, I am happy to enter
your written public comments into the record if you cannot attend. Please e-mail me your comment prior to the start of
the public hearing tomorrow at 10;00 am and I will ensure that they are submitted into the record for the Hearing
Examiner to consider when making a decision on this project.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
'Vanessa 'lJo(bee, Current Planning Manager
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-7314
From: FredWarnock [mailto:frednock@comcast.netj
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 201711:11 AM
To: CenturyLink Customer
Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; hong clair; Mitchell, Mary; Denis Law; Len Reid; Connell, Carol; harrylharden
Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Dear Ms Dolbee
I guess what bothers me about this public hearing is the short notice. The letter notice is dated
the 11th of April and we received it on Friday the14th. That gives us one working day before the
public hearing to try and prepare numerous questions about the Quendall project. In the past the
meetings were set up with at least with one months notice, only to be cancelled at the last moment.
cannot attend the meeting because I can't adjust my schedule on such short notice. Along with the
questions on the attached email from the the Taylors, I still can't find out how Renton intends to deal
with the traffic problems that will be created by dumping close to 600 cars into a traffic pattern that is
backed up at least one mile on Lake Washington Blvd during the moming commute. The other
issues that concern our Barbee Mill residents are the impact on property values and traffic being
diverted into the Barbee Mill development. So many questions so little time to get answers.
Best regards
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PL
Renton, WA 98056
From: "CenturyLink Customer" <cw7mm@g.com>
To: "Vanessa Dolbee" <vdolbee@rentonwa.gov>
Cc: "hong clair" <hong.clair@epa.gov>, "Fred & Cheryl Warnock" drednock@comcast.net>,
"Donohue Patrick" <presidentbarbeemillhoa@outlook.com>
EXHIBIT 26
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
CenturyLink Customer <cw7mm@q,com>
Saturday, April IS, 2017 5:15 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Subject:
hong.clair@epa.gov; Fred & Cheryl Wamock; Donohue Patrick
Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Ms. Dolbee:
Follow up
Flagged
My wife and I are unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday morning regarding this topic so we are sending
some thoughts/questions for consideration and response in lieu of our attendance.
Please see items of concern/questions regarding Cugini Proposal to Stockpile Soil at Quendall Terminal Site
Who will monitor the noise?
What will be the vibration and noise decibel sound limits?
Noise and vibration limits may need to be adjusted to meet community needs.
How will vibration affect the homes along the property lines during construction? Which homes will be
monitored for structural cracks and settlement from vibration?
How much setback from the property lines of existing homes for start of sediment stockpile? Should be
made known to owners but shouldn't come up against fence line separating properties. {Note: The
property line is not the same as where the fence is located. It extends beyond the fenceline.} Wood
rot will occur on the north side of the fence if soil is piled up against fence. Also, for aesthetic reasons,
Barbee Mill residents are requesting that stockpile not exceed middle of fence in height.
Will stockpile be covered with plastic sheeting per regulation?
Please provide City of Renton contacts during construction and on site construction inspector for EPA.
Work hours should be the same as in Seattle 7:00 AM -6:00 PM; Saturday work should be eliminated.
Construction access should have a wheel wash at exit point. How will contaminated soil track out be
controlled during temporary sediment stockpile placement?
Entry and exit should not be at N42nd PL where Barbee Mill residents exit to Lake Washington Blvd.
What has EPA proposed as a preferred cleanup, and what will be done to mitigate the effect on Barbee
Mill Community?
I was informed earlier that no one could enter the site without proper HAZMAT Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE). Does this still apply for temporary stockpile?
Has the Feasibility Study been approved by EPA? Please provide their comments/ recommendations.
I will await your responses to my questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Taylor
1252 N 42 nd PL
Renton, WA 98056
1
d II 1r\~ II!I I uen*"8.aC~~ 81, ermlna· s
"'9·1" 1) ~~"J$1 ,/~ ,/ i
;,. ""~,~" 'R 'J' ~,; ,., , '
HEX Public Hearing
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
April 18, 2017
EXHIBIT 29 vUlllmunify and Economic Development
resentati '1!l
Fl· <0"
• Project Description -Enhanced
Alternative & Development Agreement
• Background
• Renton Municipal Code Analysis
-Compliance
-Conditions
• Staff Recommendation
RENTON
.\IIF;\D ()F T!tr. r:t'RVF
Applications:
1) Master Site Plan
2) Binding Site Plan
3) Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
4) Development Agreement
Environmental Impact Statement
Completed
-FEIS issued August 2015
-Mitigation Document issued
August 2015
-Consistency Analysis For
Enhanced Alternative issued
March 2017
The application is vested to
regulations from February 10,
2010, ORO 5520 (including the
SMP -amended in 1983)
RENTON
AIIE:\D or THE CORV'E
'!Jff f7!
j;:1 ,_<A',
;.> ~
~ tr1 >
'" :;; z
-;
l-j = ,-,
"' 0 '-:
" '"' Z 0
TRACK
:ACjj.
---~------~--
l.4'-cw
'4SIfINGrON
-':"'.;::r/: t'll\t'll\.ttll';~';~·;~~~;;'~~~~~~~tlliI~"'~<'i!I;
H ' j" fH;,,· l' ,-, . ., "",-~ R EN T oN' "Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
:\'fEAD OF THE Ct'HVE
iii 'itt
!'J i<[
;<t
• COR Zone and Urbar
Shoreline Environmer
• 21.24 acre site
• 7 lots - 4 with mixed
use buildings
• 692 multi-family
residential units
• 33,190 SF of
retai I/Commercial
• 9,000 SF of restauran
• Density 40.95 dulac
• Parking for 1,352
vehicles
• *Superfund site subje
to EPA regulations
~>. @.::~,
.'($' ~.~ !'iI
3END
~-------
I --.-~--,.-----------....~~ __
:lLANO SETBACK
HWNSETBACK
~ND EDGE
N 42 nd Place
<Cl,f.
(SIt-v.,
l.4kl'W"" ~S""NGlON
I ~ 1!l1Ii~_"",
N '
=~~' ~~~"'~4I\!"""1ilii~;i;~~·~1'll\,!~~~1'll\t<,,~ "''''''''''
~.f ' Rail road ROW -"' King. Co.
Cl
RENTON ·s/v~ r Ripley Lane (Sea hawks
Way) .\!lE;\D OF TilE Cl:RVF Access Point
>" x»"1 ~
Pedestrian Trail
Access Point
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
"
, -
"
"Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
BlJILD'NG "lV'12 BUfLD'NG ~I.'\; 1
PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON ------
*Final elevation design will be reviewed at Site Plan review.
RENTON
-\HEi\1) OF THE CeRVI:
)
II ~
;)jjl
<J
1
J ' , i r. I
! <'I
I ,
i
"IG"~
<0"":0
~
D~"j
'Overview
.~ Applicant: Extended time frame beyond the 5 years permitted by code
and associated vesting of development regulations
•
I i
~. City/Public: Project Enhancements -designed to provide a public
benefit
RENTON
:\!IE .. \1} (}V TII.E CeRYl:
,-('-,
."
I
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 TransportaLJ.A·,,~ <~) 0
r:a:"T 0 N ~~.
AHEAD OF l·BE CCgvt; -...#,N t
• .=....D_.
, --,--,---.'------.-----~-----~-
TlJ\NO SETBACK
HWN SETBACK
\NO EDGE
VlKP&1<
"1SHINGlb,v
!:1 ",,,
Project Elements
:1 . Collaborate with the
developer on a public
---------d ock/ pie r
• Permitting -City
• Funding, construction
I .". -"' c -.~. ".' •••.• ;, r""""'j CI"_ .''''''!lIt mitigation-developer '. . "'.'~'.? .•.• ,: l'{:::'"~.' cr*,"~ &:t.j::";; 'oJ. if : ~,i;;;\~. } •• '.-.: ~".'<' ,--,.,._ 'tit :~ I ... ~::.'; -,.-. , " .... :-;~.,'.... "2~i": .1", -~ e·· -~"<\ I.... Ii .. iF ;_ ~ ~. at a::~:s ~ -:-: ~~:.~ WI, • _ ~-c-·~-l "",~'< <! ..... ,. t~; 'e' ~~. '~',~i:·." ~:' ~."Y ~'-' '_J' ,1.'1'> ~"-c .... <'1>0 •• ,.. b1-
.' . ...... ... .... ··L. . /-• '-----r_ .. fbi' • '--,::, ',,' '~4!~'!-n,-.. ,,-.-:-,-"'-.'-::.' :,:,--,,.,~.. r ~ ~ , ... -=--~":'c::-,---. ~ •
• ":.' .. >"':-" '.,.!'...,\I. eA .1i'.il ... l'li...... 1.3 acres 0 a pu IC par
in the southwest corner
of the site
_ "',,' ,,~,_,_, ,', "._ f," .)
:;~"'Ilj::··~··i~:,;i,.J .. ,F~~ .. ~~_t:,:~'~1Pj'1 9 ~'!t ..
@: ,¢j .~~ ~.!fl _ .-))~' ~,.,., """~ r1f>."'" .1tl!1it!""",~"""~"",,,!, ~t!¥; '" t!¥;t!¥;"" ~fi' """
(:, r ..... .
RENT~ "Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
:\lfF/\D OF l'TtE Ct.'RVE
<4-rl' '1r4SJfI"
"GrON
~~:r~I!'~JfI!I~;'~tf'tlI!>~&JfI!I~I!'~~~~JfI!I"""r$'1Jf1!1.m.
j'r-'· .. ...
"Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
RENTON
:\HF:\D OF Tlrr CCRVF
Project Elements
"* ~-'Ffk'-m%
--,-.w »,,-~lt!
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%
• Former creosote manufacturing
facility that operated from
1917-1969
• Past coal tars and creosote
have contaminated soil,
groundwater, surface water
and lake sediments
• In 2005 DOE transferred the
oversight to the EPA
• The site received a Superfund
designation from EPA
• The EPA is conducting a
remedial investigation and
feasibility study. Which will
lead to a ROD.
RENTON
\J1L;\n or THF. Ct.'RVE
• 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.
RENTON
,\HEAH ov THE ceRVE
-"'=,"""-
11
.;:/>#' "~ ,J"
B~ ,,,,,,,"-'4' <>wc;:;
I
I I OLWM--"
I
I OHWM
I
L.. •• : ...
W:!!ve Atte"Ultl~n Rf"rm§ ~'
RENTON
,\llE .. \(} e)F THE CL'RVE
fbase~i
~~,
Wetland Recreation
-,
"':~;l
Figure 2-6 DE IS
Wetland I
~ t"i
Soil Cap
• This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS.
• Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum beyond
100 ft. setback.
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design
/
Wave AttenuaUon BErm
RENTON
,\HF.-\)) OF THE crRVE
[!]
• I!O
t;;;;;r-. "._ ! 5<.0.
"-A~duc'" WgI'nd Suff., I\n!a
We1I.nd Outr.r Ama ~ ~ .
\r'-Incr ... od Wothn~ Buffer I\n!a ...... .
Figure 2-7 DEIS
1i!I
I "" !!l ~_4
Wetland Recreation
Buffer Averaging
Trail with
view points
• This figure shows
conceptual desigr
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffe
which was requirE
by the EPA after
Public Comment (
the DE IS.
• Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum for the
Preferred Alternat
Buffer Width Averaging Wetland D
~ !'I
Determination of Significance (OS) issued on February 19, 2010-EIS Process begar
"Il'~'ll1f~~~~
EIS Public Seoping Period, 70 days (extended)
Public Scoping Meeting
DEIS Issuance
DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended)
DEIS I>ublic Hearing
EIS Addendum Issuance
EIS Addendurn Public Comment Period
FEIS Issuance
EIS Public Appeall>eriod
Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back
Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Appellant and Applicant
Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal Signed by the Hearing Examiner. Appeal
Dismissed.
ConSistency Analysis Issuance for Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
RENT~
\lit~.\!) or TilE Cl:nV\
... lIII I nIClnfi.~.
• Comprehensive Plan Compliance
• Zoning Compliance
;
• Design District Review
.' Critical Areas
• Master Site Plan Review w,.II~'"
, 1""::);';1;,
.• ~inding Site Plan
• Availability of Public Services
• Shoreline Regulations
RENTON
,\ fiE." D OF Tlll~ Ct7RVF
lID-
[';f ~ , ,
<-<.'",
'l'S) g
,'1 IT!
64 Conditions of Approval Recommend by Staff
Primary:
-Compliance with the Mitigation Document
-. Phasing/Site Plan Review
• Design Standards Compliance
• Access/Roadways (vehicular and pedestrian)
• Binding Site Plan (recording)
Secondary:
• Utilities
• Code/Landscaping
RENTON
.\HE.-\n or THE CCRVh
St, af,'f~' "",'",' '''l0'-~
~
~
~ !fflJ;
~ nm
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
RENTON
,\HE,\D OF THE CllRVE
Condition 6
and 27:
Critical Areas
Regulations
Baseline Assumptions,
assumed all recreated
wetland and their
associated buffers
would fit within
Binding ~Ite plan lots 1 -
and 6.
Baseline
Assumptions
RENTON
,\UE:\O OF THE CeRVI:
Staff
.. ~
LH T ,."", -1_-.....
"1~-=,,~
t
::0«1_
• :wi'
~ ~
,
'.:.1_1 HnJ"" Is. .... I;'
/
/
~--
/-""
(~!IOm IffJ ~rJ.:~--___ ~.N.Jm.iJ4'Z'l
i>k..~~ -t;"1r----
Staff An
Condition 27:
Critical Areas Regulations
1) The outcome of the ROD and NRD Settlement details
are not known at this time.
2) This conditions is need so impacts of the proposed
development will comply with the City's critical areas
regulations following the ROD and NRD Settlement.
RENTON
,\llEAJ) OF THE CURVE
!I1\l '!ill
~~!M 11m
;.-~ = t.'! tTj. ~
" " z '" -< ;-oj ~
~ 0 '" "" z :-:;
r-:::u n OJ I'D 0 A .c I'D C :::s
:E _. c.. ..,
OJ I'D -.
Vl Vl r+
::::r OJ
_.
0 _.
~ """h _. :::s Otl ..,
r-t I'D .a::::. a
~ OJ ~ ~ •• I'D
OJ
~ a.
c
r-t
r-t -<
3
OJ -.
~
r-t
I'D
~
OJ
~
(")
I'D
OJ .'~irl
(")
(")
I'D
Vl
Vl .., a
OJ a. ~tj
OJ -a
~
Otl
Sta
Condition 41:
-!-n~ ,I;f~~", ~i,< ~
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.
~
RENTON
;\1tE;\f) OF THE CVt\VE
,~~2J;
Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline
Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the
conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified
conditions.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that
if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner
will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner.
RENTON
\!lE.-\!) or 'filII ct;RVE []
-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
------Kenton ®
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
EXHIBIT 30
• •
QUENDALL TERMINALS
ENTITLEMENTS HEARING
MASTER PLAN REVIEW
BINDING SITE PLAN
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
CITY OF RENTON
APRIL 18,2017
EXHIBIT BINDER #1: SUPPLEMENTAL
APPLICANT EXHIBITS
--~""Renton ®
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
EXHIBIT 31
Expertise:
• Development traffic impact
analyses under SEPA
• Transportation analyses of
large master planned
developments
• Experience managing multiple
team members
• Experience managing on-calf
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
B5, Civil Engineering, Univer.;ity of
Colorado, 1977
Professional registrations
and licenses::
PE, Washington, #25888, 1989
PE, Colorado, #23125, 1985
I7rofessional Associations
Institute of Transportation·
Engineers (ITE)
Contact
larry.toedtli@comcastnet
,lV!'!$
"!'if', -'
Larry recently retired .as a principal at Tr~nspo 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 RidgelTrilogy/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
Orton Junction Urban Growth Area EIS, Sumner, WA
Larry managed the transportation.analysis for the EIS rnithis 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/lndustrial 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-S 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-S and interchanges at Main Street and Slater Road.
Pacific Ridge Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS, Des Moines
Larry assisted the City of Des Moines in evaluating the transportation-related
impacts associated with 4,200 additional dwelling units and 6,900 additional
employees located within the Pacific Ridge subarea. To mitigate impacts, a variety
of strategies were identified, including a reduction in the amount of new
development, creation of a transit and transportation demand management
program, and/or funding and building necessary improvement projects through
one or more Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) or Transportation Benefit Districts
(TBDs). The Planned Action Ordinance took into account the City's impact fee
requirements and street standard requirements.
LANCE MU·El L E R &A S SOC I ATE S .
Education:
Professional
Registrations:
Experience:
Responsibility:
Representative
Projects:
, .-.
BOB WELLS
ASSOCIATE
Bachelor of Architecture -1969
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
Licensed Architect, State of Washington, USA -1975
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.
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.
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
LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES
BOB-WELLS
P AG 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.
•
LANCE MUELLER& ASSOCIATES
Education:
Professional
Registration:
Professional
Affiliations:
Experience:
Responsibility:
Honors:
•
LANCE MUELLER, AlA
PRESIDENT
University of Washington
College of Architecture -1962-1967
Licensed Architect, State of Washington, 1973.
Other States; California, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon.
Certificate -National Council of Architectural Registration Boards,
1974.
Member -American I nstitute of Architects
Lambda Alpha International Land Economics Honorary
International Conference of Building Officials
1965 to 1970: Worked in three small Seattle architectural
firms.
1970 to present: Joined Richard Bouillon & Assoc.lArchitects 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.
Project conceptual and preliminary design and design development.
Project administration, contractual agreements and general office
administration.
National Association of Industrial and Office Parks
2005 Hall of Fame Inductee
EXHIBIT 35
...
~ ~o-
"
~ "t-O
"0;,
<?, ,"" ~, q,
LEGEND
OHWM
50' OHWM SETBACK
100' OHWM SETBACK
-~
~
~ DUMPSTER I RECYClE BlN
fiiE LmLITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
!:'§l LOBBY AREA
AREA SUMMARY
FRoMCOlORLEGEND
33,:l9O SF (RETAIL) ~ c::J RETAil AND RESTAURANTS
9,000 SF (RESTAURANTS)
9PEN SPACE AREAS
21.797 S,F,{0.50AC.) ~ rm PEDfSTRIANPROMENADE
65,565 S.F. (1.5 AC.) ~ 0 PEDESTRIAN CIRCUlATlON
129,1.22 S.F. (2.96 AC,) ~ rn SITE lANDSCAPE, PARK AND OPEN SPACE
148,170 5.F. (3.4 AC.) ~ I'm 100' SHOREUNE 5ETBACK
50,725 S.F. (1.2 AC.) ~ D LOT 7 (ISOLATED)
21-10 nOOR SITE lAHDSC~PE \f'O,O)
146,574 S.F. (3.36 AC.
• 561.953 S.f. (12.9 AC.) TOTAL
~
"%-
l4KEWA •
-vHINGrOJ\l
9c \
"
/
'C ~C3:> r; ?:
"c, "'-::: ~.O", q, <I'~
~ Q>L.
'?"
• S'OO:; lONE
1":=-----" ~ ( GRADE LEVEL PLAN
8L VD IlRAPH,C SC.-Il! .'
"'\ 'C'wr""'p
SCAl!, 1 ~ "" ."
;-
'/'
Site & Building Summary:
loI!In;~(O~ _ ....... /OO"fP.<:
o.e._'l'P"'HR)
C",,"IIIC6ooTfpl
I,,,.,..,t",,"r~"""';-"'I
yl'.f<r" .... "",P.""",·"·",. .. ,,..,,,""'''''1
Statlstles~
BuOdl"g ft.ru SU""""Y'
_."IIoIU.'tll'''''''1~ ~"'~""'~""'lr ' .... ,"" ......... '-'" ....... ,... -~~ ....... , --'''",' '0,,,,,,, ... ,, ,"'"," .",,.. .',,,, ,.""',
,;.'" .... "'~<O
"'-"'" "'" 1:11'" ~: ~; ::;:
.. "" »-~ ... it> ,'.ol< "" 'OO" "...., ,.~, '.'.'" Wl,,..,,''''''--.. ....
"'''_ .... iE_ .... ~ .. ''''''''''' .. ''''''_" r,:,_~-= ~, ... "." ""-I~,,!~ ;c.",,,,,,,
"~~{:..".noor ....
111',",'" , .. ~"""_"'"""'_
SItoh •• SIlllllllOly.
0", .. ",,-""~_
-,
~"
"
" , . .
~frtoOl"""
"""'" ,...' ... I"' .... , .. ''' ... ~"""""""""""-
~""I"gSU",m.,,:
r.<I;oog~yu""
~ -'" ~--
"~ "'''''''''''''''''M'
P,_P ... ,,,. ,----t.,.""~,....,,
"""'<'~ ::;:""
~:::~;:
-illl..," ,-.....
~.-' ;;:.
""''',' --
$Io,I·""~
<'
'<'
<'
" ;~
.-~~~~""' .... )"",."~ ...
~!>f<"~~
{lifiC+;,o<",,'_
-.... ;;~:,,',~:
...,...,..~",,,~
~ ""'''''''" ,;;i' '~-;;,;,.;,;
'~~ 50,725sf \~~tL-, .. "" ,-
~o
/
QUENDALL TERMINALS ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP EXHIBIT 37
<
"''01 l~~i
Ul
..J «
Z
2' ,C
0:-
W
I----
..J_
..J -«
0 z
W
::::J a
~I
,
~
P1.
11-'1-0'
"jtJ"""jtJ""J!<UNDAU.I"'-O
0
C m
Z
0 » , ,
-I m
:::0 s:: -z
O::U » mm,
ZZcn -f-f CO ::u Z I ~~m »»z OW -II ""11 _
_ O~ »
r-fZ ro
C{jZ()
m o
»
~I I\) z
0
r-
!;2
m r-
\ "tI s;:
Z
'-I .;.",~ '------.
\~
W m co
:::0
Z
~
< m
lJQ[lJ!;I1!J
• • 6 3 0 ~ ~ C • ~ • > ~ ~ Z ~ > 0 ~ 0 > ~ , g " • • , ~ ~ '" ,
> • § ~ • > " -z 0 z
0 ~ 0 ~ •
0
~ ~
~ • 0 r-• ~ 0 m
0 " • '" ~ • • m • 0 Z • iii 0 iii > !l 0 •
r ~
,
§i:~~8!; ~# I
Ii 1,
'I
i 10: of!
i!' i:
! j'
J
QUENDALL TERMINALS "','1-":-;'""""
AB -1881
R CITYOF ~. ------------. en ton ~
. City Council Regularc Meeting-03 Apr-201T
SUBJECT/TITLE:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPARTMENT:
STAFF CONTACT:
EXT.:
• FISCAL 1M PACTSUMMARY~
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Quendall Terminals Public Hearing
Council Concur
Community & Economic Development
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
7314
The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use application have requested the City consider a
Development Agreement. The Land Use application consists of a request for Master Site Plan, Binding Site
Plan, a Shoreline Permit, and now a Development Agreement for the construction of a mixed-use
development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190
square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces, and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space.
A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the subject land use application on April 18, 2017. The requested
Development Agreement establishes the new Enhanced Development Alternative and allows for an extended
time frame for the land use entitlements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10
years, with a possible 5 year extension, for a total of 15 years. A public hearing is required to be held by City
Council when considering a Development Agreement. However, there is an opportunity to consolidate the
required public hearing for the Development Agreement with the public hearing for the land use entitlements
with the City's Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the public hearing process for both the land use
entitlements and the development agreement, the public will be able to comment on both the development
project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing. Second, the Hearing Examiner
would have the benefit of considering all aspects of the project and associated public comments when making
a decision on the land use entitlements and a recommendation to City Council. A consolidated public hearing
process would streamline and simplify the public process for the overall project. The final decision authority
on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the
City's Hearing Examiner.
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
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 QuendaliTerminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED •••
Additional Legal Description on Page lS of Document (exhibit A)
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number" 2924059002 OR 0 NOT YET ASSIGNED
. .
•••• •
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT("Agreement")byand between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipa(corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALLTERMINA~S, 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 arethe Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-1S1, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Pagel
...
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 posNemediation 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 ofthe 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 PolicyAct, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"),
the City issued a Draft.Environmentallmpact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developerdeveloped 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, 20l2,which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
Draft QuendaJ/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City's Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the "Project-level SEPA Review."
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____ -', 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the. community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideratiol1'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.DEI'INITIONS.
Development Reguhitions mean those.regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC') in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternativemeans the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
Draft auendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development ofthe 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 so percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction
("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
Draft auendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy ofthe 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 shalrresult 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.rnitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts,
3.1.5 BuildingSW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3shail be constructed atno more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed atno more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The. Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31,2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also. will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
component5-. 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 publicfacilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development oHots 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 ofthis;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 ofthe 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 oftime.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft auendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would
delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.708.170(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 extenfauthorized by law as an exercise of
the City's authority to enter into such agreements, andthis 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 ofthis Agreement is determiriedto be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law,then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties tothe 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 themodificationto 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 orretains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different addressor person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement PageS
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Petersori P .5.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 9810L
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 Agreementshall be brought in King'County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple. Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdfcounterparts, 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 maya mediator who
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
Draft Quendafl Terminals Development Agreement Poge 10
Denis Law
Mayor
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this __ day of _______ -->, 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By: _________ _
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By: ______ -'--__ ~
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ___________ _
CITY OF RENTON
By:, __________ _
Date: __________ _
ATTEST:
By:, __ ~ _______ __
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Draft Quendall Terminals Develapment Agreement Page 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___ _
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _ )
On this __ day of .2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of , County of , personally appeared ______ ----'
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument inthe 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): ________ _
Myappointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
STATE OF ___ _
COUNTY OF ___ _
) 55:
)
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 PUI;IlIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-l-Map
Draft auendall Terminals Development Agreement Poge 14
Exhibit A
SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING
LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
29;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5,
1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOUTH 56°28'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 59°24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A;
THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END
OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION;
ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF
LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY
NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE
HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964
UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER
RECORDING NO. 20080619001179.
11/ 11/2016
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546
BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03
11/11/16
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Page 15
300 0 150 300 .. _ ... : :
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 300 fL
~ ~&-
Exhibit A-I
TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9002-03
TRUE POINT--I--..
OF BEGINNING
TAX ACCT. NO. I
2405-9001-0'/
/ N66'2'12~~_1 -:--........ .,..
·11
.9.t.9.............. ~f:J1 n .... ':7f5>
'<.t'
100.01
I
POIN; ~;-
S~
~ ~
,,-&."'"
1i<\)'i.,~"'" ::..
",'<..~y 'b
"cv ..!.~ ~
0-.1;...7 ,f'
WATER MARK ...-G7
AT 18.8' ..... ,
ELEVATION <:' N30'5616"E
SW 1/4
SECTION 29,
T24N,45E
90.80'
N30'56'l
--r:"'" 'PLAT OF BARBEE -::iJ ill.l l}fOl. 246, PGS. 25-39,
-REC. NO. 20080208000182
I ,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
I
(SE 80TH ST) I ! CORNER
VAC N 44TH ST OF SEC. 29
REC. fI 7602260427: +1
1,113.05' I
- -963.31' r
VAC N 44T~ ST
GOV'T LOT 1 I
-""-BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. ~ LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
-2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 BRH SEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11/11/16
98102-3513 JOB NO.:2009050.03
Page 16
When Recorded, Return to:
CIIT CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
lOSS S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The Citv of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The Citv 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 D NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITI OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
___ ,2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property compriSing 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
"Initial Project Applications").
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City's Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the "Project-level SEPA Review."
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____ --', 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW TH EREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners'
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction
("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
Draft Quendall Terminals Develapment Agreement Page 4
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement PageS
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer's request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would
delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting to the extent mandated by
the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the
City of Renton.
5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City's authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Draft QuendaJ/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
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.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through
mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration.
The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case maya mediator who
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Poge 10
Denis Law
Mayor
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this __ day of _______ ---', 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By: _________ _
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By: _________ _
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ____________________ _
CITY OF RENTON
By: __________ __
Date: ____________________ _
ATTEST:
By: _________ _
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___ _
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _ )
On this __ day of .2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of . County of • personally appeared ______ ~
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft QuendaJ/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
STATE OF ___ _
ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _
On this __ day of ,2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-i-Map
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
Exhibit A
SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING
LYING WESTERLY Of THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
fOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
29;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE Of SAID LOT 5,
1,113.01 fEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIfIC
RAILROAD RIGHT-Of-WAY;
THENCE NORTH 29"44'54" EAST 849.62 fEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-Of-WAY
LINE TO A POINT HEREINAfTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOUTH 56°28'50" WEST 222.32 fEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 59°24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A;
THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END
OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION;
ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF
LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY
NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE
HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964
UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY Of RENTON, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER
RECORDING NO. 20080619001179.
11/11/2016
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546
BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03
11/11/16
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, :NC.
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Page 15
( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 300 ft.
~ ~§ S~
~ ~
SW
Exhibit A-I
29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9012-01
lRUE POINT --f.....
OF BEGINNING i
TAX ACCT. NO. ~292405-9001-0~
POIN;
'0,..",/ 1A\J~~/V
\}"~Y .1'<' ,:r
TAX ACCT. NO,
292405-9002-03
O~/
WATER MARK 8;;.-
AT 18.8' //
ELEVA110N (' N30'56'16"E
90.80'
I
-I. N66'1:~~2:~
/ SW 1/4
SECTION 29,
T24N,45E
DEEDED PER AFN ~uli -eo (SE 80TH ST) I i CORNER
20080619001179 I 1"',$ VAC N 44TH ST OF SEC. 29
._llLLW_Q.Ul___ 1016.36' L=57.25 " ty '00'~4-_ 1,113.05'
tF02'I'12"" 1 :9b,t REC. II 7602260427, 1-1
R=1500.00 \ 60 ~. f
I ~ _ _ PLAT OF BARBEE MILL • if 4' 963.31' ~ --.......... 1 \1 -::iJ ill.llJ.'Ol. 246, PGS, 25-39. ulc~ ~ ;;~; VAC N 44Tr ST
-REC. NO, 20080208000182 '~~ 1 'N28'4S'04"E '
1 I ~". / 18.10' GOV T LOT 1
, j I •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, Washington
98102-3513
(206) 323-4144
DATE: 11!11!1
JOB NO,
Page 16
15/
City of Renton
LAND USE PERMIT
v ly Of l">
PI . nentor
annlng o' . • IV/Sian
NOV 18 2009
MASTER APPLICATIONIR?~
PROPERTY OWNER(S) TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
(206) 757-8893
NAME: Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter (206) 757-7899 (fax)
&Co cmathewsontalcentwvDacificiD.com
ADDRESS: 800 S. Third Street PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Quendall Terminals .
CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 226-3900 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA 98045
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: Campbell Mathewson KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
2924059002
COMPANY (if applicable): Centruy Pacific, L. P.
EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant
ADDRESS: 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
PROPOSED LAND USE(S): CommerciaUOffice/Residenlial
CITY: Seattle, WA ZIP: 98101
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
TELEPHONE NUMBER (206) 757-8893 Commercial/Ollice/Residential
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
CONTACT PERSON (if applicable): CommerciaUOllicelResidential (unchanged)
NAME: Campbell Mathewson EXISTING ZONING: COR: Commercial/Office/Residential
COMPANY (if applicable): Century Pacific, L.P. PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): COR
SITE AREA (in square feet): 934,874 SF, 21.46 Ac
ADDRESS: 1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: 159,149 SF
CITY: Seattle, WA ZIP: 98101 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
N/A
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable): 46.4
C:\Documents and Settings\robertc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ConrentIE5\ADWJOPGJ\Quendall Tenninals Master Application City ofRenton[l].doc-t -
1
\
(,
PRt..JECT INFORMATION contin{-l , , -'
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 800 PROJECT VALUE:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (If applicable): ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A
Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A Q FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL Q GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft.
BUILDINGS(if appl):245,OOO SF (Office) 30,600 SF RetaiURest Q HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL Il!I SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 1,583 lin. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A -
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 1m WETLANDS 38768 sa. ft.
appl): 210,000 SF (Office) 27,500 SF RetalURest ,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
I SITUATE IN THE Southwest QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP ~ RANGE--.9., IN THE CITY OF
CC:~ITf'\~1 I<'ING I"O"NTY WASH'NGTON V ·, ... • .. ·-.. 1 ...... -,
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for:
1. Master Site Plan 3. Environmental Review
2. Site Plan Review 4, Shoreline Substantial Development Review
5. Binding Site Plan
Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Name/s) \..I,. f) if ~liD."" i I declare that I am (please check one) X the current owner of the property
involved in this application or __ the authorize<Hepresentative to act for a corporation lease attach proof of authorization) and that the for oi" (p eg 9
statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
1 certify that I know or have satisfaetol)' evidence that R 0 \ted eM a i n '\ (\ H k \ ;/ P . signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary ai!t for the
J!..i---:I/<.JI ... , ... ",-,.."J.=-"l· __ Y"c-"--'1~,-c=->=,..:,--_-... ~-,_~fl-,</;tt/I('~s and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
(~ignature of OWnerJRepres~tative) ~ ... ,,\\\\\\\\\\\111
. ~ I~
.:f" ........... eGA L. lJ """1 ~ 9;)'<) ",:,,\\\\\111111 V"" 'II
-I---....... """-"'4...J<.. ......... '-----''----'''--~-....,lt~_'''''~...' SION ~I'I' . ~ "~
(Signature of OWnerlRepresentative)
= ~ff* TA +.0'1
1; 0 ~ Notary Public In and for the State of Washing~n: ff 8 +0 of", t:~ 'Z _~
i'l he 00.-K8h--ffA4! g • " ln~: §
~(A;.o. E::
". """ 'I,: 0 QSL\Ci, -= ~ :; "P"< \:0" . """ -02-\ ,~-", : ~ IIIlll\\\\\\" .............. ~.A .:#
Notal)' (Print)'.J.-"="""~~=r-~~<;t;:-;-;--""..,'" ~..,
My appointment expire.: Ii? A S\,\\ _--,,---'--="'--"'-"'7-""""-'----.,.,.. '. \ .\\ "\, , ....... :', ....
C:\Documents and Settings\robertc\Locai Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ContenlIE5\ADWJOPGJ\Qu.endail Tenninals Master Application City ofRenton[1].doo-2 -
PROJECT INFORMATION conti~ued
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NlA
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): BOO PROJECT VALUE:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (If applicable): ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL a AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
BUILDINGS (~applicable): N/A
o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A a FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. fl.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL a GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. fl.
BUILDINGS(If appl):245.000 SF (Office) 30,600 SF Retail/Rest o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. fl.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON·RESIDENTIAL Il!I SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 1.583 lin. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NlA -
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if Il!I WETLANDS 38.768 sq. fl.
appl): 210,000 SF (Office) 27,500 SF Retail/Rest
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
SITUATE IN THE Southwest QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 2.1" RANGE....Q, IN THE CITY OF
RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for:
1. Master Site Plan 3. Environmental Review
2. Site Plan Review 4. Shoreline Substantial Development Review
5. Binding Site Plan
Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
" I, (Prlnt Name/s)! "ie,'!!: ~ knt.-tJl,El I declare that I am (please check one) _X_ the current O\vner of the property
involved In this application =--the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing
statements and answers hereirt contaIned and the information hereWith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowfedge and belief.
certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
si d this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/h-er"/tfl'-.7Ir""fr-:-•• c-aC"n-'-d v-o"'lv""nt:-ary-.ct'7',""o""", the
ses an urposes mentioned in the Instrument
Notary PUblic in and for the State of Washi tOn
(Signature of Owner/Representative)
Notary (Print)' ___________ _
My appointment expires: ________ _
C;\Documents IUId Settings\gbaxter\LocaJ Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK5B\Quendall Terminals Master Applicalion City of Renton.doc ·2·
)
CALIFORNIA ALL·PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California }
County of SOY) meek 0
On Oovemtet 10 2C6~efore me, Reifel! 19.[ IIAl1n rVMClfNr-;
Dol-"1 G ~~·/·'·t;Z;;;i·o""
personally appeared ---'-'-U=:...Y,"'9'1-'-i"'Ci,,'----La--"'-"'''''--'-<-i''''''=iinil'''':cl ,!o, s."g:::;".=~5'l~'-"--="----------
Place Nolary Seal Above
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to
be the person($} whose name~ isla~ subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that
hlifsheJth'fl). executed the same in "hlslher/tflejr authorized
capacity(iel;J., and that by hiil/herltl'!eir signatureW on the
instrument the person1s}, or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(G.) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
na re 0 MY Public
--------------------opnONAL-----------------r~----
Though /he ;nformation below is not required by law. it may prove valuable to persons relying on the d ent
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachmenl 01 this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
ntle or Type of Document: C i +1 d f J2grrtzVJ: I An d use oem 'f-/-Y11Wr App D ca:f7cn .
Document Date: /VOVrUrlh< r q 2 (),z<j ~umber of Pages: --1-G-,~~)",-_---_
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: --->#-~(;bA~l_Ue'--"-----------__________ _
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
/1 ,-;;:.;> ",
Signer's Name: (;;JeCYf'f, Ut?0'fT! 7
1)i'[ tndividual
,z£.JtSfsigner's Name' ____________ _
o Corporate Officer -Title(s):
o Partner -0 Limited 0 Generai
o Attorney in Fact
o Trustee
o Guardian or Conservator o Other: _______ _
Signer Is Representing: ___ _
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF SIGNER
Top of thumb here
o Individual
o Corporate Officer -Tille(s): ________ _
o Panner -0 Lim,ted 0 General
o Attorney in Fact
o Trustee
o Guardian or Conservator
001116" ________ _
Signer Is Representing: ____ _
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF SIGNER
Top Of thumb here
~ 22 ,,'&;:$£ QSiI5f!:SIi: !i £ _ 2 2;"§ii@
02007 Nalional Notary AssoclatiO/1' 9350 De SOle Ave., P.O,Bolc 2402' Chal!wOrlh. CA 91313-2402'ww.v.Nat!onaINolary.org Item #.5907 Reol'der:CaIITolI .. Free ,·S()Q,.87S,6827
r
November 11, 2009
Vanessa Dolby
Acting Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98057
Re: Quendall Terminals Master Plan Application
Dear Vanessa:
Altino Properties, Inc. and J .H. Baxter & Co. together own the 21.46 acre property commonly
known as Quendall Terminals located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton,
Washington.
Per your request, this letter will confirm that CenturyPacific is authorized to submit the Land Use
Permit Master Application and other related applications on our behalf.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
~ -,
Altino Properties, In~ J.R. Baxter & Co.
By: _______ _
Its: _...,\] .... ' f'-'---____ _ Its: _________ _
Cc: CenturyPacific
C:\Documents and Settings\robertc\Locai Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\KXOZQ3UZ\Quendallletter of authorizationlll,DOC
· '
November II, 2009
Vanessa Dolby
Acting Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, W A 98057
Re: Quendall Terminals Master Plan Application
Dear Vanessa:
I
Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Co. together own the 21.46 acre property commonly
known as Quendall Tenninals located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton,
Washington.
Per your request, this letter will confirm that CenturyPacific is authorized to submit the Land Use
Permit Master Application and other related applications on our behalf
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Altino Properties, Inc.
By: ______________ __
Its: ________ _
Cc: CenturyPacific
C:\Documents and Settings\gbn.ler',local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKSffiQuendallletterofauthorization.DOC
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (OS)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: QU9ndail Terminals
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M
LOCATlON: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed-use development located at 4350
Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and Is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located
within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided Into 7 lots of which 4 would
contain 6 - 7 story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the development would .consist of 800 residential units
(rasultlng In a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre). 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail
and 9,000 square foot of re.taurant. The applicant has propo.ed to dedicate 3.65 acras for public righ1-of-way,
which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structul"9d parking would be provided for 2,171
vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake
WaShington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed
improvements Include remediation of existing contamination, stonnwater and sewer improvements.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCS 43.21 C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared.
An environmental checklist, or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts, are available for
viewing in the lead agency's office.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Ranton
Environmental Review Committee
THE LEAD AGENCY HAS INITIALLY IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING AREAS FOR DISCUSSION IN
THE EIS:
Earth, AestheticsNiews, Critical Areas, Land and Shoreline Use, Recreation/Public Shoreline Access, Public Services
Utilities, Vegetation, and TransportationlTraffic.
ALTERNATIVES: This is a proposal for a private project. The applicant may study reasonable alternatives that
could feasibly attain or approximate the proposal's objectlvas, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased
level of environmental degradation. In this case, the alternatives will Include the no-action alternative. A lower
density alternative, with fewer I"9sldential units and less commercial development, may also be included.
SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS.
You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measul"9s, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or
other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before 5:00
p.m. on March 12. 2010. All written EIS scoping comments must be sent to Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner at
the address noted below.
PUBLIC MEETING/OPEN HOUSE: A public EIS scoping meeting/open house will be held to provide an
opportunity for the public to learn more about the proposed actions and to provide input into the environmental
review process. An EIS public seoping meeting will be held at Renton City Hall at a date and time to be
determied, additional notice will be provided of the meeting date and time.
PROJECT PROPONENT: Campbell Mathewson, Century Paciflce. L.P.
) )
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
SEND COMMENTS TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Seinor Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning DiviSion
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Phone: (425) 430-7314
To appeal this Determination, you must fila your appeal document with the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14)
days of tho date the Determination of Significance (OS) has been published in the official city newspaper. See City
Code Section 4-8-110.E, RCW 43.21C.D75 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of
a Determination of Significance and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior
appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. You should be prepared to
make specific factual objections. Contact the above offico to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2010.
Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required foo with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4·
8·110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,
(425) 430-5510.
Denis Law
Mayor
February 18, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazobki
Washington State'
Department of Transportation
15700 Dayton Avenue North
. PO Box 330310.
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminals
LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, SSP, SM, SA-M
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed is a copy of the TIA for the subject land use application along with a copy of
the proposed site plan. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either
send them via mail or email them to me at vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
The Environmental ReviewCommittee (ERe) on February lS, 2010, issued a
Determination of Significance and has determined that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the
ERe under the authority of Se~tion 4-6-6,Renton Municipal Code, after review of a'
completed enVironmental checklistand other information, on file with the lead agency
and is available to the public on request~
Agencies affected are invited to commenton the scope of the EIS and must be submit
comments by 5:00 p~m: on March. 12,2010.'
Sincerely,
~-DJbeP-
Vanessa Dolbee
(Acting) Senior Planner
Enclosures
cc: Project File.
Arneta Henninger, City of Renton -Plan Review
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057, • rentonwa.gov
Denis Law
Mayor
February 17, 2010
Department of Community and Economic Development
Campbell Mathewson '
Century Pacific, L.P.
" 1201. Third Avenue #1680 ,
Seattle, WA 98101
, Alex Pietsch, Administrator
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-1S1, EIS' ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M ,
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) and is to
inform you thatthey have completed theirreview ofthe environmental impacts ofthe
above-referenced project; The Committee; on February 15, 2010, decided that your
project will be issued a Determination of Significance.
, 'The City of Renton ERC has determined that it may have a significant adverse impact on
the envi~ontnent and has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)is
required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the
authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed
environmental checklist and 'other information, on file withthe.iead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing onor before 5:00-
p.m. on March 5, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing togetner with the required fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South GradyWay, Renton, WA 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code SeCtion 4-8-'
11O.B. Additio~alinf?rmation regardi~g the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
'Ifthe Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all
parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please
call meat (425) 430-7314.
For the Envir,onmental Review Committee,
Planner Name
(Acting) Senior Planner
cc: Altino Properties, :nc. & J.H. Baxter & Co .. / Owner
Renton City Hall • 1055 South GradyWay. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa,gov
Denis Law
Mayor .~".".~S r
-----t
February 18, 2010
Washington State'
Department of Ecology .
Environmental ReviewSection .
· PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA98S04-7703
.~"."",,,-,,
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex. Pietsch,Administrator'
· Subject: . ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl DETERMINATION
. Transmitted hereWith isa copy of the Environmental Determination for the following.
projectreViewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) on FebruarY 15, 2010:
·.DETERMfNATION OFSIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT NAME: . Quendall Terminals.
'. PROJEq" NUMBER:, LUA09-151,EIS. ECF. BSP.SM; SA-M
. LOCATION: . 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N ,
.. DESCRIPTION: . . 'The applicantisrequesting. Master PlanReview, Binding
SitePlari,ShoreJine SIJ.bstantial Development Permit and~EPA:Environmental
Review for a mixed-use development located.at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd, .
The site is 21A6 acres and is zoned c:omm~rdaI/Office/ResidentiaIJCOR) and
located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre sitewouldbe
divided into 7 lots of whiCh 4 wo\(ldcontain 6. -7storvrnixed-use buildings.
Olierali,thedevelopment would consist of 8()OresidentialiJnits (i"esul~ing in a .
. net residential density of 46.4 units/acre)'24~,O()0 square feet of office,21,60d
square feet··of retail and 9,000 square feet ofr'es~urant.The 'applicant has
proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres forpublii: right-of-way, which would provide
access totheiproposed Ipts.· Surface and strucj:ured parking would be
. provided for 2,171 vehiCles. The site contains approximatelyO.81acre;·of
. wetlands ,md1,S83' linear. feet of shQreline along Lake Washington. The
'subjeCt site has received a Superfund de$ignation from the U,S: EilVironment.al '
,Protection Agency (EPAjand the property owriers are currentlyworkingon, a .
r~mediation plan with EPA, Proposed improvements include remediation of·
eXisting contami~ation,stormw~ter and sewer im~rQV~ments .. ". .
.. Ap~eals ofthe'environmental determiriation must be fiI~din writirig on or before5:()O
p.m. on.March 5, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing togethe'r with the, required fee
, .• with: HearingExamlner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady VI/ay. Renton, WA 98057, .
· Appeals to the Exaniinerare governeclby Cityof'Rento'n Muriicipai CodeSectiCln 4c8-
.Renton City Hall." '.0:55 South G~dyWay • Rentof1,Was.hington 98057 • renton~a.gov
( c •
110.B. Additional iriformation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, {425} 430-6510. .. . . '. .
. Please refer to theentlosed Noticeof Environmental Determination for complete
details. If you have questions, please call me at {425} 430-7314.
For the Envirohmental Revie'w COl)1mittee,' '
~-DoIbeJL
Vanessa Dolbee
, (Acting) Senior Planner ' ..
Enclosure.
( .
cc: king County Wastewater 'Treatm~nt Division"
. Boyd. Powers~, Department of Natura1 Resources-~'
Karen Walter, fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe . .
_ Melissa Calvert,-Muckleshoot ~~Itural Resources Program
Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeolpgy & Historic',
. PreserVation
Ramin Pazooki,WSDOT;NW ,Region'
Larry Fisher, WOF'w
. Duwamish Tribal Office
US Army Corp: of Engineers
(
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU:
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (OS)
AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (EIS)
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4
would contain 6 - 7 story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the development would consist Iif 800 residential units
(resulting in a net residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of
retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-
way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for
2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along
Lake Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the u.s. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed
improvements include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer improvements.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N
EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a Significant impact on the
environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be
prepared. An environmental checklist, or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts, can be
reviewed at our offices.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
The lead agency has identified the follOWing areas for discussion in the EIS:
Earth, Asthetics/Views, Critical Areas, Land and Shoreline Use, Recreation/Public Shorline Access, Public Services
Utilities, and Transportation/Traffic.
SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You
may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable Significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other
approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before March 12, 2010.
ERC DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PAGE 2 of 2
Responsible Official:
(
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, VVA 98057
APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance, in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.B, accompanied with
the non-refundable required appeal fee, no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2010, to:
Renton Hearing Examiner
City Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady VVay
Renton, WA 98057
To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of
the date the Declaration of Non-Significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official
city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-8-110.E, RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall
be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non-Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been
filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already
been heard. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about
the procedures for SEPA appeals.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services Department
February 19, 2010
February 15, 2010
t/I7/-WIO ~k
Dale Mark Peterson, Interim Administrator
&f?oc;
Date
Fire & Emergency Services
~~kvV!,.-'I~IIG
Department of Community &
Economic Development
AB -1920
SUBJECT/TITlE:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPARTMENT:
STAFF CONTACT:
EXT.:
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
------~·Renton ®
City Council Regular Meeting -05 Jun 2017
Quendall Terminals Development Agreement and land Use Decisions
Refer to Committee of the Whole
Community & Economic Development
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
7314
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.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
Quendall Terminals
Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline and
Substantial Development Permit
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LA WAND
RECOMMENDATION
13 LUA09-[51, ECF, E[S, SA-M, SM
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Summary
The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft.
of commercial uses [retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space. [t is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the
development agreement.
The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed
development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints
of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009,
the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 square
feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office
space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access, open spaces, landscaping,
view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures
composed of 46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
appealed. By the date of the April 18, 2017 hearing, the appeal had been withdrawn and only five
members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
project.
One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the
project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is
the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the
past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake
sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better
understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process
is a separate process then the City'S land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the
City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup
action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used
to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is
anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the
upland portions of the site, including placement ofa soil cap across the project site and shoreline
restoration in a I OO-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation
activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land
use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished.
EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need forthe proposed development agreement since
the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the
project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit
expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards
during the extended expiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is
two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration
periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park
space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street
activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and
a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development
agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the
function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area.
The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation) are trallic
and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to 1-405 and
NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to
improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the
WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the
project use the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary
to assess a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project,
off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections.
As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will
have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, trallic
calming treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at
the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation
will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even
with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the
City streets to the south of the project.
View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little question that the multiple
six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale
neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the
applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Scahawks facility has a
building that is 115 feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts, the proposal includes a widened
central road (Road B) to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining
properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback requirements.
Testimony
Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner's Recommendation. It is solely
provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony-Nothing in this summary
should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signifYing any priority or
importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an
accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing.
Staff Opening Presentation:
Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to
examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23, the City Council expressly authorized
the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4.
Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement.
Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time
frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the
site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and
that precise details of design will be reviewed and approved during subsequent site plan review. The
heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and
north of the project.
The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to
fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now
referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re-
evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10,
20 I 0 for the term of the agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either
when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to
fifteen years. The enhancements include a I .3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains.
The site is a former creosote facility and was subsequently designated a superfund site. The EPA will
be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. [n order to review the project, the City had to ascertain
how the project site would be configured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort.
[n that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline
assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline
buffer. The City'S review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the
clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA.
There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot ofreview to
site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks.
There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill
and a 38-foot setback from the Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor
width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi-private plaza spaces. Pursuant to
Condition 27, Lots 1 and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the
EPA Record of Decision. [fthe lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas, they proposal will
have to be amended. Condition 41 requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped
water line. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement.
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re-opening of the
hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the
Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the
discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site
plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the City
Council.
Applicant Presentation:
Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations.
She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project.
She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The
applicant has the burden of proof in establishing consistency with decision criteria. The examiner is
also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision
on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed
minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development
agreement.
Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal
property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. [t was initially used as a log storage
yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the
prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned
the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development
agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit
review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and
remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation
mitigation, including both on and off-site roadway improvements, a transportation demand
management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and
compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the [-405 and NE
44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of
Transportation ("WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were
assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the
analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The
WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual
time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be
completed. Without the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of
north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project.
To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be
placed south of 41" to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded
that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as
opposed to [-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City
streets. On-site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The
transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and
programs to reduce reliance upon single-occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should
effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it
easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency
certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has
adequate capacity to serve the development. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering
for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of
mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation
information available to the City, such as the work associated with the [-405 WSDOT interchange
improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off-setting traffic impacts.
Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last
two years, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been
geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the
beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and
restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A
pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian
oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the
street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. [fyou were walking down Street B towards
the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with
Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the
project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects
have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly
environment. The project is consistent with the City'S design standards.
Campbell Mathewson, project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation,
landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The
binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline
permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for
a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject
to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was
800 dwelling units, 245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the
project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met
with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of
the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was
significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square
feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic
impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the
applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation
of approval. However, the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff
report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront
retail and the public park along the southwest comer of the site and the potential for a new dock. The
buildings were also set back another 20 feet. Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning
regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included
buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be
compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review.
Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining
uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of 90 feet
from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space
for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards
between residential blocks, pedestrian orientation in design, added retail use and restaurants and trails.
The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the I .3-acre public park.
The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by
the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the
first time in decades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants
and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended
in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April II, 2017 merna to the hearing examiner. The Barbee
Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the
development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the
1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development
agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five.
Public Comments:
Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern.
He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently
has to twelve-foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive
characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going
between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are sti II 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened
as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted
that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little
bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view
of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box
entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third
issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would
be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public
access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock.
Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated
the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the
parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She
also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed-use site and she doesn't
want it to be an elitist area.
Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and
grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can
be cleaned up as quickly as possible.
Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development
agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the
applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of
residents and also that the developer has been very accommodating.
Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near
the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle
safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during
pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts.
Staff Rebuttal:
In staff rebuttal, Ms, Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor
was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so
to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts,
a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were
implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the ElS and the
recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil
contaminants being moved with pile driving, the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic
impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the
parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also
require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. In response to examiner questions, Mr.
Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking
structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Applicant Rebuttal:
Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety
plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a
result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site.
In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about
a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation
measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced
alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions
of approval. Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one
of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found
the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets
and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides
for public access and use of shoreline areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks
and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the
project.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at
page 2 of the April 11,2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18,
2017 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017
public hearing as well:
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 39
Email from Examinerto Staff dated April 17, 2017
Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
Google Maps
City of Renton power point
Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Notebook dated April 18,2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Larry Toedtli CV
Bob Wells Resume
Lance Mueller Resume
Street B rendering
June 6, 2016 Site Plan P 1.0
June}, 2016 Site Plan PO.O
April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
I3
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
l. Applicant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle,
WA,98101
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary
if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council.
Substautive:
3. Project and Site Description. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a
mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
A. Proposal. The 21.46-aere site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-
use buildings. The proposal would include 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential
density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be
constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building
height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposed 1 to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-
way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via
the development of new internal Roads A-E. The primary site access from public streets
is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear
feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 -
133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development
agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen
years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park
space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork,
etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public
access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed
complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10,20 I O.
I The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
C.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Sitc Conditions/Superfund Designation. The subject site has received a Superfund
designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners
are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin
construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying a remedy for
clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.
The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated
from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater,
surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology
transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA,
which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial
investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of
contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City'S land use review.
Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15) to define
the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in
the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the
Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2,
for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to
include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland
portions of the site (Main Property), including placement of a soil cap across the entire Main
Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts
associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA
process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been
accomplished.
Environmental Reviewl"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental
impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement
("FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from
the environmental review were compiled into 9 I conditions comprising the Mitigation
Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is
recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed
for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Altcrnative" assessed in
an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred
alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the
development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the
applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 2 I, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the
range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 20 I 0 through
2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures
are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Consequently, the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the
April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced
Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
\0
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
with the "proposal".
4. Surrounding Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north
is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the
east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor. Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) right of way. 1-405 and
undeveloped COR zoned property.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most
significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area
regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse
impacts to critical areas.
The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical
Areas Map and is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. Due to the baseline
assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas
would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located
in the I OO-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the
extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the
project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the
recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands
and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically
reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS
assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on
adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site-specific site plan review should
include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the
criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the
buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots I and 6), Recommended
Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots I and 6 shall be increased to ensure
compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers
are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the
overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per
RMC 4-9-200(1) a new application would be required.
As noted in Mitigation Document Condition ClO, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different
than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine
whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any
difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include
impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition
is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recor~ing
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
II
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be
submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD.
It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources.
Pages 3.6-14 -3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline
resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the
DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake
Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and
sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City storm water regulations. Following
construction, a permanent storm water control system would be installed in accordance with City
stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped
stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution-generating
surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stormwater outfall pipes would be
situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed
during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation.
Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The
subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows
for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake
Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi-story
structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These
impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of
the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred
Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center
of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the
property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking
garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights-of-
way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures F I -
F 15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west
view corridors are maintained, COA 2 I requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of
74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of
80 feet.
At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would
completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between
the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and
appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However,
in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating
view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The
maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 reet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes
almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant
has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view
corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks, which are significantly wider
than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from
the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all
reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development
potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed
by the applicant.
C. Noise. Privacy and Dust. The City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative
standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It
is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the
project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a
Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise,
control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8
RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City'S noise ordinance
regarding construction hours. With these measures in place, noise and dust impacts are adequately
mitigated.
The proposed building layout provides semi-private court yards between each residential tower
which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy.
The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an
opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the
retail/restaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics
of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window
coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
D. Drainage. Adequate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant
adverse drainage impacts. The City'S stormwater regulations assure that storm water impacts are
fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 storm water manual is applicable to the project.
As noted in Conclusion of Law ("COL") No.2 of this recommendation, more current stormwater
regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater
regulations will comprehensively address storm water impacts.
Storm water was evaluated in the DE IS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth.
Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this
analysis mitigation measures A I, A 10, All, B2, and B7 were established and will become a
condition of this permit. Because the internal streets ofthe development are required to be private,
the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant
for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance
responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding
site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained
a condition of approval requires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents
for City review and approval identifying the developerl property owners/ HOA responsibilities for
the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
13
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be
submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site
is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is
proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is
proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City storm water standards. Storm
water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall
be followed in the design and construction of the project.
The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project
specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14,2009. As noted in Exhibit 16,
the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include
an otfsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality
impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation
for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre-and post-
developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and
developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology.
Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts
via the City'S design, view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund
toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is
by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and
enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing
view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "COO, building
and site design is subject to general design review at the master plan stage and detailed design
review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies
with the District "Coo design standards for master plan review.
The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping
standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the
Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure E I, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and
constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The
applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re-submittal dated
12-16-2015, Exhibit II. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide
landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 1 O-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east
of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10-foot wide landscape
buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C
along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative
would be compliant with Mitigation Measures E I, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires
that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as
shown in Exhibit II.
Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and
Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All
street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
14
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper
inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a
final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas
prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of
the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan.
Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface
parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted
in Mitigation Measures F4, G 12 and G 13.
F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation
since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's
tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project
site subsequent to remediation.
G. CompatibilitylBuilding Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding
uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the
west and R-IO property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic
issues addressed elsewhere, the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining
the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings
along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at
a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the
project site.
As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on
adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, F I, FS, F9, F II, and
F 15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and
Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures,
the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site.
H. Lighting. As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting
proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review
for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition
F 13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B II and F7 to ensure
that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
down lighting and shielding among other techniques.
Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other
common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F 13 and H9 and the design
standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re-submittal of the Preferred
Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F 13 and H9 or
compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F 13 and H9
and the design standards for the common areas.
I. Loading and Storage Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and
storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include
loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and
restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at
off peak hours.
6. Adequacy of InfrastructurelPublic Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the
King County parcel fronting the site and a I O-inch water main extending into the project site.
There is a I2-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The
development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and
water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic,
landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction
permits.
Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department
and police protection by the City of Renton Police Department. Police and Fire staff
indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if
the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided
to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet
wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire
apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum
I ~O-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD, the road shall also serve as
a pedestrian trail. If EPA's ROD prohibits the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot
shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail.
Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot
shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped water line
required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface.
Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that
the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail
which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
C. Parks/Onen Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. As
previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space.
Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and
Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park
demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service
standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this
application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation
mitigation measures (GJ -Gl3) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas.
The amount of on-site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant
would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards.
However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off-site
park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on-site park and open
space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact rees should be sufficient to
mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project.
As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2
requires that approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open Space Areas" and "Other
Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall
include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 aCres of natural area along the trail. The "Other Related
Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks,
paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of
Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other
Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with
Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the
trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
public trail hours are dawn to dusk, sign age shall be installed identifying that the trail is
for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources
Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with
the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition Gl 0 requires that the trail be
enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive
signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the
trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials.
Mitigation Document condition G II requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill
residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the
surface parking lot located in the southwest comer of Lot 5. This design is not in
compliance with condition G II. Based on the above analysis the provided materials
were not compliant with conditions G2, G7, GIO, and GIl. As such a recommended
condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any
other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G I 0, and Gil
for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community
Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan
recording.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
D.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
The Development Agreement adds a 1.3-acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours
of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park
hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public
use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director
prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding
site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy
of the first building on the site.
The "street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide
distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not
been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that
Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the
roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe
pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the
sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian
connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline.
However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the
sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private Street E either
north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley
Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge
along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show
stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the
buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian
circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space,
parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended
condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete
connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The
approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording.
Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian
circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when
planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a
recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public
right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this
condition.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
18
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street
infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum.
For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal, additional transportation analysis was
included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the
Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of
the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS
Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation
measures, with or without the 1-405 improvements, staff determined that significant
transportation impacts are not anticipated.
The project site is located next to the 1-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently
operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts
were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT
improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project
using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's
necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without
the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and
southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange
project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming
treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor.
The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent
people from using City streets to the south as opposed to 1-405. Even with the current
congestion, it's still faster to use 1-405 than the southern City streets.
The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour
vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips,
no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred
Alternative. As to the preferred alternative, page 1-14 of the DEIS addendurn concluded that
"[tlhe existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would
adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build-out in 2015, with the
additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative
constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is
within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010
through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
The effectiveness ofthe Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the
DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative I traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak
hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative I clearly generated far
more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited
information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative I, the
traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection
level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation
on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows
intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where
WSDOT has not completed 1-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6
shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three
intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table
3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections.
Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any
intersection except for the Lk Wa BlvdfN 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any
of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection.
The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative
analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center
turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group,
in a memorandum dated January 12,2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit
21. The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal
because single-lane approaches at each of the Street 'A' intersections would provide
acceptable traffic operations.
Conditions H l-H 15 of the Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary
to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires
frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel
lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing
roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 ofthe Mitigation Document,
provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the
site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along
two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The
private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including
landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing
landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located al
the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-fool wide landscape planter and
6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access.
The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property
owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of
existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the
applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who
owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N,
and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval
requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should
be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause
some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off-site improvements, such as
southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly
north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures
Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the
mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City'S Transportation
Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In
addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some
inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements
evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the
inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully
depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the
Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as
shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the
internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City'S Transportation
Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian
walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation
coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has
resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become
private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City'S standard
street cross sections is not required. However, the design of the streets shall meet minimum
standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be
required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of
public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of
approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways
and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on
street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for
pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street
cross section design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each
building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those
areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 -15-foot sidewalk is
required for those areas where the building contains retail andlor restaurant uses at the ground
floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6
feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to
account for the curb width, and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross-
section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant
amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit
review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the
amended cross sections.
A couple members of the public at the April 18, 2017 public hearing expressed concern over
increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
21
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Condition H5 of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation oftratlic calming
treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south ofN 41 st Street to encourage primary trips
generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. The applicant's traffic engineer testified
that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use ofthe southern
street system for tbe project and also that even witbout the calming measures, most drivers
would elect to use 1-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site.
Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition H5 adequately addresses concerns over
increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also
expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the
project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the "scenic" character
of the road and tum it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be
some legitimacy to this concern, the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and
functionality considerations integrated into the City'S street standards that require the
additional street width.
F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall
development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N
42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross
the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road
right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are
two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive
approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail-road right-of-way.
This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A
recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City
identifying rights to construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review
application and construction permit application submittal.
Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed
through an internal street system, identified as Roads A-E. The applicant has indicated that
Roads A -C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private
streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City
is not willing to accept the proposed public rights-of-way dedications and Roads A -C shall
become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A -C will be private
streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement
for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The
public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property
Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any
additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School)
and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated
that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
22
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot
specific site plan review.
A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City
as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities.
Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and E[S Addendum. Currently no public transit
service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is
provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St.
interchange and [-40S. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include
Bus Rapid Transit on [-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the
[-40SINE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted, Mitigation Document conditions H3
and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage
future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available.
Currently there are no non-motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site,
however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. [n addition, the existing rail
road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is
identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails"
planned multi-purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DE IS was issued evaluating
alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi-purpose trail
at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the
primary form and most readily available form of alternative non-motorized transportation is
bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and
restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation
Document (page 26) to mitigate system-wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity
transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the
applicant shall prepare a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include
on-site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above
analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in
the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure
weather-protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking
should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and
restaurant uses and at a ratio of O.S stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents
shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation
Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation
would not use the mUlti-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore
a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north
and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-
purpose trai I.
I. Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously
noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
23
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the
lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B I 0 requires
that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be
incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake
side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake
side ofthe new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details
of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval
requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site
plan review and construction permit application. [n addition, should the EPA ROD eliminate
the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires
that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction
permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline
master programs requirements for significant public access.
Conclusions of Law
[. Authority. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit
applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement.
However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made
recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. [t
is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding
site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should
be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City
Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline
applications.
The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City
Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications
are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement
with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7-
230(1)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement"
significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two
provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan
applications that are merged with development agreements.
[n contrast to the binding site plan application, shoreline substantial development permits are classified
by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type" permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and
master site plan approval as Type III permits (subject to hearing examiner review). [n short, the three
permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING S[TE PLAN, SSDP and DA
24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
RMC 4-S-080(C)(2) requires consolidated penmits to each be processed under "the highest-number
procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not
classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the
examiner (see Ex. 23) coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision
mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation
coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DAlbinding site plan review will be
considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline penmit will be consolidated into the
Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure.
2. Vesting. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The
examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows:
A. Confinmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vesting. FOF No.2 of the April
19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a
complete binding site plan application on February 10, 20 I O. The proposed development
agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period often to fifteen years. The law is not
actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards.
Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement,
rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the
examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confinmation
from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when
the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited
to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when
evaluating the vesting issue.
Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local
ordinance. The state law is RCW 5S.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of
land' vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a
binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional
language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs " ... at the time afully
completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat
approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted ... " A binding site plan is neither a
subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land
division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature
intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a
complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do
so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains.
The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant
submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7-
230(N)(1) provided in 20 I 0 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding
site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time
of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting
legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham
Neighborhood Ass 'n v. F.G_ Associates, 162 Wn. App_ 98 (2011), a court ruled that penmit
expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
influence on the development of land. [t is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance
has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting, or whether it is a procedural
ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting.
Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development
agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting.
The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County
stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King
County storm water manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently
ruled that storrnwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology
("DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish County v. Pollution
Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's storrnwater
system is governed by a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition S5.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit
requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase II NPDES permit
" ... shall apply to all [land use} applications submitted on or after July I, 2017 and shall
apply to applications submitted prior to January I, 2017, which have not started
construction by January 1, 2022 ... " [n short, new Phase II permit requirements not
integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project ifit hasn't
started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its
superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start
by 2022 and, therefore, new storm water standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit
will apply.
The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in
proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to
"any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations
or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it must enforce
that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the
City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement."
(emphasis added).
However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not
"new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development
agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something
from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in
the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to
remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following
should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
26
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton.
2.5 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned and has a
comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR).
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval for all development in the COR
zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities.
Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property
pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(I). Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any
nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria
for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by
RMC 4-7-230(C). The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9-
190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") use
regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through
corresponding conclusions oflaw.
Master Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a, Master Plans: For master plan applications. the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level (?ldetailappropriatefor master plans. Master plans will
he evaluatedfor general compliance with the criteria and to en.vlIre that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in/ilil compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaillate compliance with the specific requirements discussed beloll'. (Ord. 5676. 12-3-
2012)
4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan
review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude
development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of
approval, building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more
specific design features to be addressed during site plan review.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee mustfind a proposed project /0 be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Pian, its elemenls, goals, objectives, and policies,
especially those of Ihe applicable land use designation; Ihe Community Design Element; and any
applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulalions;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulation .• : Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 222 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District "e" and consistent with
Design District "C'. development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(J)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overseale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Area .• : Locating. designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of mainlaining visual accessibility to
attractive naturalfealures;
v. Land.feaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
2 References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No. __ ," References to findings from this
recommendation are "FOF No. ___ ." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any
updates to the findings addressed in the April 11, 2017 memo to the examiner, Ex. 19,
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
28
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by
FOF 6(D), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(1), views by FOF 5(8), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E)
and lighting by FOF 5(H).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, inclUding:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reductian by building placement, spacing
and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutling andjilling. and limiting impervious surfaces; and
iv. Land"caping: Use of landscaping to sojien the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
12 and privacy where needed, to dejine and enhance open spaces. and generally to enhance the
13 appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No.5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. S(C) with the added comment that
the mixed-use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well-integrated environment for
residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities.
Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA,
however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking
trail, dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E)
and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally
improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than
directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii.lnternal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency 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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areasfrom parking and pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicyciefacilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
bUildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F). access is consolidated into two points, one
on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining
properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for
safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(0).
Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No.
5(1). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No.
6(H).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequote areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(t): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline
as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF
No. 6(1).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing naturol
systems where applicable.
I I. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the natural systems at the site
(i.e. critical areas) will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No.6.
26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
MASTER PLAN. BINDING SITE PLAN, SSOP and OA
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the
scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton
for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is
governed by the proposed development agreement.
Binding Site Plan
RMC 4-7-230(C):
APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the
follOWing criteria are met:
I. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more
contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan
procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions
shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district. New nonconforming
lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff
report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots
1,6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified
through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires that
lots I, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be
buildable if created.
The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or
tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a
part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and
placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
2. if minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met,
the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of
this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-150.
15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium
site creation is required.
3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial. industrial, or
mixed-use zone.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
16. The site is located within the mixed-use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval.
4. Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply
with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning
dis/riet. Where minimum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall
be processed as a commercial condominium site per RMC 4-7-230D.
a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements
and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application
is submitted.
b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan
application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards
of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations
where the site cannot be brought into conformance due to physical limitations or other
circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at
the time a completed application is submitted.
c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site
plan may propose shared signage, parking, and access if they are specifically authorized
per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5, and other shared improvements as
authorized in other sections of the City's development standards.
17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable
comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant
has not requested shared signage or parking, Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed
as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition
H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared
parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on
the binding site plan prior to recording.
5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5-
010.
18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building
penni! approval.
6. Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or
in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways,
water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by
the binding site plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
32
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This criterion is satisfied.
7. Access to Public Rights-of-Way and Ulilities: Each parcel crealed by the binding sile plan
shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct
access or access easement approved by the City.
20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a
private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted
in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that
each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan
for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a
recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to
roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted,
constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior
to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless
a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review.
8. Shared Conditions: The Admim:vtrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking, access,
signage and other improvements among contiguous proper/ies subjeclto the binding site plan
and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5. Conditions of use,
maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access, signage
and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants,
easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism.
21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No
shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a covenant
or BOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA
responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded
with the Binding Site Plan.
9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision reqUiring that any
subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded
binding site plan.
22. As conditioned, the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision
for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded
binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this
standard.
10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant
shall prOVide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan.
23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
33
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
11. 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
4
5
6
7
8
9
\0
24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the
City'S critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal complies with the
City'S critical area regulations.
Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with thefollowing criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards
that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
II b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance
demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permilled,
13 provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW90. 58.020 regarding shorelines
of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed
in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the
proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No.
6(1). The commercial use regulations further require that parking is to be provided at frequent locations
and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured
parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use
regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the
shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(1). The development agreement adds a 1.3-
acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations
further require that view impacts be mitigated and the appl icant has provided for view mitigation as
determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS
mitigation requires a 1 ~O-foot setback. The proposal complies with this I DO-foot setback except for a
proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval requires the water line to be moved outside
the 100-foot setback.
The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for
shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
34
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. SeA), 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
S
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications
are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the
applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Council
approve the proposed development agreement for the reasons identified in the summary of this
recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The
permit applications should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation
Document dated, August of 2015.
2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined
through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside
through the binding site plan.
3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common
landscaping (including irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public
art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD
shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of
Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding
Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot,
unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any
delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety
or welfare.
4. The minimum partial sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be
maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit II and shall be
identified on the recorded binding site plan, as required by Mitigation Measures E I, E2,
and F5.
5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk
when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for
each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
6. Lots I, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the
Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts
as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection
Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
35
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review,
this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
8. Roads A - C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an
easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C,
and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent
development of the site shall be in confonnance with the approved and recorded binding
site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording.
10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the
hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to
Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
II. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
12. OfT-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to
Mitigation Measures:
• B I 0 -public trail
• G2 -public trail and open space
• G3 -Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
• G7 -trail signage
• G9 -crosswalk
• G I 0 -trail amenities
• H3 -frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
• H4 -trail
• H5 -traffic calming measures
• H8 -fire access road
• H 10 -bicycle lane
• HII -Hl5 -off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
signalization
shall be designed, pennitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary
Occupancy ofthe first building on the project site.
13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and
C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
36
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements
matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be
provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide
sidewalk on south side of the access. These off-site improvements shall be designed,
permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy ofthe
first building on the project site
15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a
minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking
garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan
review.
16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve
uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be
permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with lbe
ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot
specific site plan review.
17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit
per 500 I inear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is
required per fire andlor building code. Compliance with this condition shall be
demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
18. To ensure the semi-private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed
design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan
review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and
amenities as approved by the Director.
19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to the approval of any sign permit for the site.
20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows:
a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington
b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility)
2 I. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum
width of74 feet and the semi-private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall
maintain a minimum width of 80 feet.
22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-designed to reduce to
the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake
maintain a relation to lbe natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
37
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
features could include landscape berming andlor architectural details. Detail design of
these buildings shall be completed at site plan review.
23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units
on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for
the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking
plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review.
24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals
site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building
proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5.
25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of
the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the
design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for
lots 2 and 5.
26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the
infrastructure provisions ofRMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval
prior to recording.
27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e.
the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots I and 6) Lots I
and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that
all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the
change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site
development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required.
28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane
(Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the mUlti-purpose trail.
29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of
construction permit review.
30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities
built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property
owners/developerlHOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan.
31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping,
open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be
maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and
approval identifying the developer/property ownerslHOA responsibilities for the
maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and
Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
38
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April II ,2017 memo to
exam mer.
33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to
binding site plan recording.
34. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City
of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department
prior to binding site plan recording.
35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on
the subject site.
36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that
will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which
should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identifted by the City Public Works
Department.
37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the
proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the
easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation
shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording.
38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the
center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the
facility.
39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be
completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
Manager with the construction permit application and the ftrst building permit application
for the site.
40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the
timing identified above per condition of approval 12.
41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the
front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end
shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and
utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road
compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
42. The portion ofthe parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified
on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another
mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
39
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifYing rights for public
vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way.
This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be
recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of
Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation.
44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review
application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and
construction permit issuance.
I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density
for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units
per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum
permitted density to be shared among the entire property.
II. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted
for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common
landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved,
a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance
with the approved phasing plan.
III. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the
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.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the
Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a
Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD
issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed
baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project
changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C I o.
V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials
to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G I 0, and G II for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the
Community Services Administrator.
VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered
common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed
pursuant to condition of approval 3.
VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian
pathway system, including an evaluation of on-site crosswalks to ensure
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
40
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate
compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved
pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon
recording.
VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active
recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review
and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion
of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot.
IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation
measure FI3 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including
but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special
landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community
Services.
X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a
crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-
of-way.
XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and
public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the
required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be
provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design.
XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures Bto, G3,
G2, G to, G II and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department.
XIII. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identirying compliance with the
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 prov ided for review and approval by the Plan
23
24
25
26
Reviewer:
a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property
frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The
existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to
the location of the proposed new Road A.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be
within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot
buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the
building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area.
c. Minimum IS feet easement should be provided for the water main.
d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100-shoreline buffer.
e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton
regulations.
XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access
from the project, which includes: I) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive
signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane
and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots
2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new
public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant
public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking
agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying
compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared
parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division.
XVlIl. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and
Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the
specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of
project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the
roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of
any site-specific site plan review or recording ofthe binding site plan.
24 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
25
26
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the
hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
42
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Decision issued May 9,2017.
Hearing Examiner
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
43
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, EXHIBITS
Project Name: Project Number:
Quendall Terminals LUAD9-151, 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
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:
Project Location
Parcel 2924059002. South
ofthe Sea hawks VMAC
Training Facility
http://rp,rentonwa,gov/SilverlightPubli[/Viewer . htm l?Viewer-CO R -M a ps
Exhibit 28: Google Maps: https:l!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 Pl. 0
Exhibit 38: June 1, 2016 Site Plan PO. 0
Exhibit 39: April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
------~sRenton e
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 11, 2017
TO: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09·1S1
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 3.6S 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
Phil 01brechts, 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
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Exhibit 23 -Councils Motion to defer the Development Agreement Public Hearing
Findings of Fact (FOF): (the following FOF's are identified with letters to eliminate and
confusion with the original staff report)
a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
(Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative
would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95
units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include
the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains,
a rtwork, 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 lO-years with possible
extension of 5 years in which development regulation vesting would be
maintained.
• A SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments.
b. The Enhanced Alternative and the associated Development Agreement is the
sole proposal being advanced at this time. Because the Enhanced Alternative
relies upon City Council approval of the Development Agreement, Exhibit 20, the
Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan and Shoreline Permit decision shall be
contingent upon the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. If
the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the record should
be reopened and another public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner should be completed.
c. On March 20, 2017 the Environmental Review Committee issued an EIS
Consistency Analysis for Development Agreement and the associated Enhanced
Alternative (Exhibit 21 and 22). The Environmental Consistency Analysis
determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are
within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 3 of7
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 Campliance, 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 SFwhich 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.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 4 of 7
April 11, 2017
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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, Storm water: The
Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1,
2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated
stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff
recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be
removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable
stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction.
viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The
Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak
hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would
represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak
our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative.
Additionally, the center left-turn lane that was included as a part of
Street 'A' is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this
turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated
January 12, 2017, Appendix A ofthe Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The
analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the
Enhanced Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the
Street 'A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a
result condition of approval 44. XIV should be amended accordingly.
Additional transportation analysis was included in the EIS Consistency
Analysis to evaluate changes in trips from the Preferred Alternative. The
Consistency Analysis concludes that transportation impacts of the
Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in
the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With
implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the
1-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not
anticipated
ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development
Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public
use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying
that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An
easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site
plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the site.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
PageSof7
April 11, 2017
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 stoff report ore to remain except as
identified below:
10. The project AA expiration date shall be as identified in the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20set lily tRe loleariAg ExaFAiAer fer tRe Master Site PlaR, see m~ 28.
12. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-70B-
170.
New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan,
Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative
described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff
report and any new conditions or modified conditions below.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition
that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing
Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering
the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff
report to the Hearing Examiner.
Amended Conditions of Approval:
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage
improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped
planter and sidewalk to be provided on the ~north side. The new private
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 7
April 11, 2017
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
access to be located at the Ripley lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include 8
feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the
access. These off-site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed,
and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
22. ~ West elevations of the bUilding proposed on lots 2 and 5 shall be re-
designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from lake Washington to
ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic
and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming
and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed
at site plan review.
32. AR I
,' €xteAsisR t8 t~e ~r9jeEt 3f3f3Feveei seyens JaAbl3FY 1/ 2Q22 SF 8b1ilEJing ana
eSAstFlc:IstisR J:)€FFFlits Sl:J8FF1ittes tl=l3t w9b1IE1 extend tAS rarsjeet eet/sRs Janc.ary
1, 2Q22 sRall 8e sblsjeet t8 tAS blflsateel st8F1~~water FR3Rblai i in e#eet at tAS
time.
41. A 13~8Ii€ I3F8FfleRaBe 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 I3F8FfleRaBe fire lane and utility
maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture,
public art, water features, etc. Design of the I3raFReRaEies 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 eaS€FFI€nt 5Rall Be secblFee fF8FF1 King CSblnt'1 SF etRer fbltl:Jre rarsf3erty ewners
sf tAS rail read rigl=lt sf wa,! t8 I3Fe ... ieleel ¥€Riel:tlar aRe (3€e€strian aeeess t8 tAS
fJFSf38SeS s€'JelsJ:)FAent aeress tAS rigl:lt sf 'nay. TA€ eaS€FFI€nt sRal1 Be Rates SA
tAS final ein8ing site (3laR aFlEI sRall he reesrelea eSRet::lrFeRtl'l witt:l tt:le 8iR9iRg site
~ Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for
public vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the
right-of-way. This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan
and shall be recorded concurrently with the binding site plan. if not already
recorded. The City of Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access
documentation.
44. IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of
the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior
to a Record of Decision (ROD) aRB NR9 SettleFReAt completed by the EPA. A
copy of the final ROD aRB NR9 SettleFReRt issued by the EPA shall be submitted
to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline assumptions were correct
and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not necessary as
required in Mitigation Measure CIO.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
April 11, 2017
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
44. XIV. A traASl3srtatisA stblely 5Rall ee E9FAJ3leteEt te C1Aaj\(Ze tAS nees fer a eenter
tbiFA lane in Reaa A. DeJ3€neling bl138R tAS 91:lteeme af tAis stl:.II3'f, Road A street
designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane 3€€sFEiiAgl'f 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 sign age, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2)
A Jl~8Ii€ JlFSFAeAaEie 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 af the April
2016 staff report.)
4S. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and
public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use
and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services
Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated
signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on
the project site.
44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review
and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both
the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions
of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located
in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and
constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure
construction.
44. XX. A detailed public park deSign, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval
of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vanessa,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday, April 17, 2017 5:52 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Quendall Homes
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
This communication will be disclosed at tomorrow's hearing. I want to give you a chance to prepare a response
to a jurisdictional question I will be asking you tomorrow:
RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), pasted below, provides that if a binding site plan is merged with a development
agreement, the City Council applies the binding site plan standards. Consistent with this, RMC 4-7-230(1)(4),
pasted below, authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on significant binding site plans except
when merged with development agreements. From these provisions, it appears that once a binding site plan is
merged with a DA, the City Council makes the final decision on the site plan and also holds the hearing on
it. How did staff come to a different conclusion? Also, how does staff reconcile the one hearing rule of RCW
36.70B.060, pasted below, with the request to re-open the hearing if the DA is not adopted? What happens if
the DA is revised instead of rejected?
RMC 4-7 -230(H)2. Review Authority: Pursuant to chapter 4-8 RMC, the Community and Economic Development
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section, unless the
applicant elects to have the binding site plan application merged with a Type III permit site plan application or
a development agreement under chapter 36.70B RCW. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a Type
III site plan, then the Hearing Examiner is hereby authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the prOVisions of this
Section. If a binding site plan application is to be processed with a development agreement, the City Council is hereby
authorized and directed to interpret and enforce all the provisions of this Section. The final decision on
a development agreement with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council. No administrative
appeal of the City Council decision shall be available. If a binding site plan is merged with a planned urban development
application, the review authority shall be determined pursuant to RMC 4-9-150. (Ord. 5153, 9·26·2005; Ord. 5519, 12·14·
2009; Ord. 5676, 12·3-2012)
RMC 4-7-230(1)4. Referral to the Hearing Examiner: Except when a binding site plan is merged with
a development agreement, if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by residents in the area of
the binding site plan, or by City staff, to warrant a public hearing, then he/she shall refer the binding site plan to the
Hearing Examiner for public hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing will be given as
for a Type III permit hearing. Binding site plans merged with development agreements shall be approved by City Council
pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. (Ord. 5519,12·14-2009)
RCW 36.70B.060
Local governments planning under the growth management act to establish integrated and
consolidated project permit process-Required elements.
Not later than March 31,1996, each local government planning under RCW 3G.70AU4Q shall
establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated project permit process that may
EXHIBIT 24
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
be included in its development regulations. In addition to the elements required by RCW 36.70B.050.
the process shall include the following elements:
(1) A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW 36.708.070;
(2) A notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required by
RCW 36.70B.110;
(3) Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, an optional consolidated project permit review
process as provided in RCW 36.70B.120. The review process shall provide for no more than one
consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision
hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent
open record appeal hearing;
(4) Provision allowing for any public meeting or required open record hearing to be combined with
any public meeting or open record hearing that may be held on the project by another local, state,
regional, federal, or other agency, in accordance with provisions of RCW
* 36.70B.090 and 36.70B.110;
(S) A single report stating all the decisions made as of the date of the report on all project permits
included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing
and any recommendations on project permits that do not require an open record predecision hearing.
The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the
agency's authority under RCW 43.21C.060. The report may be the local permit. If a threshold
determination other than a determination of significance has not been issued previously by the local
government, the report shall include or append this determination;
(6) Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21 C.07S, if a
local government elects to provide an appeal of its threshold determinations or project permit
decisions, the local government shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing
on such appeal. The local government need not provide for any further appeal and may provide an
appeal for some but not all project permit decisions. If an appeal is provided after the open record
hearing, it shall be a closed record appeal before a single decision-making body or officer;
(7) A notice of decision as required by RCW 36. 70B.130 and issued within the time period
provided in RCW 36.70B.080 and' 36.70B.090;
(8) Completion of project review by the local government, including environmental review and
public review and any appeals to the local government, within any applicable time periods under
*RCW 36.70B.090; and
(9) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter or
chapter 43.21 C RCW.
2
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Vanessa,
FredWarnock <frednock@comcast.net>
Monday, Aprill7, 2017 4:30 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Denis Law; Chip Vincent; Jay B Covington
Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Follow up
Flagged
Thanks for your quick response to my email. Unfortunately for us we were gone February through
March and did not get your March notice of the meeting. We have our mail forwarded while we are
gone, but it's hit and miss. Your document didn't get to us. We don't receive the Renton Reporter. so
we didn't get that notice as well. All that being said, I would like you to put my comments into the
record as follows ................ .
1. How is the city or state going to deal with the addition of 600 plus cars pouring into Lake
Washington Blvd, when we currently have back ups on the boulevard a mile long during rush hour?
2. It would appear that the majority of the traffic will use 43rd St as access to and from
Quendall. Why not divert more of the traffic to the other two exits rather than 43rd St, which is the
main entrance to Barbee Mill?
Best regards
Fred Wamock
From: "Vanessa Dolbee" <VDolbee@ Rentonwa.gov>
To: "FredWarnock" <frednock@comcast.net>
Cc: "Denis Law" <DLaw@Rentonwa.gov>, "Chip Vincent" <CVincent@Rentonwa.gov>, "Jay B
Covington" <Jcovington@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1 :42:04 PM
Subject: RE: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Fred,
Thank you for your e-rnail. I am assuming you are referring to the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development Project,
City File number LUA09-151. There are two projects going to public hearing tomorrow, so please let me know if my
assumption is incorrect. In terms of public notice for the Quendall Terminal public hearing, the original notice was sent
to all parties of record on March 16, 2017 as a part of the attached "off hold notice". Notice of the Public Hearing was
also provided in the Renton Reporter, published on April 7, 2017. The letter sent out last week was simply providing a
reminder to all parties of record of the hearing date and providing notice of the availability of an updated Staff Report
transmitted to the Hearing Examiner. The project staff report to the Hearing Examiner describing the proposal has been
1
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
available on the City's website for over a year, since the cancellation of the original proposed hearing date of April 19,
2016.
Understanding, attending a Tuesday morning public hearing can be difficult due to work schedules, I am happy to enter
your written public comments into the record if you cannot attend. Please e-mail me your comment prior to the start of
the public hearing tomorrow at 10:00 am and I will ensure that they are submitted into the record for the Hearing
Examiner to consider when making a decision on this project.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Vanessa 'lJo[fjee, Current Planning Manager
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
10555 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
{425}430-7314
From: FredWarnock [mailto:frednock@comcast.netj
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:11 AM
To: CenturyLink Customer
Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; hong ciair; Mitchell, Mary; Denis Law; Len Reid; Connell, Carol; harrylharden
Subject: Re: Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Dear Ms Dolbee
I guess what bothers me about this public hearing is the short notice. The letter notice is dated
the 11th of April and we received it on Friday thel4th. That gives us one working day before the
public hearing to try and prepare numerous questions about the Quendall project. In the past the
meetings were set up with at least with one months notice, only to be cancelled at the last moment.
cannot attend the meeting because I can't adjust my schedule on such short notice. Along with the
questions on the attached email fromthetheTaylors.lstilican.tfind out how Renton intends to deal
with the traffic problems that will be created by dumping close to 600 cars into a traffic pattern that is
backed up at least one mile on Lake Washington Blvd during the morning commute. The other
issues that concern our Barbee Mill residents are the impact on property values and traffic being
diverted into the Barbee Mill development. So many questions so little time to get answers.
Best regards
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PL
Renton, WA 98056
From: "CenturyLink Customer" <cw7mm@g.com>
To: "Vanessa Dolbee" <vdolbee@rentonwa.gov>
Cc: "hong clair" <hong.ciair@epa.gov>, "Fred & Cheryl Warnock" drednock@comcast.nel>,
"Donohue Patrick" <presidentbarbeemillhoa@outlook.com>
2
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
EXHIBIT 26
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
CenturyLink Customer <cw7mm@q.com>
Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:15 PM
Vanessa Dolbee
Subject:
hong.ciair@epa.gov; Fred & Cheryl Warnock; Donohue Patrick
Cugini Soil Stockpike at Quendall Terminal Site
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Ms. Dolbee:
Follow up
Flagged
My wife and I are unable to attend the hearing on Tuesday morning regarding this topic so we are sending
some thoughts/questions for consideration and response in lieu of our attendance.
Please see items of concern/questions regarding Cugini Proposal to Stockpile Soil at Quendall Terminal Site
Who will monitor the noise?
What will be the vibration and noise decibel sound limits?
Noise and vibration limits may need to be adjusted to meet community needs.
How will vibration affect the homes along the property lines during construction? Which homes will be
monitored for structural cracks and settlement from vibration?
How much setback from the property lines of existing homes for start of sediment stockpile? Should be
made known to owners but shouldn't come up against fence line separating properties. (Note: The
property line is not the same as where the fence is located, It extends beyond the fenceline.) Wood
rot will occur on the north side of the fence if soil is piled up against fence. Also, for aesthetic reasons,
Barbee Mill residents are requesting that stockpile not exceed middle of fence in height.
Will stockpile be covered with plastic sheeting per regulation?
Please provide City of Renton contacts during construction and on site construction inspector for EPA.
Work hours should be the same as in Seattle 7:00 AM -6:00 PM; Saturday work should be eliminated.
Construction access should have a wheel wash at exit point. How will contaminated soil track out be
controlled during temporary sediment stockpile placement?
Entry and exit should not be at N42nd PL where Barbee Mill residents exit to Lake Washington Blvd.
What has EPA proposed as a preferred cleanup, and what will be done to mitigate the effect on Barbee
Mill Community?
I was informed earlier that no one could enter the site without proper HAZMAT Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE). Does this still apply for temporary stockpile?
Has the Feasibility Study been approved by EPA? Please provide their comments/ recommendations.
I will await your responses to my questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Taylor
1252 N 42 nd PL
Renton, WA 98056
1
Quendall Terminals
(LUA09-151 )
HEX Public Hearing
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
April 18, 2017
EXHIBIT 29 @J])
Economic Development
:to
G)
~
Presentation Overvi
• Project Description -Enhanced
Alternative & Development Agreement
• Background
• Renton Municipal Code Analysis
-Compliance
-Conditions
• Staff Recommendation
RENTON
A HE AD OF T Jl l~ C L:RVE
Appl ications:
1) Master Site Plan
2) Binding Site Plan
3) Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
4) Development Agreement
Environmental Impact Statement
Completed
-FE IS issued August 2015
-Mitigation Document issued
August 2015
-Consistency Analysis For
Enhanced Alternative issued
March 2017
The application is vested to
regulations from February 10 ,
2010 , ORD 5520 (including the
SMP -amended in 1983)
RENTON
A H E.AD OF T I I I~ C URVE
Approximate Location
0"'0 o co O)~s
c:=o .-co ~ ..... a::
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
./'
m
~
)SETBACft
,ET8ACK
DC.
RENTO~
A H E .'\O O F TH E. C U R V~
4 -tE Iv.
"ISIfINGrON
------
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
; ',..... ,"~
• COR Zone and Urban
Shoreline Environment
• 21.24 acre site
• 7 lots - 4 with mixed
use buildings
• 692 multi-family
,-~".,.esidential units
~~-,.": 33 ;-190 SF of
retail/Commercial
• 9,000 SF of restaurant
• Density 40 .95 dulac
• Parking for 1,352
vehicles
• *Superfund site subj~
I, to EPA regulations ~
~ -rri
"Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
:s:
=tt:
~
~
-" = en .-0" a." o I: ....
II. ., -
" at
c.t
C
" .c:
I:
1&1
co .....
I-
c co ..... ......
(J) .' Q)
-0 ,
Q) a..
...... c
0
0....
(J)
(J)
Q)
()
() «
o z
UI '" -
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
i •
8 , I .
0>
C
~
I
S o
~
"P ~
'-
Q)
c ro
...J
>-Q)~ ->-a.ro t:r:s
...... c
o a..
Building Design -
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
* 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
"Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
B UIL DI NG NW 2
~ , ,
, -
BU IL D ING NW 1
PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON
*Final elevation design will be reviewed at Site Plan review.
RENTON
A H EAD OF T i l E CURVE
~
)).
(j)
~ -n:l 3:
:;t:
~
~
en -" c: I-E ..
~ --" -a c: • ::s
t:I
en -" C
I-
E ..
~ --" " c • ::I
CI
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Development Ag ent
Overview
• Applicant: Extended time frame beyond the 5 years permitted by code
and associated vesting of development regulations
• City/Public: Project Enhancements -designed to provide a public
benefit
RENTON
A III~A D OF TI I I~ Cl.:I~VE
~
(j')
~ -rrl
3:
=It
:"'I
..::::!!
Development Agreement
Provisions -Project Timing
• Following 5 years of the initial term a SEPA Transportation Update would be
required.
-New transportation mitigation for the project may be required based on changed
conditions and associated project impacts .
• Vest the development regulations effective on the vesting date, which is
February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement.
• Extends code authorized land use approval time lines from 5 years to 10 years
from the earlier of:
-(i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of Decision, or
-(ii) The Hearing Examiners Decision and/or subsequent appeal decision dates
:b
• Extension to the 10 years up to 5 additional years, could be authorized by the ~
City if 51% of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and §
received Certificate of Occupancy, following a second SEPA Transporta . ::
~ 0 -t
Update. ~@~ :
RENTON ~~ rro~ ~
A H EAD OF TilE CURVE N ~
~END
,
TIANO SETBACK
HWN SETBACK
~N O EDGE
RENT~
A I I EAD OF T I-I E CL:RVE
"'>to IV ... ~"""'Gro",
Enha Alternative
Project Elements
(I Collaborate with the
developer on a public
~ ~ dockLl?j,~r ~ ::!b\ .' Permitting -City
"Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
• Funding, construction,
mitigation -developer
1.3 acres of a public park
in the southwest corner
of the site )).
, :.""'~ ,.-....
G) rn
~
~ -rrl
3:
:tt
:"'I
-.::!!
~
G4K~w.
'{r}fI-\'G'rO-\'
R "'h 5I <1££T .· ~
--_ .. -,',,< , ....
~.
Enhanced Alternative
Project Elements
Additional
retail/restaurant/office space
r <.~""e ' Minimum 50 percent of the
~ '''. building street frontage
• Minimum of 20 feet in depth
Required along:
Lakeside frontage
Street 8
• Other street frontages as
necessary to meet 50%
:l=o .. Street activation; such as G)
~~;.lountains and artwork will be ~
provided along street 8 and ~
"Graph ics were prepared for Preferred Alternative lakeside frontage 0& ~.ti ~
+ APe + 3: '" ~ ~~ at;:;::"1 ~' Ncr ..:::!I
RENTON
AHEAD OF T III ~ CU RV E
• Former creosote manufacturing
facility that operated from
1917-1969
• Past coal tars and creosote
have contaminated soil,
groundwater, surface water
and lake sediments
• In 2005 DOE transferred the
oversight to the EPA
• The site received a Superfund
designation from EPA
• The EPA is conducting a
remedial investigation and
feasibility study. Which will
lead to a ROD .
RENTON
A /l EAD u F T il E CURVE
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.
RENTON
A II E t\D OF TIlE CU RVE
Background
Background (
Wetland Recreation
.... 1.lL.
Figure 2-6 DEIS
ions)
Soil Cap
• This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft . buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS .
• Assumptions are :to
unchanged inthe Q
Addendum beyon~
100 ft. setback. ~
.-. -~
RENTON
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design is:
~
:"'I
..:::!) "IIEAD OF T Il E CURVE
Background (baseline assumptions)
/ ~ / [!] Wetland Recreation
RENTON
A I I EAO O F THE CU RV E
. .,
~ ! C't1S 5c* •. ,_~
_ Wetland Buffer "'"
II'-~-"'-. . (;
.' • ,
Figure 2-7 DEIS
Buffer Averaging
Trail with
view points
• This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft . buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS .
• Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum for th~
Preferred Alternafie
~ -iTt
Buffer Width Averaging Wetland D s:
=tt
~
-:::!:I
Background (EI Process)
Determination of Significance (OS) issued on February 19, 2010-EIS Process began:
Date
2/19/10-
4/30/10
4/27/10
12/10/2010
12/10/10-
2/09/11
1/04/11
10/19/12
10/19/12 -
11/19/12
8/31/15
8/31/15 -
9/24/15
9/24/15
2/18/16
2/22/16
3/20/17
EIS Action see Exhibits 2 3 15 and 21.
EIS Public Scoping Period , 70 days (e xtended)
Public Scopin g M e eting
DEIS Iss uance
DEIS Pub li c Comment Pe r iod , 60 days (e xt e nd e d)
DEIS Public Hear i ng
EIS Addendum Iss uanc e
EIS Addendum Public Comment Pe riod
FE IS Issuance
EIS Public Appeal Period
App ea l subm itte d to EIS , App e ll a nt South End Giv es Back
Rec e ipt of Jo i nt Stipulat io n & Propo sed Order Di smi ss ing Appeal signed by th e Appellant and Applicant
Joint St i pulation & Propose d Order Dis mi ssi ng App eal si gn e d by th e Hea r i ng Exa min e r. Appeal
Dis m isse d .
Consi stency Analy sis Issuance for Enhanc e d Alte rnative and Developm e nt Ag r eement
RENT~
A HEAD O F Ti l E CURV E
:b
G')
~ -rr1
3:
:;t:
:'l
~
Renton Municipal Code Analysis
• Comprehensive Plan Compliance
• Zoning Compliance
• Design District Review
• Critica I Areas
• Master Site Plan Review IE .tl ' to_.
, .
• Binding Site Plan
• Availability of Public Services
• Shoreline Regulations
RENTON
A II EAD OF THE CU RVE
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
RENTON
A III ~:\D OF '1'111:. CUI{V L
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 Sea hawks Training Facility)
View Corridors -
a. 74 ft. width for Road B
b. 80 ft. width for semi-private plaza space.
Site Plan
RENTON
A I-lEA l) OF TilE CU RVE
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 6
and 27:
Critical Areas
Regulations
Baseline Assumptions,
assumed all recreated
wetland and their
associated buffers
would fit within
~
........... I 1w:b -... _, ,--.-
w ...... __ -
-~.
1 • w __ -
Binding Site Plan lots 1 III' J~
and 6.
Baseline
Assumptions
RENTON
"Il EA]) OF TilE CU RVE
/'
/'"
/"
-=-~.,.~
(. fO~.!lJ.
---
'!'it-JVL-----O!!L~ -~--
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 .
RENTON
A II EAD OF T il E C URVE
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 41:
Requires a fire lane and utility maintenance access road along
Lake Washington
RENTON
A II E /\1l o r TIll'. C URVE
Condition 41:
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Satisfies the following code requirements:
1. Fire Access is required along the Lake
a. Required to be 20 ft. in width.
b. Shall be constructed to support the weight of a fire apparatus.
c. Critical Areas regulations may not permit the trail to be built to meet
fire access standards. Maximum width permitted per code is 12 feet .
(RMC4-3-050C7.a. )
2. Looped waterline required
Located along the west side of the 2 lake front buildings. 1.
2.
3 .
4 .
15 feet minimum width needed for maintenance access. ):.
Maintenance access shall be a paved surface. ~
Not permitted within wetlands, wetland buffers, or shoreline buffer. ~
RENTON
"II EAD OF Ti l E C URVE
'o@~Y C?~ ~ .~6 R .3:
..& ~ ~~ n--o<:':"'4 ~'N ). ..:::!I
mmendation
Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline
Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the
conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified
conditions.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that
if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner
will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner.
RENTON
r\JIE /\D OF T il E CU I{VE
)).
G>
~ -n:I
3::
:t:I:
~
00
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
-QUENDALLTERMINALS
ENTITLEMENTS HEARING
MASTER PLAN REVIEW
BINDING SITE PLAN
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
CITY OF RENTON
APRIL 18,2017
EXHffiIT BINDER #2: VESTED
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
--~-R"enton ®
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
EXHIBIT 30
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
QUENDALL TERMINALS
ENTITLEMENTS HEARING
MASTER PLAN REVIEW
BINDING SITE PLAN
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
CITY OF RENTON
APRIL 18, 2017
EXHIBIT BINDER #1: SUPPLEMENTAL
APPLICANT EXHIBITS
--~-Renton ®
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
EXHIBIT 31
-----------------
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Larry Toedtli. PE Principal (Retired)
Expertise:
• De velo pment traffic impact
analyses under SEPA
• Tran sporta t ion analyses of
la rg e mas ter planned
developments
• Expe rien ce man agin g multipl e
team members
• Expe rience managing on -call
contracts
• Multimodal tran sporta tion
pl anning under GMA
• Expe rien ce in facilitating
sta kehold er engagemen t and
public outrea ch pr ograms
Vears Employed by Transpo: 30
Education:
MS , Civ il Eng in eering
(Tran sportation ), Unive rs ity of
Wash ing ton ,1983
BS , Civil Engineering , Uni ve rsity of
Colorado, 1977
Professional registrations
and licenses:
PE , Was hin gto n, #25888, 19 89
PE , Colorado, #23 125, 198 5
Professional Associations
Institute of Transpo rta ti on
Engineers (rTE )
Contact
larry.toedtli @co mcast.net
'i/tranSpO GROUP
Larry recently re tired as a principal at Transpo with over 30 years of experience
deve lop i ng area -wide and corridor leve l transportation plans. He directed
Transpo's efforts in GMA-based transportation plans , transportation financing
strategies, and concurrency prog ra ms. He also had project management
responsib il ities for transportat i on analyses su ppo rting EIS s fo r subarea p lans,
planned action ord i nances, and tran sportation corridor projects. He has a
t horough knowledge of travel forecasting and traffic operat io n ana l yses
techniques .
La rry also served local agencies in reviewing traff ic im pact studies fo r
deve lopme nts with in and outside of thei r jurisdictio n. He recent ly assisted the
Cities of Duval l and Fernda le in this role.
Lar ry w as appo i nted as a member of King County's Transportation Con curren cy
Expert Re view Pa nel. Th e panel includes County staff, citizens, and representatives
f rom the development community. The pane l developed recommendations to
refine the Concur ren cy prog ram to ref lect the changes in Ki ng County to a more
rural County and also to improve th e interface between the County's concurrency
prog ram and SEPA processes .
Tehaleh Employment Based Planned Community, Pierce County
Larry d irected Transpo's transportation planning and traffic engineering
assistance for th is large master Plan ned Community located in Pierce County
between Bo nney La ke and Orting. When ful ly developed , the community wi l l have
ove r 6,500 re sidences, a retail center, bus i ness park, schoo ls, 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. Tr anspo has also assisted in monitori ng the transportation mitigation
triggers based on the approved development agreement. Transpo has ass i sted
t he project team and agency staff in defini ng the off-site roadway and mitigation
strategies to support future deve lopment phases. Larry also led t he initial tasks
for the deta i led trans p ortation 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 analys is of traffic impa cts and development of a subarea
transportation i m provement program for the EIS fo r a large mixed -use
comm unity p lanned for rural Ki ng County. At build out the deve l opment will
i nclude 5,400 dwel l ing units, ne ighborho od reta il, 1.2 m il l ion SF of business par k,
golf co urse and soccer f ields. The analysis included assessing roadway
improvement ne eds and non -motorized system fac ilities , tran sit opportun ities,
an d financing . Key issues in cluded accommodating urban traffic levels in an
otherwise rural area and potentia l t ra ffic i mpacts on other juri sdi ctions . Larry
sup p orted the p rojects through coordinat ion w ith WSDOT and Redmond .
EXHIBIT 33
'j/tranSpOGROUP
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Orton Junction Urban Growth Area EIS , Sumner, WA
Larry managed the transportation analysis f or the EIS for this subarea located
south of SR 410 in Sumner. The City proposed to increase densities and ex p an d
the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to accommodate a mix of res i den t ial , commercial ,
and indu strial land uses . The ana lysis addressed impa cts and transportat ion
improvement needs in the immediate vic i nity of the subarea.
Overlake Urban Center Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, Redmond
Larry managed an ana l ys is of t he potential traffic impacts of the addit io nal m ulti -
fam il y residential development w ithin the proposed Overlake Urban Center. The
analysis focused on evaluating the impacts within the Overlake Transportat ion
Management District (TMD) and surround ing area of Bellevue. The City of
Redmond 's proposal to change the designation for the Over lake area from a
Manufa ctu ring/lndustrial Center to an Urban Center would not affect zoning or
the potential for residentia l growth in the area. Actual deve lop men t of additional
residentia l units in the area wou ld, however, result i n some traffic impacts. The
impac ts would primari l y be in the immed ia te vicini ty of the Ove rlake Urban
Center, with i mpacts decreasing further from t he site.
Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel; King County, Washington .
Larry serves on the King County Transportation Concurrency Expert Review Panel.
The panel provides po l icy and technica l guidan ce to King County staff as part of
thei r ongoing refinement of County pol icies and programs related to level of
service standards and concurrency. The pane l has assisted i n defining changes t o
t he programs as the County focuses on rural areas as annexat ions 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 transporta ti on ana lysis for the planned action El S for
Fernda le 's Main Street near the 1-5 interchange. The planned action wou ld allow
over 1 mill ion square feet of commercial developments. The EI S evaluated the use
of ro un dabouts vs. traffic signal im p rovements to add ress potentia l traffic
operations and safety impacts due to the increa sed level of deve lopment. The
analysis included comparison of levels of service, corridor trave l speeds and cost
d ifference s. The EIS also id enti fied development mitigation strategies in cluding
potential updates to the Ci ty's t ransportat ion impact fee and concurrency
programs. He also coord i nated w it h WSDO T on improvements related to impacts
on I -S and interchanges at M ai n St reet and Sla t er Road .
Pacific Ridge Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS, Des Moines
Larry assisted the City of Des Moi nes in evaluating the transportation-related
impacts associated with 4,200 additional dwelling units and 6,900 add itional
employees located within the Pacific Ridge subarea. To miti gate impacts, a variety
of st rategies we r e identified, includ i ng a reduction in the amount of new
development, creation of a transit and transporta ti on demand management
program, and/or funding and building necessary improvement p rojects through
one or more Loca l Improvement Districts (U Ds) o r Transportation Benefit Dis tricts
(TBDs ). The Planned Ac ti on Ordinance took into account the City's impact fee
requ i rements and street standard requirements.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES
Education :
Professional
Registrations :
Experience:
Responsibility:
Representative
Projects:
BOB WELLS
ASSOCIATE
Bachelor of Architecture -1969
University of Idaho , Moscow, ID
Licensed Architect , State of Washington , USA -1975
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 .
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
ROCKWELL COLLINS , Wilsonville , OR
This 221 ,000 sf manufacturing and office consolidated Rockwell's
Portland area operations in one building in a wonderful natural
setting. Our roll was shell architect and coordinating shell revisions
with the TI Architect. Later we assisted Rockwell on a number of
smaller tenant improvements .
DWFRITZ PRECISION AUTOMATION , Wilsonville, OR
From 2009 to 2017 we were the Architects on three separate projects
totaling 273 ,000sf for this hi-tech manufacturer. The first two are new
2-story buildings and the last is a conversion of an existing industrial
building into an office and manufacturing facility filled with natural
light.
EXHIBIT 34
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES
BOB WELLS
P AGE 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 .
ONV IA 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 .
ZE TRON BUILDING , Redmond , WA
Zetron centralized their office and manufacturing headquarters into
this four-story 210 ,000 sf facility. The facility includes basement
parking and storage area and substantial areas dedicated to
greenbelt and wetlands .
THE GILBERT, Seattle , WA
A 3-story traditional brick apartment complex on top of bustling
Queen Anne hill with 54 units and 9,500 sf of street front retail with
the basement parking accessed from the alley.
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES
Education:
Professional
Registration:
Professional
Affiliations:
Experience:
Responsibility :
Honors:
LANCE MUELLER, AlA
PRESIDENT
University of Washington
College of Architecture -1962-1967
Licensed Architect , State of Wash ington , 1973.
Other States ; California , Nevada , Idaho and Oregon .
Certificate -National Council of Architectural Registration Boards ,
1974 .
Member -American Institute of Architects
Lambda Alpha International Land Economics Honorary
International Conference of Building Officials
1965 to 1970 : Worked in three small Seattle architectural
firms .
1970 to present: Joined Richard Bouillon & Assoc .lArch itects in 1970 .
Became owner of firm in 1973 upon death of R. Bouillon. Renamed
firm in 1975. Experience covers a wide variet y 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 .
Project conceptual and preliminary design and design development.
Project administration , contractual agreements and general office
administration.
National Association of Industrial and Office Parks
2005 Hall of Fame Inductee
EXHIBIT 35
~ ~
:1
=z
.''''', . -
LEGEND
OHWM
_1J_V
!ioO' OIiWM S£T8AC1( _r--~
100' OHWM S£T8ACM. ~
IBJ DUMPSTER / RECYCU IUN
I!lI tmUTY ANO ELECTR ICAL SPACE
~ LOBB't'AREA
AREA SUMMARY
FROM COLOR LEGEND
33,l.9O S.f . (RETAil) ---t 0 RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS
9,000 S.F.(AESTAURANTS)
OPEN SPACE AREAS
21.791 S.F. (0 .50 .I.e.) ---+ _ PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE
65,565 5.f. (1.5 At.) ----+ 0 PEDESTRIAN CIRctJLAnON
i. "< • ~ ..
'" ',.
-0,
t %
129,122 S.f . 12 .96 AC .) ---+ SITE LANDSCAPE, PAAK AND OPEN SPACE
148,170 S.f . (3.4 AC.) ---+ _ 100' SHORELINE SETB ACK
50.725 S.F.(L2AC.j -+ 0 L0T1(1S0LATEOI
2NO fl()()jl: m[ I..O~OSC"'[ (1'<1 .0)
146,574 S.F. (3 .36 AC .)
• 561,953 s.F. tUg AC .) TOTAL
1.4.t£ W4s ......
'rlJ\lGTO
N
_ .....
s "~. ,~
0" , i. i. • ~'a. 1;; ,(>
o
4" .... 1 .... '"
Sit. & 8ulld lng SloImm.ry. -g, ..... --"---o..o,.-y "" It l ~ l
~_T ...
,'--.-.... .... 'l .~ ___ (IOn"'""' __ _
Stetlltlcl:
H ~"""""S,.......,
_'-~"""'n .. , ...... ",.......:
-:.::: --!: ... ::::.::.
.,,:";:. ... , ,.-:-' ......... , "., ,>0"" ,.. , ...... II "..... " .. ':: :: ::: ".., .. , .. r. .. ,. ... , ....... ,,1»., ",.,
... t~~_~
..... _ .. ~h._ .. ___ ... , .... ,
'~~~,-.'.,. _.,.' .... , ......... ,.' ...
I!!.lW l'l..JI!. "'."''''''.'-'''--" ....... ", .. _--
So ./w .. s.........ry: ---
'-' · : · · • l., __ •.
.. ---~ .... ,...--.. __ ....... -
P ....... -..." ............ , -
--..--.....
-"'''''' ~-.... " .. -.. ---_.-
~:::-..... ,.-.... , ..... .... "" ....
-.,-_ ..
::: .-~
~ ,
~ ..
.---... _-''''''''..-.'''' ..... <1. _ .. _ .... ,,.,,-., ~;::"'..:.
,,, ....... .
' ... , ......... -
QUENDALL TERMINALS ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC , LLLP EXHIBIT 37
o ~ ~ ~
~
/" ..;
T ~Q :: 1.
7 ~ o~ ~ ,
z ' ~z ~ w u
P1.0
d III 'JI..:lIJ .... c ,UJnI Nl;)
N01~f\IHS\fM 'NOW]!::
SlVNI~ 1 l l\fON3nO
, 1I "il j1 1.1i I, , .
r
I .11
i
I
I
"
!
i
Il
I ,
i
o
Z
LLI
(!)
LLI
....J
.lllloll._ "11:
-"s::' --~ _ ..
!
=~a; _ ..
.. ~ :
-"·m' __ ~ I _ .. i ~. 1-+-";:=:':":4
!
--
t
l
j , , ,
! •
" ." .
"g
w > -~
Z c:::
W
a
a
"-
00
M
~\t-~\eoO?>~ I-
iii
J: -------~ ---1 «
o
X
LLI
w
Ozo..
Z °::l 1--1 « <.9 -
I ZU
-LL I-Z (I) U W~~ ->-I Z c:::
,,, 0 =>
V,II-I----1 Z Z «ww
C:::U
Z
~ c:::
W
t-
---1
---1 « o
Z
W
:::J a
O-..... ,"'l'O"OIo.!IW~~ "'-to-.I
AB -1881
SUBJECT/TITLE:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPARTMENT:
STAFF CONTACT:
EXT .:
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY :
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
-----".""",.-CRen to n ®
City Council Regular Meeting -03 Apr 2017
Quendall Terminals Public Hearing
Council Concur
Community & Economic Development
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
7314
The proponents for the Quendall Terminals land use app li cation 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
Commercia l/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 schedu led 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 entit lements and associated development standard vesting from 5 years to 10
years, with a pos sible 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 Deve lopment Agreement with the public hearing for th e land use entitlements
with the City's Hearing Examiner. By consolidating the publ ic hearing proce ss for both the land use
entitlements and the development agreement, the public wi ll be able to comment on both the development
project and the associated development agreement at one public hearing . Second, the Hearing Examiner
wou ld 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 simpl ify th e public proces s for the overall project. The final deci sion authority
on the Development Agreement would remain with City Council, following a recommendation provided by the
City's Hearing Examiner.
EXHIBITS :
A. Draft Deve lopment Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
The Administration recommends conso lidating the public hearing process for both the land use entitlements and the
development agreement and deferring thi s proce ss to the Cit y's Hearing Examiner.
EXHIBIT 39
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 0 NOT YET ASS IGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
____ ,2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-I (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mi xe d -use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision .
Draft Quendall Terminols Development Agreement Page 1
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
"Initial Project Applications").
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
("the Development Agreement Statute"}, the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 ali or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable conSideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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(0)(1) and
4-8-070(J) .
3.1_1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners'
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction
("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31,2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer's request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would
delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City's authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregOing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402·0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement PageS
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 lOath 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
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 maya mediator who
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
Draft QuendalJ Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
Denis Law
Mayor
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this __ day of _________ , 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By: __________ _
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By: _________ _
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: _________ _
CITY OF RENTON
By:. __________ _
Date: _________ _
ATIEST:
By: _________ _
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATEOF ___ _
ss:
COUNTY OF ____ _
On this __ day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of , County of , personally appeared ______ _
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory eVidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
STATE OF ____ _
ss:
COUNTYOF ___ _
On this __ day of ,2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-I-Map
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Page 14
Exhibit A
SURVEYOR'S METES A~0 BOU~8S
LEGAL 8ESCRIPTIO~
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
~HAT ?ORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, ~OWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, ~l. ~l., AND SHORELl',NDS SECOND CLl',SS AJJOINING
LYING WESTERLY OF THF, NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILRO.l',D RIGH';'-OF-WAY AND
SOUTHERLY OF A L!NE, I~ KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
29;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAI8 LOT 5,
1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAI8 NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAO RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAI8 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L:NS TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29'44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOUTH 56°28'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 59"24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A;
THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE ENG
OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION;
ALSO THAT PORTION O~ SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOU~HEASTERLY OF
LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONJARY STATE HIGHWAY
NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RlGHT-Of-WAY Of PUBLIC STATE
HICHWA" NUI'1BER 1 AS EST.n.BL=SHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964
UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687~08;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A
~;UNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER
RECORDING NO. 20080619001179.
11/11/2016
CENTURY PACIFIC, LL~P
DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546
BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03
11/ll/16
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MIKOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Page 15
Exhibit A-l
SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9012-01
I
I ,-..uu."." ~I ___ I ""'l""" ~ ___ ~
300 0 150 300 lRUE POINT-::--+-....
OF BEGINNING i
TAX ACCT. NO.
"""-.292405-9001-Oi , '" ---( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 300 tt.
~ ~& TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9002-03
S.Js
'<.J.
1 OO.Ol·~..(rI'
POIN;
S~
~
,¥<'<-. / \..0/
li<\J'i-.'<-/
.,,<-~7 ,"\ ... r ~ ORDINARY HIGH ",0" /" .
WATER MARK . ;Y
AT 18.8' //
ELEVATION < N30'56'16"E 90.80'
SW 1/4
SECTION 29,
T24N,45E
1016.36'
OF BARBEE MILL
246, PGS. 25-39,
NO. 20080208000182
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
1 CORNER
OF SEC. 29
-"'-BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
~ LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST .RH SEATTLE, Washington
98102-3513
(206) 323-4144
DATE 11/11/16
JOB NO.:2009050.03
Page 16
l::o
G)
~
~ -~
35:
~
:"'I
..:::!I
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 (DE IS) on December 10,
2010, an Addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) and Mitigation Document on August 31, 2015, and a Consistency Analysis on February 9,
2017; and
WHEREAS, development agreements are authorized under RCW 36.70B.170-210; and
WHEREAS, a development agreement and associated land use applications, LUA09-151,
were presented for the Quendall Terminals project at a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner held on April 18, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner heard public comment presented at the public hearing
for the Quendall Terminals project and on May 9,2017 issued a decision recommending that the
City Council approve a modified development agreement and associated land use applications
(LUA09-151) subject to 46 conditions of approval; and
1
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
RESOLUTION NO. __ _
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at the
public hearing and the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and has considered the
development agreement attached hereto as Attachment A which incorporates the Hearing
Examiner's recommended modification;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the development
agreement between the City of Renton and Quendall Terminals, a Washington Joint Venture, the
form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
PASSED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL this ___ dayof ________ , 2017.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ___ day of ________ , 2017.
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
RES:1725:5/12/17:scr
Denis Law, Mayor
2
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
RESOLUTION NO. __
EXHIBIT A
FORM OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON AND QUENDALL TERMINALS, A
WASHINGTON JOINT VENTURE
3
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 0 NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
___ ,2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-I (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 5pecified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
("the Development Agreement Statute"), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
Draft QuendaJJ Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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, FE IS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the "Project-level SEPA Review."
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
_____ ,' 2017.
l. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ElEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners'
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction
("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock deSign, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
Draft QuendaJ/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 originalSEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, bUilding SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft Quendaff Terminals Development Agreement PageS
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4_ TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer's request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
5.2 Vesting EKceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would
delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt from vesting to the extent mandated by
the Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applicable to the
City of Renton.
5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City's authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
Draft Quendal! Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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
lOSS S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402·0902
With a copy to:
Draft Quendaff Terminals Development Agreement PageS
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
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully
set forth.
6.8 Dispute Resolution.
6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement,
the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This
mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the
other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
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 maya mediator who
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
Draft QuendaJJ Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
Denis Law
Mayor
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this __ day of _________ , 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By: __________ _
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By: __________ _
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: __________ __
CITY OF RENTON
By:. _________________ __
Date: _________ _
ATIEST:
By: _______ _
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___ _
ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _
On this __ day of , 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of , County of , personally appeared ______ _
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory eVidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
STATE OF ____ _
ss:
COUNTYOF ___ _
On this __ day of ,2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
list of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-i-Map
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
Page 14
Exhibit A
SURVEY02'S ME!ES ANC 60~KDS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
AGENDA ITEM #7. f)
THAT PORTION OF GOVERN~SNT LOT 5 IN SECT=ON 29, ~OWNSHIP 24
NeRTH, Rl\NGE S EJlST, W. H., AND SHOREU\NJS SECOND CLASS l'.DJOHilNG
LYING WESTERLY OF THE NOR:'HSRN PACIF~C RAILROAD RIGHer-OF-WAY AND
SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
29;
THENCS NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THS SOUTH ::"INE OF S[,ID LOT 5,
1,113.01 FEET TO THE loJESTSRLY :,INE OF SAID NORT'-IERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SATD RIGHT-Of-WAY
LINE TO A POINT HEREINAfTER REfERRED TO AS POINT A;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29"44'54" SAST 200.01 fEET TO THE TRUE
POINT O~ BEGINNING Of THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBF:D;
THENCE SOUTH 56°28'50" WEST 2??3~ FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 59°24'56" ~IEST lOO.OI fSIC'!' n\OH SAID POINT A;
THENCE NORTH 59'24'56" W~ST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END
OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION;
ALSO THAT PORTION O~ SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF
LAKE WASHTKGTON BOUlEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY
NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF T'-IE RIGHT-Of-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE
HIGHWAY NUHBER 1 AS ESTABL=SHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964
UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOf CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER
RECORDING NO. 20080619001:79.
11/11/2016
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLL?
Dl .. KIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546
BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03
1:/11/16
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, :NC.
2009 ~lIKOP. AVEN:JE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Page 15
Exhibit A-l
SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
{
/ I,gu., ."" "-f / ~ 4n"'7r::.:;r~1
300 0 150 300 lRUE POINT --I-...
OF BEGINNING 1
TAX ACCT, NO. LI
-9001-0 i .. -III I I
( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 300 ft.
~ ~& TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9002-03 ,,-&./
81 g'{
/
S~
~ ~
,;..<;§:.-.'?-/ • ~V:7 ~
ORDINARY HIGH 0-<)..-. ,f'
WATER IAARK G;;-
AT 18.8' //
ELEVA110N <' N30'56'16"E
90.80'
SW 1/4
SECTION 29,
T24N,45E
OF BARBEE MILL
246. PGS. 25-39.
NO. 20080208000182
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
,
(SE 80TH ST) I 1 CORNER
VAC N 44TH ST OF SEC. 29
REC. # 7602260427, 4-2
f t --'" -1,113.05' f-
7 963.31'
VAC N 44Tr ST
GOV'T LOT 1
2009 MINUH AVI:::. cAS] BRM SEATTLE, Washington
(LUb) 323-4144
DATE 11/11/16
98102-3513 JOB NO.:2009050.03
Page 16
)). ; -rM 3::
=It
:"I
..::!J
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall
Terminals
--Renton€)
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. E-1
CHAPTER 1
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES &
ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES &
ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 2-1
APPENDICES
Figure
Appendix A -Transportation Analysis -Enhanced Alternative
-Left-Turn Lane Analysis/or Street 'A' -Enhanced Alternative
Appendix 8 -Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the
Enhanced Alternative
Appendix C -GHG Emissions Worksheet for Enhanced Alternative
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Regional Map ..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1-2 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... 1-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1-1 Comparison of 2010 -2015 SEPA Redevelopment Alternatives &
Enhanced Alternative ......................................................................................................... 1-7
1-2 Building Height -Preferred Alternative & Enhanced Alternative ..................................... 1-8
Quendall Terminals i Table of Contents
Environmental Consistency Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Applicant (Century Pacific, LP) is proposing mixed-use redevelopment, including
multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/opens space uses
on an approximately 21.S-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores of Lake
Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) have been published by the City of Renton on the Quendall Terminals
Redevelopment Project:
• QuendalJ Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• QuendalJ Terminals Enviranmentallmpact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• QuendalJ Terminals Final Enviranmentallmpact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendal/ Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The Applicant is currently seeking approval for the following plans/permits from the
City:
• Master Site Plan;
• Binding Site Plan; and
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
The City and the Applicant have initiated preparation of a Development Agreement for
the project. An "Enhanced Alternative" has been created during this process. The
following report contains an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Enhanced
Alternative.
Goal of this Analysis
The goal of the Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis is to confirm
that proposed development and associated environmental impacts under the Enhanced
Alternative are within the range of redevelopment alternatives and environmental
impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA environmental review for the project.
A further goal of the Consistency Analysis is to verify that the changes in the Enhanced
Alternative would require no additional mitigation measures.
Development Types, Levels and Features
The QuendalJ Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis compares the types and
levels of development and development features called for under the Enhanced
Alternatives to the types, levels and features assumed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA
review. The Consistency Analysis determines that the types of development (residential,
Quendal/ Terminals E-1
Environmental Consistency Analysis
commercial and parks/open space) under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the
types of uses assumed under the EIS redevelopment alternatives in the past SEPA
review. The maximum levels of development under the Enhanced Alternative (692
residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,3S2 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space) would be within the maximum levels of
development evaluated in the past SEPA review (particularly Alternative 1 analyzed in
the 2010 DEIS with 800 residential units, 275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail,
restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of parks/open space). Specific development
features ofthe Enhanced Alternative (e.g., building height, bulk and scale; open space
and related areas; parking and access; shoreline setback; wetland and shoreline area;
building setbacks; view corridors; population and employment; grading; utilities; and
fire lane and utility maintenance access road) would be within the ranges under the EIS
alternatives as well, and are substantially similar to the Preferred Alternative.
Environmental Impacts
The Quendall Terminals Enviranmental Cansistency Analysis compares the probable
environmental impacts from redevelopment under the Enhanced Alternative to the
probable impacts from redevelopment under the alternatives analyzed in the 2010
through 2015 SEPA review. The following elements of the environment are addressed in
the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review and this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas,
Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use,
Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Transportation and Cultural Resources. More
detailed analyses are provided in this report for: Transportation; Height, Bulk and Scale;
Aesthetics/Views; and Parks and Recreation.
The Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the
Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the
past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in
the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Conclusion
The Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable
environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall
Terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those
identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Quendal/ Terminals E-2
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Chapter I
COMPARISON OF
DEVELOPMENT UNDER
THE EIS ALTERNATIVES &
ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
CHAPTER 1
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER
THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Introduction
The Applicant (Century Pacific, LP) is proposing mixed-use redevelopment, including
multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open space uses
on the approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site located in northern Renton on
the shores of Lake Washington. The site consists of an approximately 20.3-acre Main
Property along Lake Washington and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the
northeast (see Figure 1-1, Regional Map and Figure 1-2, Vicinity Map).
The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation under
the oversite of the EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the environment
associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate
EPA process. The impact analyses in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review
prepared for the project solely addressed impacts that may occur due to post clean-up
redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site, and assumed an existing/baseline
condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation.
To date, four SEPA review documents have been published by the City of Renton on the
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project:
• Quendal/ Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DElS) (December
2010);
• Quendal/ Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendal/ Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (FElS) (August 2015);
and
• Quendal/ Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
These documents are available for review at Renton City Hall and via download on the
City of Renton Website -www.rentonwa.gov.
The Applicant is currently seeking approval for the following plans/permits from the
City:
• Master Site Plan;
• Binding Site Plan; and
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Quendal/ Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
1-1
, j'."
1 '1, I I!
, Covlty
''1ational
~rt
I
Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
VillJge:
MerCe" Island
Quendall Terminals
Bryn
M<Jwr-SkywJ "
;:
Tukwila
Stllrfire Spor1s 0
City of Renton Boundary
Source: Google Maps, 2016
EA Engineering.
Science, and
Technology, Inc., PSC
Renton
(;' s)
COJI'ie: d
[Jst
I· gl-
,,'" s~" I,! 1
Figure 1-1
Regional Map
Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
LAKE WASHINGTON
.----, ,
SITE /' /
(Isolated Property) ~// ,
SITE:" :_..;,
(Main Property) )f!!!!.:; .. : ___ :
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
" , ,
" ,
, ' , ' ,. 1 __ -, , , , , , , , , , , , , .. ,
'-.~~ , , ,
':!, '
City of Renton City Limits
Source: EA, Google Maps, 2016 54 EA Engineering,
Science, and
Technology. Inc., PBC
, , ,
\ ,-j' '
\" .. ' : -~
,'. i -".l!/ :. :,c(" ~
r-\Jf~
••• Cl ••• •••
N"ro~" IN! I
Figure 1-2
Vicinity Map
The City and the Applicant have initiated preparation of a Development Agreement for
the project. During this process, an "Enhanced Alternative" has been created.
The Quendal/ Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared to
confirm that proposed development and associated environmental impacts under the
Enhanced Alternative are within the range of redevelopment alternatives and impacts
analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA environmental review for the project. This
section of the consistency analysis compares the type and level of development, and
other development features under the Enhanced Alternative to those under the
alternatives in the past SEPA environmental review.
2010 DEIS
Two redevelopment alternatives and a No Action alternative were described and
analyzed in the DEIS:
Alternative 1 -Application
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
800 residential units;
Approximately 245,000 sq. ft. of office uses;
Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses;
Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
2,171 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
Alternative 2 -Lower-Densitv Alternative
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
708 residential units;
No office uses;
Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses;
Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
1,364 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use redevelopment would occur on the
Quendall Terminals site at this time.
2012 EIS Addendum
Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed
by the Applicant and the Applicant's technical team based on additional
Quenda/l Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
1-4
agency/community input (particularly from the EPA), and continued input and
coordination with the City of Renton.
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to that described in
the DEIS for the redevelopment alternatives, particularly Alternative 2, with certain
exceptions, including: incorporation of a 100-foot minimum shoreline setback, reduction
of the number of residential units, modulation of building heights to reduce impacts on
adjacent uses and provision of a 20-foot wide fire lane/trail in the shoreline setback, if
approved as part of EPA's anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD
Settlement.
Preferred Alternative
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
692 residential units;
No office uses;
Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses;
Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
1,337 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
2015 FEIS & 2015 MITIGATION DOCUMENT
The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in the EIS Addendum was maintained
in the 2015 FEIS. Final project mitigation measures were included in the 2015 FEIS and in
the 2015 Mitigation Document.
2016 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The City and the Applicant have been working on a Development Agreement for the
Quendall Terminals project. Through this process, an Enhanced Alternative has been
created. Redevelopment under the Enhanced Alternative would be similar to that under
the Applicant's Preferred Alternative in the 2012 EIS Addendum and 2015 FEIS, with
several key differences, as described below.
Quendall Terminals 1-5
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Enhanced Alternative
Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include:
692 residential units;
No office uses;
Approximately 33,190 sq. ft. of retail uses;
Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and
1,352 parking spaces.
No development would occur on the Isolated Property.
Key redevelopment assumptions under the Enhanced Alternative from the Development
Agreement that would differ from those under the Applicant's Preferred Alternative
include:
• Additional retail/restaurant/office and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
space would be provided along Street 'B', along the lakeside frontage and along
other streets as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building
street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet;
• An additionaI1.3-acre public park would be included in the southwestern
portion of the site; and
• A future possible dock/pier associated with the public park could be provided
(this dock is not proposed at this time and would be subject to future SEPA
environmental review and subject to EPA consent).
Table 1-1 compares the past EIS redevelopment alternatives to the Enhanced
Alternative; additional detail is provided below.
Types of Development
As shown in Table 1-1, the types of development under the Enhanced Alternative
(residential, commercial and parks/open space) are within the types of uses assumed
under the EIS alternatives.
Quendall Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
1-6
Table 1-1
COMPARISON OF 2010 -2015 SEPA REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
& ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
20100EIS 20100EIS 2015 FEIS· 2016 Enhanced
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative
Alternative
Commercial Uses (Office, 275,600 sq. ft. 30,600 sq. ft. 30,600 sq. ft. 42,190 sq. ft.
Retail and Restaurant) (245,000 sq. ft. (21,600 sq. ft. retail (21,600 sq. ft. retail (33,190 sq. ft. retail
office, 21,600 sq. and 9,000 sq. ft. and 9,000 sq. ft. and 9,000 sq. ft.
ft. retail, 9,000 sq. restaurant) restaurant) restaurant)
ft. restaurant)
Residential Units 800 units 708 units 692 units 692 units
Maximum Building 77 ft. 67 ft. 64 ft. 64 ft.
Height
Number of Buildings 9 9 10 10
Residential Building Area 94,600 -209,000 77,000 -112,800 46,200 -88,000 sq. 62,400 -101,975 sq.
sq. ft. sq. ft. ft. ft.
Open Space & Related 11.7 acres' 11.8 acres' 10.6 acres' 12.9 acres'
Areas 1
Parking 2,171 spaces 1,364 spaces 1,337 spaces 1,352 spaces
Shoreline Setback 50ft. min. 50 ft. min. 100 ft. min. 100 ft. min.
Building Setbacks from North: 38 ft. min.' North: 38 ft. min.' North: 38 ft. min.' North: 42 ft .. '
Adjacent Property Lines' South: 37 ft. min' South: 42 ft. min' South: 42 ft. min.' South: 47 ft. '
View Corridors View corridors View corridors larger view larger view corridors
along Street '8' along Street '8' and corridors along along Street '8' and
and along along Street 'B' and along along
driveways/parking driveways/parking driveways/parking driveways/parking
areas at N. and S. areas at N. and S. areas at N. and S. areas at N. and S.
ends of site ends of site ends of site ends of site
Site Population 1,300 residents 1,132 residents 1,108 residents 1,108 residents
Site Employment 1,050 employees 50 employees 50 employees 62 employees
Grading 53,000 . 133,000 53,000 . 133,000 53,000 -133,000 53,000·133,000 CV
CYfili CVfili CVfili fill
Utilities Sewer and water Sewer and water Sewer and water Sewer and water
from City; from City; from City; from City;
stormwater mgmt. stormwater mgml. storm water mgmt. stormwater mgmt.
per applicable per applicable per applicable per applicable
regulations regulations regulations regulations
Fire Lane{Traii/ Shoreline trail Shoreline trail 20·ft. wide fire 20·ft. wide enhanced
Pedestrian Promenade inside 50-ft. inside 50-ft. lane/trail inside fire & utility access
shoreline setback shoreline setback 100-ft. shoreline lane outside 100-ft.
setback shoreline setback &
a shoreline trail
inside the 100-ft.
shoreline setback3 .
Source: Quendall Termma/s SEPA ReVIew, 2010·2015 and Lance Mueller & ASSOCIates, 2016.
1 For purposes of this Environmental Consistency Analysis, open space and related areas include: the enhanced fire and utility
access lane; other pedestrian circulation; site landscaping, parks and open space; and the shoreline setback area.
2 Setbacks are measured from the property line to the nearest proposed structure.
lThe shoreline trail would require approval as part of EPA's anticipated ROD forthe remediation project or any NRD Settlement.
Quendall Terminals 1·7
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Levels of Development
The maximum development levels under the Enhanced Alternative (692 residential
units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant] and 12.9 acres of
parks/open space) are within the maximum levels of development evaluated in the past
SEPA review (in particular, DE IS Alternative 1 which included 800 residential units,
275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail, restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of
parks/open space).
Other Development Features
Building Height, Bulk & Scale
The maximum building height under the Enhanced Alternative would be 64 feet, the
same as under the Preferred Alternative, and less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
As shown in Table 1-2, the majority of the proposed buildings would be the same
heights as under the Preferred Alternative, including those adjacent to Barbee Mill (e.g.,
building SW 4 in the southwestern portion of the site, which would be 4 stories tall).
Three of the proposed buildings located in the eastern and central portions of the site
under the Enhanced Alternative (buildings NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be 6 stories tall,
one-story taller than under the Preferred Alternative.
A total of 10 buildings would be constructed on site under the Enhanced Alternative, the
same number as under the Preferred Alternative, and one building more than under
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The residential building areas would range from 62,400 to
101,975 sq. ft., greater than the 46,200 to 88,000 sq. ft. under the Preferred Alternative,
but less than the 94,600 to 209,000 sq. ft. under DEIS Alternative 1.
Quendall Terminals
Table 1-2
BUILDING HEIGHT -PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
& ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Building Preferred Alternative
(Total # of Floors')
SWl 6
SW2 6
SW3 5
SW4 4
NWl 6
NW2 5
SE 1 6
SE 2 5
NE 1 6
NE2 5
Source: Lance Mueller & ASSOCIates, 2016.
qnciudes parking level.
Enhanced Alternative
(Total # of Floors')
6
6
5
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
Environmental Consistency Analysis
1-8
Open Space & Related Areas
A total of 12.9 acres of open space and related areas would be provided under the
Enhanced Alternative, more than under any of the other EIS alternatives. This area
would include a new 1.3-acre public park located in the southwestern portion of the
site. A breakdown of the open space and related areas is provided below.
• Enhanced Fire and Utility Access Lane 0.6 ac.
• Other Pedestrian Circulation
• Site Landscaping, Park & Open Space
• Shoreline Setback Area
• Courtyard Landscaping
• Isolated Property
'Any minor errors in addition are due to rounding.
Parking & Access
1.5 ac.
2.9 ac.
3.4 ac.
3.4 ac
1.2 ac.
12.9 ac.*
Under the Enhanced Alternative, 1,352 parking spaces would be provided within the
proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas and in one deck parking area. These
spaces would be more than the 1,337 spaces under the Preferred Alternative and less
than the 2,171 spaces under DEIS Alternative 1. The proposed spaces would provide an
adequate supply for the proposed uses (see Chapter 2 -Transportation and Appendix A
for details).
Access to the site would continue to be provided from the east from two points: one
from N 43,d Street and the other from Ripley Lane N. Three public roads (Street 'A',
Street '6' and Street 'C') and two private drives (Drive 'E' and 'F') would be constructed
onsite. A center left-turn lane that was included on Street 'A' under the Preferred
Alternative was not found to be needed and was eliminated under the Enhanced
Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the Street 'A' intersections would
provide acceptable traffic operations (see the Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street 'A'-
Enhanced Alternative Memo in Appendix A for details). Certain access points to parking
areas within the buildings would be adjusted under the Enhanced Alternative as well.
Shoreline Setback
A minimum 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake
Washington would be provided under the Enhanced Alternative, the same as under the
Preferred Alternative and greater than the minimum 50-foot shoreline setback under
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This area would accommodate any retained/re-established
and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers and all other habitat restoration areas
Quendal/ Terminals 1-9
Environmental Consistency Analysis
required as part of the EPA's anticipated Record of Decision [ROD] for the remediation
project or a Natural Resource Damage [NRD] settlement. The minimum 100-foot
setback area would total 3.4 acres under the Enhanced Alternative, the same area as
under the Preferred Alternative!.
Building Setbacks
Under the Enhanced Alternative the minimum building setback from the north property
line would be 42 feet and from the south property line would be 47 feet. These building
setbacks would be greater than under any of the other EIS alternatives.
View Corridors
Under the Enhanced Alternative, view corridors would be available along Street '8' and
along the driveways/parking areas at the north and south ends of site. These corridors
would be similar to under the Preferred Alternative and slightly larger than under DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2.
Population & Employment
The population under the Enhanced Alternative is estimated to be 1,108 residents, the
same as under the Preferred Alternative, and less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
The employment under the Enhanced Alternative is estimated to be 62 employees,
more than under the Preferred Alternative and DEIS Alternative 2, but less than under
DEIS Alternative 1.
Grading
The same amount of grading is estimated to be required for site development under the
Enhanced Alternative and the EIS alternatives: 53,000 to 133,000 cubic yards of fill on
the Main Property (this is additional grading beyond the grading required to accomplish
site cleanup/remediation under the site's status as a Superfund site).
Utilities
Utilities, including water, sewer and stormwater control, would be provided for the
Enhanced Alternative, as described for the other SEPA Alternatives.
1 "Natural Public Open Space" was reported for the EIS alternatives in Table 4.7·1 of the EIS Addendum. This area
included the minimum shoreline setback area, as well as site landscaping outside of the setback area. Without the
landscape area, the shoreline setback area under the Preferred Alternative and Enhanced Alternative would be the
same (3.4 acres). The overall open space and related areas under the EIS alternatives is correctly shown in Table 1-
1 of this Consistency Analysis.
Quendal/ Terminals 1-10
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Enhanced Fire & Utility Access Lane
Similar to under the Preferred Alternative, a publically accessible 20-foot wide fire and
utility access lane would be provided on the west side of the westernmost buildings and
a soft surface trail would be provided within the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback
under the Enhanced Alternative; the trail would require approval as part of EPA's
anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement. The fire/utility lane
under the Enhanced Alternative would be located outside of the 100-foot minimum
shoreline setback area and would connect to the north and south site boundaries via 6-
foot wide, soft surface trails. DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would include a narrower soft
surface trail within 50-foot minimum shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA's
anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the types of development (residential, commercial and parks/open space)
under the Enhanced Alternative are within the types of uses assumed under the EIS
redevelopment alternatives in the past SEPA review. The maximum levels of
development under the Enhanced Alternative (692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of
commercial uses [retail and restaurant), 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of
parks/open space) are within the maximum levels of development evaluated in the past
SEPA review (particularly Alternative 1 analyzed in the 2010 DE IS with 800 residential
units, 275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail, restaurant and office) and 11.7 acres of
parks/open space). Specific development features of the Enhanced Alternative (e.g.,
building height, bulk and scale; open space and related areas; parking and access;
shoreline setback; wetland and shoreline area; building setbacks; view corridors;
population and employment; grading; utilities; and fire lane/pedestrian promenade)
would be within the ranges under the EIS alternatives as well, and are substantially
similar to the Preferred Alternative.
Quendall Terminals 1-11
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Chapter 2
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES
& ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
CHAPTER 2
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE
EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
2.1 Summary Table
The "Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative"
table in Appendix B provides a overview of the probable impacts that would result from
the EIS redevelopment alternatives and the proposed Enhanced Alternative. The
potential impacts that would result from DEIS Alternative 1 (the EIS alternative with the
greatest overall level of development; see Chapter 1 for details) are listed in the first
column and the potential impacts of the other EIS redevelopment alternatives and the
Enhanced Alternative are compared to these impacts. The matrix addresses all of the
elements of the environment that were analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS
(Le., Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Land and Shoreline Use, Relationship to Plans and Policies, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and
Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and Cultural Resources). Significant unavoidable
adverse impacts are listed, as applicable.
2.2 Key Topic Areas
Several "key topic areas" have been identified from the table in Appendix B as the focus
for comparison of the Enhanced Alternative and the EIS alternatives. These are the areas
where the Enhanced Alternative could have the greatest potential for differences in
impacts on the environment relative to the EIS alternatives. The key topic areas discussed
in this chapter of the Consistency Analysis are:
• Transportation;
• Building Height, Bulk and Scale;
• Aesthetics/Views; and
• Parks and Recreation.
Transportation
Additional transportation analysis was conducted for the Consistency Analysis to
confirm that the potential impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the
range of impacts identified under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review for the
project.
Quendall Terminals 2-1
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Past SEPA Review
The relationship between proposed redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site and
the off-site transportation system was evaluated in detail in the DEIS, EIS Addendum
and FEIS. These analyses relied on field-verified transportation counts/data, the latest
traffic forecasting data available and the latest industry standards and study methods to
present a reasonable determination of potential transportation impacts for SEPA review
purposes. Potential transportation impacts from the proposed project could occur in
the following areas: intersection level of service (LOS), queuing, site access and
circulation, public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking.
The analysis of potential transportation impacts in the DEIS was provided for two future
baseline transportation networks to reflect future planned Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) transportation improvements in the site vicinity:
1. With 1-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Improvements (1-405 Improvements); and
2. Without 1-405 Improvements.
2010 DEIS
The DEIS indicated that there are existing capacity and queuing issues on certain
roadways in the site vicinity. For example, the 1-405 /NE 44th Street Southbound Ramps
intersection currently operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour.
The DEI5 focused on DEIS Alternative 1; impacts for DEIS Alternative 2 were assumed to
be similar to or less than DEIS Alternative 1 due to its reduced level of redevelopment.
The DEIS determined that under Alternative 1 without 1-405 Improvements and no
project mitigation assumed, four intersections would operate at LOS E/F at build-out of
the Quendall Terminals site:
• Lake Washington Boulevard (1-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street;
• 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street;
• Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard; and
• Lake Washington Boulevard (Garden Avenue) at Park View Avenue N.
Excessive southbound queues of approximately 700 to 800 ft. in length would be
anticipated at the Ripley lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection southbound on
Ripley lane under Alternative 1 without 1-405 Improvements and with no project
mitigation; these queues would block key access intersections.
Under DEIS Alternative 1 without 1-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation,
the site access at Ripley Lane N would operate at lOS F.
Quendal/ Terminals
Environmental Consistency Analysis
2-2
Given the site location and current lack of transit service in the site vicinity, it was
anticipated that residents and employees of Quendall Terminals would primarily rely on
automobile transportation and significant impacts from the proposed project on public
transportation were not anticipated. Increases in population from the project would
result in increased demand for non-motorized transportation facilities and parking
onsite.
The DEIS concluded that with or without the 1-405 Improvements, and with
implementation ofthe identified project mitigation measures, no significant
transportation-related impacts were expected (see DEIS Section 3.9,
Transportation/Traffic and Appendix H for details).
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
The EIS Addendum included an updated transportation analysis to respond to
transportation-related comments received on the DEIS and provide analysis of the
Preferred Alternative.
The updated analysis in the EIS Addendum determined that at project build-out, with no
1-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, three intersections would
operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative:
• Lake Washington Boulevard (1-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street;
• 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street; and,
• Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street
An updated queuing analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum. Under the
Preferred Alternative at build-out without 1-405 Improvements and with no project
mitigation, excessive southbound queues of approximately 800 to 900 ft. in length
would be expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the stop-controlled Ripley Lane/Lake
Washington Boulevard intersection.
The site access and circulation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum as well.
Under the Preferred Alternative without 1-405 Improvements and with no project
mitigation, the southbound approach to the Ripley Lane/N 44th Street intersection
would operate at LOS F.
Public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking impacts for the
Preferred Alternative would be similar to the analysis in the DEIS.
In response to comments received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum, additional
transportation analysis was conducted in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative, including
Quenda/l Terminals 2-3
Environmental Consistency Analysis
on: the Park Avenue corridor and 1-405 Exit 5 (N 30 th Street) interchange, 2017 build-out
year, 2014 North Renton Traffic Study and updated trip generation to the 9th edition of
the ITE Manual.
The EIS Addendum and FEIS concluded that with or without the 1-405 Improvements,
and with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, no significant
transportation-related impacts were expected for the Preferred Alternative (see EIS
Addendum Sections 3.4 and 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, and FE IS Chapter 2,
Key Topic Areas -Transportation and Appendices Band C for details).
2016 Consistency Analysis
Additional transportation analysis was conducted for this Consistency Analysis to confirm
that the potential impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of
impacts identified under the EIS alternatives. The following areas were reviewed:
• Trip generation;
• Parking;
• NE 44th Street/I-405 Southbound Ramp operation; and
• Vehicle queuing.
Trip Generation
The Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately
173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak hour trips and 15 more PM peak hour
trips than the Preferred Alternative, and would represent 3,153 fewer daily trips, 431
fewer AM peak hour trips and 406 fewer PM peak hour trips than Alternative l.
Therefore, trip generation under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range
analyzed under the EIS alternatives.
Parking
The Enhanced Alternative would provide 1,352 parking spaces. According to the City of
Renton Municipal Code in place in 2010 when a complete application for Quendall
Terminals was submitted, 1,368 off-street parking spaces would be required for the
Enhanced Alternative. Therefore, there would be a deficit of 16 spaces based on this
standard. However, the principal of shared use was not incorporated into the calculated
2010 parking requirement. This principal would reduce the amount of required parking.
Also, the minimum parking standards have been reduced in the current City Code.
Therefore, the Enhanced Alternative would provide an adequate supply of parking.
Quendal/ Terminals 2-4
Environmental Consistency Analysis
1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44!h Street Operation
The DEIS, EIS Addendum and FE IS identified the 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street
intersection as approaching capacity under all of the EIS alternatives (e.g., this
intersection would operate at LOS E, close to LOS F, at buildout under the alternatives
with the identified project mitigation and without the 1-405 improvements. Therefore, a
sensitivity analysis of the Enhanced Alternative was conducted at this intersection to
determine if further project mitigation measures would be required with the Enhanced
Alternative. Under the Enhanced Alternative with the identified project mitigation and
no 1-405 improvements, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 78 seconds of
delay, which is considered an acceptable level of operation by the City of Renton, and
would be the same as under the Preferred Alternative.
Queuing
The DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS discussed vehicle queuing impacts of the EIS
alternatives in the site vicinity. Under the Preferred Alternative at build out without the
1-405 improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive queues of
approximately 800 to 900 feet in length are expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the
Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. With proposed mitigation and
with or without the 1-405 improvements, the southbound queue would be reduced to
approximately 200 feet. Under the Enhanced Alternative with proposed mitigation, with
or with or without the 1-405 improvements, the addition of an estimated nine trips
exiting the site during the PM peak hour on Ripley Lane would not measurably increase
the estimated vehicle queuing on Ripley Lane relative to the Preferred Alternative.
Therefore, the transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the
range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives.
With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the 1-405
improvements, significant transportation impacts are not anticipated.
(See Appendix A for details on the transportation study for this Consistency Analysis.)
Building Height, Bulk and Scale
Past SEPA Review
The potential height, bulk and scale impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project were
analyzed in detail in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS. These analyses focused on the
compatibility of the proposed buildings with existing and planned buildings in the site
vicinity, and the consistency of the project with applicable City of Renton plans, policies
and regulations.
Quendal/ Terminals 2-5
Environmental ConSistency Analysis
2010 DEIS
DEIS Alternative 1 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up to approximately 77 feet
in height, ranging from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 square feet in residential
building area on the site. DEIS Alternative 2 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up
to approximately 67 feet in height, ranging from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 sq. ft.
in residential building area. Residential densities of 46 dwelling units per net acre and
40 dwelling units per net acre, respectively, were analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1
and 2 (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis).
The DEIS indicated that under DE IS Alternative 1 and 2, proposed new buildings onsite
would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent residential buildings to the south
(Barbee Mill) and other single family residential buildings in the area, but were generally
similar to buildings in surrounding commercial and planned development to the north
and east (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and planned Hawk's Landing
development). While the proposed buildings at Quendall Terminals were greater in
height and bulk than adjacent residences to the south, the proposed building setbacks
from the south property line were a minimum of 37 feet under Alternative 1 and 42 feet
under Alternative 2, respectively, including landscape screening, driveways and surface
parking areas (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). Overall, the height, bulk and
scale of proposed buildings under the Alternatives 1 and 2 was considered to generally
be consistent with the existing urban development in the area and applicable provisions
of the City of Renton Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. With implementation of
the proposed mitigation measures, the DEIS concluded that significant land use impacts
were not anticipated under Alternatives 1 and 2.
(See DEIS Section 3.5, Land and Shoreline Use, and Section 3.6, Relationship to Plans,
Policies, and Regulations, for details.)
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum and FEIS included similar types
of land uses and levels of development to DEIS Alternative 2. However, modifications
were made in the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of proposed
development with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level,
modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials and
addition of landscaping, see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis).
The Preferred Alternative included ten new mixed-use buildings, up to 64 feet in height,
with from approximately 46,200 to 88,000 sq. ft. of residential building area. Proposed
Quendal/ Terminals 2-6
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Building SW 4 located adjacent to the southwestern property line was four-stories high,
buildings in the northern portion of the site were five-stories high and buildings in the
central portion of the site were five to six stories high. A residential density of
approximately 32 dwelling units per net acre was achieved under the Preferred
Alternative. A proposed building setback of 37 feet from the property line was provided
between the proposed buildings and the adjacent residential development to the south
(see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis).
The FE IS concluded that proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would
be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed
individual buildings under Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall
and bulky than certain existing commercial and multifamily buildings to the north and
east of the site (i.e., Seahawks Training Facility, proposed Hawk's Landing and
multifamily residential areas to the east of 1-405) and greater in height and bulk than
existing single family residential buildings to the south of the site (i.e., Barbee Mill).
With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts
were not anticipated.
(See EIS Addendum Section 4.5, Land and Shoreline Use and FE IS Chapter 2 -Key Topic
Areas for details.)
2016 Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would include similar types of land uses and levels of
development to the Preferred Alternative. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the
Enhanced Alternative would include modifications to enhance the compatibility of
proposed development with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development
level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials
and addition of landscaping relative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, see Table 1-1 in this
Consistency Analysis). The Enhanced Alternative would include additional
retail/restaurant/office and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) space along
Street 'B', along the lakeside frontage and along other streets as necessary to qualify for
a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet.
Like the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative would include ten new mixed-
use buildings up to 64 feet in height. Residential building area would range from
approximately 62,400 to 101,975 sq. ft. in size. Proposed Building SW 4 located
adjacent to the southwestern property line would be four stories high; Building SW 3
further east would be five stories high, the remaining buildings in the northern and
central portions of the site would be six stories high. Three of the proposed buildings
located in the eastern and central portions of the site under the Enhanced Alternative
Quendal/ Terminals 2-7
Environmental Consistency Analysis
(buildings NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be one-story taller than under the Preferred
Alternative. Residential density would be similar to under the Preferred Alternative. A
proposed building setback of 47 feet from the property line would be provided between
the proposed buildings and south property line (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency
Analysis).
Like the Preferred Alternative, proposed development under the Enhanced Alternative
would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity.
Proposed individual buildings under Enhanced Alternative would generally be similar or
less tall and bulky than certain existing commercial and multifamily buildings to the
north and east of the site (Le., Seahawks Training Facility, proposed Hawk's Landing and
multifamily residential areas to the east of 1-405) and greater in height and bulk than
existing single family/paired homes to the south of the site (Le., Barbee Mill).
Therefore, the land use impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range
of impacts analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FE IS for the EIS alternatives. And,
with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts
are not anticipated.
AestheticslViews
Past SEPA Review
The aesthetic character and viewshed impacts resulting from the proposed
redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site were analyzed in detail in the DEIS, EIS
Addendum and FEIS. These analyses focused on the changing aesthetic character from
an open, partially vegetated property to a mixed-use development, including view
corridors and viewing areas, and sources of light, glare and shadows, consistent with the
City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan.
2010 DEIS
Under DE IS Alternatives 1 and 2, redevelopment on the site was intended to be
aesthetically pleasing, and would represent a compact, urban form and maintain
consistency throughout the site. Architectural features and landscaping would be
provided to enhance the project's visual appeal.
A visual analysis was conducted as part of the DEIS for both Alternatives 1 and 2. Ten
representative viewpoints were selected, consisting of public locations such as streets,
Sidewalks, Lake Washington, and a public park where views of the site and vicinity are
possible. As indicated in the DEIS, redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under
both DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would block or partially block views toward Lake
Quendal/ Terminals 2-8
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Washington from certain viewpoints. View corridors would be provided along Street 'B'
and along private driveways at the north and south ends of the site under both DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2. Views toward Lake Washington would be provided along the
proposed shoreline trail, the east/west roadway at the north and south end of the site,
as well as semi-private views from the building courtyards for project residents. In
general, view corridors would be slightly greater under DEIS Alternative 2 than under
DEIS Alternative 1 due to less dense redevelopment.
(See DEIS Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views, for details.)
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
The Preferred Alternative would include a level of redevelopment similar to DEIS
Alternative 2; however, certain redevelopment assumptions were modified to enhance
the visual character of the site, including increased view corridors, building height
modulation and building design features more compatible with surrounding
development.
Additional visual analysis of the Preferred Alternative was conducted for the EIS
Addendum and FEIS, including analysis of six key viewpoints (five from the DEIS
viewpoints and one new viewpoint along Lake Washington Boulevard N). Based on the
analysis, view impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those
identified under DEIS Alternative 2. However, under the Preferred Alternative, certain
view corridors through the site would be larger than under DE IS Alternatives 1 and 2.
The view corridor along Street 'B' would be approximately 8 feet wider under the
Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. View corridors under the
Preferred Alternative would also be larger along the southern boundary of the site and
increased viewing opportunities would be provided due to building height modulation
which would allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain
viewpoints.
(See EIS Addendum Sections 3.2 and 4.6, Aesthetics/Views, and FE IS Chapter 2 -Key
Topics for details.)
2016 Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would include a level of redevelopment comparable to under
the Preferred Alternative. Redevelopment assumptions for the Enhanced Alternative
were similarly modified to enhance the visual character of the site, including increased
view corridors, building height modulation and building design features more
compatible with surrounding development.
Quendal/ Terminals 2-9
Environmental Consistency Analysis
View impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be similar to those identified under
the Preferred Alternative. As under Preferred Alternative, the view corridor along Street
'8' would be approximately 8 feet wider under the Enhanced Alternative than under
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Also, view corridors would be larger along the southern
boundary of the site and increased viewing opportunities would be provided due to
more building height modulation than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, which would
allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain viewpoints.
Public views would also be possible from the enhanced fire and utility access road.
Therefore, the aesthetic impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range
of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FE IS for the EIS alternatives. And,
with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant aesthetic impacts
are not anticipated.
Parks and Recreation
Past SEPA Review
2010 DEIS
As described in the 2010 DEIS, redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would
generate increases in on-site residents and employees, which would result in associated
increases in demands on park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Quendall
Terminals site, including some that are exceeding their capacity during the summer.
Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would further contribute to these
capacity issues. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of
Renton based on the City's Level of Service (LOS) standards and the increased
population on the site.
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, open space and related areas would be provided onsite that
would help meet the demand for passive recreation facilities from project residents and
employees. However, the demand for active recreation facilities would not be satisfied
onsite. Approximately 11. 7 to 11.8 acres of open space and related areas would be
provided under Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, including paved plazas, natural areas,
landscape areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. Approximately 3.4 acres of natural open
space area that would be visually and physically accessible to the general public at
certain times of day, including the natural shoreline area and the proposed shoreline
trail, would be provided. These open space and related areas mayor may not meet the
City's standards, regulations and procedures for open space.
Quendal/ Terminals 2-10
Environmental Consistency Analysis
If approved as part of EPA's anticipated ROD for the remediation project and any NRD
Settlement, a publically accessible trail would be located within the 50-foot minimum
shoreline setback area under Alternatives 1 and 2, consistent with the City's 1983 SMP
regulations
The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees at the time of building
permit issuance. These fees would help to offset the impacts of proposed new
residential development on park and recreation facilities, open space and trails.
2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS
Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS
Addendum and FEIS would result in increases in on-site population and employees,
which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation facilities
in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at nearby parks during the
summer. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton
based on the City's LOS standards and the increased population on the site.
The Preferred Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help
meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, but not
the demand for active recreation facilities. Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and
related area would be provided. These open space and related areas mayor may not
meet the City's standards, regulations and procedures for open space.
Publically accessible pedestrian facilities were proposed along the shoreline under the
Preferred Alternative. A shoreline trail would be provided on the west side of the
westernmost buildings onsite, inside the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback area, if
approved as part of EPA's anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD
Settlement.
The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees under the Preferred
Alternative.
2016 Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would result in increases in on-site population and
employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and
recreation facilities in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at nearby
parks during the summer. These impacts would be similar to the Preferred Alternative
but less than DE IS Alternative 1. Additional park and recreation facilities could be
needed in the City of Renton based on the City's LOS standards and the increased
population on the site.
Quendall Terminals 2-11
Environmental Consistency Analysis
The Enhanced Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help
meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, as well
as some of the demand for active recreation facilities. A total of 12.9 acres of
parks/open space would be provided under the Enhanced Alternative, more than under
any of the other EIS Alternatives. This area includes a new 1.3-acre public park located in
the southwestern portion of the site. A future possible dock/pier associated with the
public park could be provided (this dock is not proposed at this time and would be
subject to future SEPA environmental review and consent from EPA). These open space
and related areas are expected to meet the City's standards, regulations and procedures
for open space.
Similar to the other EIS Alternatives, publically accessible pedestrian facilities are
proposed along the shoreline under the Enhanced Alternative. A 20-foot wide enhanced
fire and utility access lane would be provided on the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite. The fire and utility access lane would be located outside of the
minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area and would connect to the north and south
site boundaries via a 6-foot wide, soft surface trail. A soft surface trail would also be
provided within the 100-foot shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA's
anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement.
The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees to help offset the impacts
of the project on park and recreation facilities, open space and trails.
Therefore, the parks and recreation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be
within the range of impacts analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS
alternatives. And, with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant
parks and recreation impacts are not anticipated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative -including
on transportation; building height, bulk and scale; aesthetics/views; and parks and
recreation --are within the impacts analyzed for the EI5 alternatives in the past SEPA
review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts
that cannot be mitigated.
Quendal/ Terminals 2-12
Environmental Consistency Analysis
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
~TENW
Transportation Engineering NorthWest
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 8, 2017
TO: Gretchen Brunner. Senior Planner
EA Engineering
FROM: Michael J, Read, PE, Principal
TENW
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminals EIS -Consistency Analysis
TENW Project 3178
This memorandum documents a consistency onalysis of specific transportatian evaluatians
documented in the original Quendall Terminals EIS, Quendall Terminals FEIS, and Quendall
Terminals Supplemental Transportation Review based upon the "Enhanced Alternative" developed
in close coordinotion between the applicant and the City of Renton in November 2016.
Transportation-related items included in the consistency review:
• Preporation of an updated trip generation analysis of the increased retoil spoce within the
development, using updated trip generation rates published by ITE in the Trip Generation
Manual, 9 th Edition, 2012.
• Preparation an updated parking code analysis and parking demand analysis (if warrantedl
to evoluate the adequocy of on-site parking, shared parking potential, and identify any
parking management techniques that shauld be considered if necessany.
• Prepare an updated sensitivity analysis ot the critical intersection ramp junction of NE 44th
Street/I-405 to confirm the transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original
EIS far Quendall Terminals is consistent under the Enhanced Alternative.
Project Trip Generation -Enhanced Alternative
Based upon the original date of the EIS onalysis and the proposed minor increase in floor orea for
ground floor retail space as part of the Enhanced Alternative, an updated trip generation analysis
was completed. Since the original EIS, the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published an
updated edition of the Trip Generalion Manual, 9" Ed/lion, 2012. As noted above, a small
increose in retaillapproximately 12,965 squore-feetl is now proposed as part of the Enhanced
Alternative which includes:
~ 692 oportment units [no change from Preferred Alternotivel.
~ 9,000 square-feet of restaurant use [no change from Preferred Alternativel.
~ 33,190 square-feet of ground floor retail uses [net increase from 20,225 squore-feet in the
Preferred Alternotive by 12,965 squore-feetl
~ 1,352 on-site parking stalls
Transportation Planning I Design I Iraffie Impact & Operations
PO Box 65254, Seattle, WA 98155 I Office (206) 361-7333
Quendall Terminals EIS
Transportation Consistency lysis
Consistent with the original Ouendall Terminals DE IS, Ouendall Terminals EIS Addendum, and
Ouendall Terminals FEIS, very conservative trip generation estimation methods were utilized in
evaluating project traffic impacts. As such, similar factors through factoring of published residential
trip generation rates (10 percent higher than ITE rates) and conservative internalization factors
consistent with the Trip Generalion Handbook, 20d Edition, ITE, were utilized. Average trip rates
for Apartments (lTE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820), and High·
Turnover (Sit·Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips of the Enhanced
Alternative.
As shown in Table 1, a net total of approximately 5,829 daily, 435 a.m. peak hour (107
entering, 328 exiting), and 545 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (346 entering and 199
exiting) would be generated at full buildout conditions under the Enhanced Alternative. As
shown, the Enhanced Alternative would result in approximately 173 mare daily trips, no net
change in a.m. peak hour trips, and 15 more pm. peak hour trips than Preferred Alternative
evaluated in the Ouendall Terminal EIS documents. As such, the relative impact to traffic
operations within the study area would be very similar, but slightly mare (less than a 3 percent
increase in total site trip generation in the p.m. peak hour) than those disclosed and evaluated
under the most recently developed Preferred Alternative.
Detailed trip generation tables of the Enhanced Alternative are prOVided in Attachment A. An
additional comparative analysis between the Enhanced Alternative and Alternative 1 evaluated
in the DEIS is also provided in Attachment A. As shown in Attachment B, an estimated 431
fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 406 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 3,153 fewer daily trips
would be generated under the Enhanced Alternative when compared to the DE IS Alternative 1
(Original Application). This represents a significant overall reduction in vehicle trip generation
in the upper range of land use alternatives considered in the Ouendall Terminals DEIS.
Table 1:
r Enhanced Alterna Ive Pro ec t . G TriP eneralion c f ompanson With Pre erre A erna Ive d It r
ITE Land Use A,M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily Trip
Land Use Code' Size 2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation
Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605
rO% Factor on Residential Uses 8 28 36 28 16 47 460
Retail 820 30,190 sf GLA 20 13 33 59 63 123 1,417
Restaurant 932 9.000 sf GFA 53 44 97 S3 36 89 1, 144
2016 Enhanced Alternative Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626
Less Internal Trips 3 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -I, 176
Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -18 --41 -32 -26 -58 -621
2016 Enhanced Alternative NelTrips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5.829
20 r 5 Preferred Alternatiye Net Trip Generation 104 331 435 340 190 530 5.656
Difference in Enhanced Alternative +3 -3 0 +6 +9 +15 +173 Compared to Preferred Alternative
" I. Tr,p rales based o~ ITE r"p GenerollQflA1onuol, QI Edrlran, 2012
2. DU is Dvvelling Unit, GFA is Gto" floor Area. and GLA is Gms Leosable Area.
3 Internal and pass-by deleunined ba5ed ~fXln docurne~ted average role, 1'0m ITE Trip Generarian Handbook, Jure 2004
~TENW page 2 February 8. 201 7
Quendall Terminals EIS
Transportation Consistency lysis
Parking Analysis -Enhanced Alternative
Table 2 summarizes minimum off-street parking requirements based on City of Renton
Municipal Code for the proposed mix of land uses. Although substantial reductions in
minimum requirements in off-street parking has been adopted within current City municipal
code, this analysis of porking requirements is based on those code provisions in force at the
time of complete application for Quendall Terminals in 2010.
As shown, a total of 1,368 stalls would have normally have been required under City code
when the Quendall Terminals project was vested in 2010, resulting in a 16-stall stall deficit
compared against the propased 1,352 stalls. This code requirement does not take into
consideration shared parking potential between the various proposed uses on site, which have
differing peaks throughout the course of the day, and is therefore, considered conservative.
Peak residential demand occurs after 9:00 p.m., when retail demand is non-existent and
reslaurant demand has diminished significantly.
Under current City code, only 828 stalls would be required for proposed land uses;
significantly less than 20 10 code provisions. In addition, the latest parking demand models
IKing County Right Size Parking Model, Attachment B) for apartment uses specific to this site
determined that only 1.34 stalls for each dwelling unit, on average, should be built to serve
residential uses Idedicating 928 stalls). Given these factors, no additional parking analysis is
required as the applicant proposes to designate approximately 1.73 stalls for each apartment
unit.
Table 2: City Parking Cade Reauirements
Required Off-Street
Land Use Size Code Rate Parking (stalls)
Enhanced AHernallve
Retail 30,19051 4.0 stalls/l ,000 sf 121
Multifamily Residenlial 692 units 1.75stalls/DU 1,211
Restaurant (seating areal 9,000 sf 4510115/1,000 sf 36
Total 1,368 stalls
Prooosed 1,352510115
Surplus/(Deficill -16 stolls
DU -Dwelling Unit. sf -square-fect.
Source: Renton Municipal Code for Off-Street Parking, 2010 Regulations.
Sensitivity Analysis of Ramp Intersection Level of Service
As noted in the Quendoll Terminals FEIS, Table 2-1, with the Preferred Alternative under the future
regional network scenario that did not include 1-405 Widening, the applicant's mitigation abng
Lake Washinton Boulevard and at the NE 44th Sireel / 1-405 Interchange noted one interseclion
near capacity with buildout of the project. During the a.m. peak hour, Ihe inlersection ramp
junction of the 1-405 southbound ramp of NE 44th Street was evaluated for level of service
operations to confirm Ihe transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original EIS for
Quendall Terminals is consistent under the Enhanced Alternative. Although in aggregate there is
~TENW page 3 February 8, 201 7
Quendall Terminals EIS
Transportation Consistency", , .... Iysis
not a change in total a.m. peak hour trip generation under the Enhanced Alternative, a slight shift in
directional trips are expected with increased retail uses (3 additional tripsJ. With a majority of
traffic expected to enter/exit the site via ar through the NE 44th Street and 1-405 Interchange
system, the intersection that includes the southbound on/off-ramps is forecast ta operate at LOS E
with an overage delay of 78 seconds per vehicle assuming with both signal control and
channelization upgrades outlined in the Ouendall Terminals FEIS. As shown in Attachment C, this
intersection is forecast to remain at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour with the Enhanced Alternative
at buildout.
Vehicle Queues
As documented in the Ouendall Terminals FEIS (May 20151. updated vehicle queuing was
evaluated under the Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative at buildout without 1-405
Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive southbound queues of
approximotely 800 to 900 feet in length would be expected southbound on Ripley Lone at the
stop-controlled Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. To address the excessive
queuing at this location, project mitigation would be provided in the vicinity of the Ripley
Lane/Loke Washington Boulevard intersection with or without the 1-405 Improvements. With
implementation of the project mitigation, the southbound queue for left turns on Ripley Lone would
be reduced to approximately 200 feet with ar without 1-405 improvements.
With implementation of the Enhanced Alternative considered in this consistency analysis, the
addition of on estimated 9 trips exiting the site during the p.m. peak hour on Ripley Lone would
have no measurable increase in the estimated vehicle queues preViously identified that would be
mitigated by the Project at the Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and
adjacent ramp junctions with 1-405 (see vehicle queuing results in Attachment C1.
Conclusions
As described above, the transportation consistency analyses was prepared far the Ouendall
Terminals Enhanced Alternative and remain valid for the assumed buildaut in 2017 based on these
determinations:
• With the proposed Enhanced Alternative, no significant differences in overall project trip
generation are expected with 173 mare daily trips, no net change in a.m. peok hour
trips, and 15 more p.m. peak hour trips than Preferred Alternative evaluated in the
Ouendall Terminal EIS documents.
• A parking deficit of 16-stalls in comparison to off-street minimum parking Code
requirements from 2010 would result with the proposed 1,352 stalls. This however,
does not consider current parking demand models ar shared parking potential that
would occur between various mixed land uses proposed as part of the Enhanced
Alternative. With code amendments adopted by the City since the original EIS and in
effect in 2016, a 524 stoll parking surplus would be calculated.
• The intersection romp junction of NE 44th Street and Southbound 1-405 is forecast to
remain operating at LOS E with buildout of the Enhanced Alternative and the proposed
mitigation at the interchange and associated Lake Washington Boulevard improvement as
~TENW page 4 February 8, 2017
Quendall Terminals EIS
Transportation Consistency lysis
part of site access would operate with acceptable levels of service and vehicle queuing
during peak hours.
Based on the above, it was determined that no further analysis of the Enhanced Alternative is
warranted, and the project mitigation identified in the 2015 Mitigation Document remains valid.
Finally, as noted in the FEIS and the dran Development Agreement, an update to the original
transportation impact analysis is required within 5 years from the date of this site plan revision.
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at [2061
361-7333 ext. 101.
~TENW page 5 February 8, 2017
ATTACHMENT A
Enhanced Alternative Detailed Trip Generation Estimates
~TENW
Quendall-linals EIS
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7,2016
Quendall Termials -Enhanced Alternative
Trip Generation Summary
Time Period
New Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Net New Trips Generated
In Out Total
2,914 2,915 5,829
107 328 435
346 199 545
11/29/2016
Quendall-Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-1 0-16_xls Summary
Quendall Terminals
Trip Generation
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016
Land Use Area
Proposed Uses
Retail 33,190
Internal Trips 3
Pass-by' 34%
Apartment 692
Internal Trips 3
Restaurant 9.000
Internal Trips'
Pass-by 4 43%
Quendall Terminals -Enhanced Alternative
Daily Trip Generation
ITE Directional S~lit Tri~ Rate
Units 1 LUC' In Out Total In
GLA 820 50% 50% 42.70 708
-236
-160
Subtotal = 312
Units 220 50% 50% 7.32 2,532
-141
Subtotal = 2,391
GFA 932 50% 50% 127.15 572
-211
-150
Subtotal = 211
Total Proposed Gross Daily Trips = 3,812
Trips Generated
Out Total
709 1,417
-238 -474
-161 -321
310 622
2,533 5,065
-115 -256
2,418 4,809
572 1,144
-235 -446
-150 -300
187 398
3,814 7,626
Less Total Internal Trips = -588 -588 -1,176
Less Total Pass-by Trips =
Total Proposed Net New Daily Trips Generated =
Notes:
1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area.
, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes.
3 Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, 2004.
4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition, 2004.
-310 -311
2,914 2,915
11/29/2016
Quendall-Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-1S.xls Daily TGEN
-621
5,829
Quendall Terminals
Trip Generation
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016
Quendall Terminals -Enhanced Alternative
AM Peak Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour Trip Generation
ITE Directional St'lit Trit' Rate Trips Generated
Land Use Area Units 1 LUC' In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Retail 33,190 GLA 820 62% 38% 0.98
Internal Trips J
Pass-by 4 34%
Subtotal =
Apartment 692 Units 220 20% 80% 0.56
Internal Trips J
Subtotal =
Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 55% 45% 10.81
Internal Trips J
Pass-by 4 43%
Subtotal =
Total Proposed Gross AM Peak Hour Trips =
Less Total Internal Trips =
Less Total Pass-by Trips =
Total Proposed Net New AM Peak Hour Trips Generated =
Notes:
1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area.
, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes.
J Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Ham/book, 2nd Edition, 2004.
4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition, 2004.
In Out
20 13
-6 -5
-4 -3
10 5
78 310
-7 -7
71 303
53 44
-8 -9
-19 -15
26 20
151 367
-21 -21
-23 -18
107 328
11/29/2016
Quendall -Enhanced Memative Trip Generation Estimate 11-1 0-16.xls AM TGEN
Total
33
-11
-7
15
388
-14
374
97
-17
-34
46
518
-42
-41
435
Quendall Terminals
Trip Generation
Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7,2016
Quendall Terminals -Enhanced Alternative
PM Peak Trip Generation
PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
ITE Directional S~lit Tri~ Rate
Land Use Area Units 1 LUC' In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Retail 33,190 GLA 820 48% 52% 3.71
Internal Trips 3
Pass-by 4 34%
Subtotal =
Apartment 692 Units 220 65% 35% 0.68
Internal Trips 3
Subtotal =
Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 60% 40% 9.85
Internal Trips 3
Pass-by 4 43%
Subtotal =
Total Proposed Gross PM Peak Hour Trips =
Less Totallnlernal Trips =
Less Total Pass-by Trips =
Total Proposed Net New PM Peak Hour Trips Generated =
Notes:
1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area,
, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes.
3 Intemal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, 2004.
4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd ediijon, 2004.
In
59
-12
-16
31
306
-12
294
53
-16
-16
21
418
-40
-32
346
Trips Generated
Out
64
-19
-15
30
165
-10
155
36
-11
-11
14
265
-40
-26
199
11f2912016
QuendaU -Enhanced AltemativB Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls PM TGEN
Total
123
-31
-31
61
471
-22
449
89
-27
-27
35
683
-80
-58
545
Enhanced Alternative Pro'ect Trip Generation -Comparison with DEIS Alternative 1
ITE Lond Use A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily Trip
Land Use Code' Size 2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation
Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605
10% Factor on Residential Uses 8 28 36 28 16 47 460
Retail I 820 I 30,190 sf GLA 20 13 33 59 63 123 10417
Restaurant I 932 I 9,000 sf GFA 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144
2016 Enhanced AllernaHve Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626
Less Internol Trips 3 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176
Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -18 -41 -16 -26 -58 -621
2016 Enhanced Alternative Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829
2012 DEIS Alternative 1 Net Trip Generation 445 421 866 442 509 951 8,982
Difference in Enhanced Alternative -338 -93 -431 -96 -310 -406 -3153 Compared to DEIS Alternative 1 , Trip rates based on ITE Tnp GenerailQflN/anual. 9 EdIIIOO, 2012
2 DU is Dwelling Unit, GfA is Gross Floor Area, ond GLA is Gro~ Leasable Area.
3. Internal and fXlss-by determined ba56d LPpon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004.
~TENW
ATTACHMENT B
King County Right Size Parking Model Results
~TENW
1-
Th .. rr .IU ~:> .",I~"" r "!)I ~'-"rllIO!'~,,)r~1 4'''' .. ~e ,aim':,. fro:'! fit'I'; .... or.
for Juri Jnd cal~ rno $,,&,,' ca ll Jn:; nese' eo r e5 ~nt me defallil, alu,,"',
for wh l(r· all par~II"') U $~ 'al I 0~ Jle '!'St:"31~" :;;'''€ ~elu. th~ Jr",a for
~lll,JanCe on unJl.>n.,:~'·' .In • .: .• 1I JI(\I'I+' h 'usm,; ~r ';:)n~
UUMBHI AVERAGE Rl: :'IDEHTlAL or UNIT S REliT (S ) AR EA (SQ fT)
S-oOl:l5 32 $975 550
I BE::lROO t.l S '00 S1,150 750
:1 E:::;;OO'~S '60 S1.450 •• 0
3· a~::ROO',1 5 10 $1 .515 1200
-(.-':"l 692 $1 ,300 ~87 ,100
Ir UM6fR Of Af FORO ABLE UNIT S: MOlii HLY PRICE peR STALL: t$)
20 S.O
How un unbundled (prj(l~ PJrklng int.UI!ntf p,irkinolunit ratiM?
The pJ' ':111 ~'lJn 11 r alios ;~ic", are calel Ill@ oj t;~ in~ [lIe~ect un~llnd l ec ::.ilr· in
""C~5 ~a5i:!~ :1'1 pln'IIC'~3!1 ·,n "n·; r"r -"·,Wt'Vi r>rM ror 'U ·.n; ".-. ...,
,m::un'JlmJ
PIlICE ~ PAR IWIC; peR
STALL
AO)U!lT'EO
AVERAGE
~E IIT
<VG
,,",OUfHLY
COST TO
RE SI ()E IH
C r.nl~p.""ng l
RESUlnllG
PAI{KUJG
AA no
Pa rking,AJ nit Ratio (Number of Sta lls)
< .5 Stals >= 1.5 Stals
,
~
ATTACHMENT C
LOS and Queuing Analysis with Buildout of Enhanced
Alternative
NE 44th Street! Southbound 1-405 Ramps
~TENW
HCM Signalized Interse n Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ram!2 2/8/2017
.J -+-"'\-~ -""-'\ t /" '. -! .'
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations t ." .., t 4' ."
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1881 1599 1770 1863 1762 1568
Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (~erml 1881 1599 87 1863 1762 1568
Volume (vph) 0 1007 26 515 251 0 0 0 0 140 10 370
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1095 28 560 273 0 0 0 0 152 11 402
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1095 21 560 273 0 0 0 0 0 163 44
Heav~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3
Effective Green, g (s) 81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3
Actuated glC Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.84 0.84 0.11 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1025 871 522 1561 191 170
vis Ratio Prot 0.58 cO.29 0.15
vis Ratio Perm 0.01 cO.61 0.09 0.03
vic Ratio 1.07 0.02 1.07 0.17 0.85 0.26
Uniform Delay, dl 34.1 15.8 51.7 2.3 65.7 61.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 48.2 0.0 60.3 0.1 35.6 3.6
Delay (s) 82.4 15.8 112.0 2.4 101.3 64.9
Level of Service F B F A F E
Approach Delay (s) 80.7 76.1 0.0 75.4
Approach LOS F E A E
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay 78.0 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Quendall Terminals -EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/20102015 With Alternative 1 Without RT~0IcDIIr8Eft1Jj(8fiIIJrtnitigation
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Queues
3: Lk WA Blvd & RiE!le~ Ln 2/8/2017
-" -+ -'-t '.. !
Lane Groul! EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph l 23 766 293 370 5 355 13
vic Ratio 0.07 0.64 0.46 0.47 0.01 0.60 0.01
Control Delay 8.2 13.5 12.3 3.5 0.0 15.8 0.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0
Total Delay 8.2 14.4 13.4 3.9 0.0 17.9 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ftl 3 72 49 0 0 Qfu 0
Queue Length 95th (ftl 12 102 86 34 0 0
Internal Link Dist (ftl 156 112 73 322
Tum Bay Length (ftl 125
Base Capacity (vphl 415 1416 752 862 806 596 900
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 256 156 0 0 0
Spill back Cap Reductn 0 354 0 0 173 127 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vic Ratio 0.06 0.72 0.59 0.52 0.01 0.76 0.01
Intersection Summa!}:
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Quendall Terminals -EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RT~IIcmr6E61l«lI!iIbrtnitigation
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
trallSpo r
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 12, 2017 TG: 09041.01
To: Campbell Mathewson -CenturyPacific
From: Kevin Jones, P.E., PTOE and Kyle Stahley, P.E. -Transpo Group
Subject: Quendall Terminals -Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street A
This memorandum summarizes the study we prepared analyzing the need for a center left-turn
lane in Street A at the Quendall Terminals development. The requirement for such study was
established as part of the Hearing Examiner Recommendation (April 19, 2016) in
Condition 44, XIV. This condition states that "A transportation study shall be completed to analyze
the need for a center left-turn lane in Road A." In order to meet the required condition, we
conducted traffic analyses at the three internal intersections on Street A by evaluating the
anticipated traffic volumes at each intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak hours as well
as intersection operations without a center left-turn lane or left-turn pockets.
Based on the analyses conducted and explained in the following sections, a center left-turn lane in
Street A is not recommended at Quendall Terminals.
Project Description
The Enhanced Alternative development scenario for the Quendall Terminals project would
construct four multi-story buildings totaling 692 residential units and include 33,190 square feet of
retail space and an additional 9,000 square feet of restaurant space on the ground floor. Parking
would be provided below each of the buildings along with some surface parking along the outside
of the building. Approximately 1,350 parking spaces would be developed for the project.
The parking areas would be accessed via three roads on-site, currently known as Street B,
Street D, and Street E. Each of these streets would connect to the planned Street A which would
serve as the main access road to Lake Washington Boulevard N on the south end of the project
and Seahawks Way (Ripley Lane N) at the north end of the project. This analysis focuses on the
operations at the intersections of the three streets with Street A (from north to south):
1 . Street A I Street E
2. Street A I Street B
3. Street A I N 43rd Street I Street D
The Street A I Street D intersection also serves as an access to the Barbee Mill development to
the south. A conceptual layout of the project access points and street layouts is shown in Figure 1.
Although not shown in the figure, it is anticipated that the Street A I Street D intersection would be
aligned as a traditional, four-leg intersection and it was analyzed using this configuration.
11730 118th Avenue N.E .. Suite 600. Kirkland, WA 98034 I 425.821.3665 I transpo corn
,
/
/
/
/
Trip Generation
'.
,
\ '
'I ti!
\
~ i
I
!
Legend
Trip generation for the proposed project was based on trip generation developed for the Enhanced
Alternative and developed in the Quendall Terminals EIS Memorandum'. Table 1 below
summarizes the Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation.
1 Quendall Terminals ElS -Consistency Analysis, Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 12, 2017.
r 2
Table 1. Weekday Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dall~ TriRs
land Usa1 Size In Oul Tolal In Out Total Total
Apartments (ITE LU 220) 692 DUs 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605
+10% Factor (Residential) 8 28 36 28 16 47 460
Relail (ITE LU 820) 30.19 KSF 20 13 33 59 63 123 1.417
Restaurant (ITE LU 932) 9.00 KSF 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144
Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626
Less Intemal Tri ps2 ·21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1.176
Less Pass-by Trips2 -23 -18 -41 -32 -26 -58 -621
Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829
Note: LU -land use, DU = dwelling units, KSF 1,000 square feet
1. Trip rates based on IrE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
2. Intemal and eass-b:t determined based ueon documented average rates from ITE Tne Generation Handbook, June 2004.
As shown in Table 1, the weekday AM peak hour is anticipated to generate 435 net new trips while
the weekday PM peak hour is anticipated to generate 545 net new trips.
Traffic Volumes
Project trips were distributed to the internal roads and intersections based on the locations of the
parking spaces and garages. There would be approximately 1,350 surface and garage parking
spaces on site with access points on Street B, Street D, and Street E. It was assumed drivers of
vehicles are likely to take the shortest route to and from the on-site parking areas and
consequently, it was assumed that approximately 20 percent of vehicle trips would use Street E,
25 percent would use Street B, and 55 percent would use Street D on the south end of the project.
The antiCipated external trips to the project site were assigned to each of the internal intersections
along Street A, based on the project trip distribution. At the Street A I Street D intersection, these
trips were added to existing volumes observed entering and exiting the Barbee Mill development
from traffic counts recently conducted during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Street B
and Street E intersections with Street A would be new intersections, constructed with the
development, and do not have any anticipated traffic from other uses.
The distribution of vehicle trips along each of the streets as well as the weekday AM and PM peak
hour traffic volumes at each intersection are illustrated in Figure 2.
r 3
, , , , . , ,
~ ~
,.
i
f:\SlreeIA
\!JStreelE ~
iOI pi' ,
'J)C
(OIO) 4, • .1010
(IO)4!i -_ __126)74
(5)5, {16119 if
,J1C" it (~I ~
t:::\ Street A
\2.JStre€t8
. (5)
. 5
~ "j)
~,' (11) 11)
1651"',
"J1 is)
5
Figure 2: Vehicle Trip Distribution and Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Intersection Operations
The need for a left-tum lane in Street A was analyzed by calculating the intersection level of
service (LOS) and vehicle queuing at each of the intersections. LOS was calculated using
methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).
The channelization at each intersection was assumed to be Single-lane approaches. The LOS was
calculated assuming that each intersection was all-way stop-controlled. Additionally, a secondary
analysis was completed which assumed each intersection was side-street, stop-controlled. The
LOS is reported for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours in Table 2. For the side-street, stop-
controlled analysis, the 95th-percentile queue length was reported for the stop-controlled
approaches, based on HCM 2010 methodology, and shown in Table 2. The HCM 2010 does not
include queuing methodology for all-way stop-controlled intersections.
r 4
Table 2. Weekday Peak Hour Level of Service and Queuing Summary
All-Way Stop-Controlled Side-Street Stop-Controlled
Stopped
Intersection LOS' Delay' WM' Approaches4 LOS Delay WM Queues
W8ekda~ AM Peak Hour
Street A I Street E A 7.3 EB NB A 8.7 NB
Street A I Street B A 7.0 NB EB A 8.8 EB
Street A I Street 0 A 8.3 EB NB/SB B 11.8 SB
Weekda~ PM Peak Hour
Street A I Street E A 7.4 EB NB A 8.6 NB
Street A I Street B A 7.3 NB EB A 8.9 EB
Street A I Street D A 9.2 WB NB/SB B 13.4 SB
Note: EB "" Eastbound, WB -Westbound, NB = Northbound. S8 -Southbound
1. Level of service, based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manusf (HeM 2010) methodology.
2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for aU vehicles at all-way slop-controlled intersections and for vehicles on the worst stop-controlled
approach at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections indicating approach or movement with greatest average vehicle delay.
4. Approaches which are controlled by stop signs.
5. 95th-percentile Queue rounded up to the nearest vehicle for the worst movement of the intersection based on HeM 2010 methodology.
As shown in Table 2, each of the intersections on Street A is anticipated to operate with relatively
minor delays (approximately 13 seconds or less) during both the weekday AM and PM peak
hours, regardless whether the intersections are all-way or side-street stop controlled. Additionally,
the 95th-percentile queues anticipated during the weekday AM and PM peak hours would be no
more than one vehicle at each of the intersections if they are side-street stop controlled. Based on
the traffic operations and anticipated queue lengths, single-lane approaches at each of the Street
A intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations and a center left-turn lane would not be
needed.
Additional Considerations
In addition to the intersection operations discussed above, the construction of Street A as a two-
lane street would provide other traffic calming and non-motorized benefits. If left-tum pockets for
vehicles on Street A were provided, it is possible that vehicles on either Lake Washington Blvd N
or on Seahawks Way could cut-through the development by using Street A to bypass traffic
queues on N 44th Street. Although this is still possible with a two-lane section on Street A, it would
be less likely due to the presence of turning vehicles and slower speeds required on Street A.
The Eastside Rail Corridor -Regional Trail is currently being planned with the Draft Master Plan &
EIS released in February 2016. The trail would serve people walking and biking and is planned on
the old railroad alignment located immediately east of Street A. Residents of the planned Quendall
Terminals development and visitors to the retail and restaurant land uses as well as the public
shoreline of the planned development are likely to use the trail for recreation and transportation.
Safe crossings from the trail to the Quendall Terminals development would be designed to
facilitate connectivity between the two. By constructing Street A as a two-lane road, crossing
distances of the street would be shortened, increasing the comfort level and safety of people
crossing the streets.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss our findings.
r 5
APPENDIXB
Comparison of Impacts Under
the EIS Alternatives &
Enhanced Alternative
Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
EARTH
Impacts
• A minimal amount of clearing • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative 1.
and grading (approximately
53,000 -133,000 CY of fill),
primarily in the upland portion
of the Main Property would be
required for redevelopment.
• Grading activities could impact • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative 1.
the integrity of the soil cap
installed during site
cleanup/remediation.
Implementation of institutional
controls defined in the final
remediation plans would ensure
that the cap would remain intact
during excavation.
• Site disturbance during • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
construction activities could
result in increased potential for
erosion and sedimentation of
on-site wetlands and Lake
Washington. Significant impacts
are not expected with
implementation ofthe
temporary erosion and
AppendixB 1
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 [lEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
sedimentation control plan
(TESCP) required by the City.
• A deep building foundation • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
system (Le., piles) and/or
ground improvements would
likely be required for structural
support. Installation of piles, as
well as excavation for utilities,
could impact the integrity of the
soil cap installed during site
remediation and could transmit
contamination to site areas that
are not contaminated.
Significant impacts are not
expected with implementation
of institutional controls defined
in the final remediation plans.
• Differential settlement could • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
occur between structures that
would be pile-supported and
underground utilities serving the
structures, causing damage to
utility lines. Significant impacts
are not expected with
implementation of institutional
controls defined in the final
remediation plans.
• With redevelopment, the • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
amount of impervious surface
AppendixB 2
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
APPEND/XC
GHG EMISSIONS WORKSHEET
FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE
Section I: Buildings
Type (Residential) or Principal Activity
Section II: Pavement .......................... .
Quendall Terminals -Enhanced Alternative
Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet
(UTf""n?.o.'
Embodied
n
Emissions
I Pavement......................... ............... ""'j . 0 .00 I" "C ' .. ",. ""';:;"'~t """"';"<;';iC"';;';':":f''';i''';''t'",,1'''''''l'f'''] 0 I
Total Project Emissions: 8517201
Version 1.7 12/26/07
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FE IS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
area onsite and associated
stormwater runoff rates would
increase and could result in
erosion hazards at stormwater
outfalls at the lake. Significant
impacts are not expected with
installation of a permanent
stormwater control system, as
required by the City, including
energy dissipation measures at
the outfalls.
• Potential impacts to site • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l.
structures could occur during
seismic events due to ground
motion, liquefaction and lateral
spreading hazards. All proposed
structures would be built to the
most current IBC code to
address potential effects of
seismic events and buildings
would likely be supported on
piles to reduce these hazards.
• Groundwater could be • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative 1 . • Same as Alternative 1 .
encountered during
construction activities.
Significant impacts would not be
expected with dewatering and
other construction techniques.
AppendixB 3
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment AlternatIves & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FE IS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
• With redevelopment, • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l.
impervious surfaces would
increase and potential for
infiltration of rainfall to
underlying aquifers would
decrease. However, the
majority of the recharge to the
aquifers originates from off-site
sources to the east, and
significant impacts are not
expected.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There would be a risk of ground • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
motion impacts and landslides
beneath Lake Washington
adjacent to the site during a
seismic event; however, such
impacts would occur with or
without the proposed
redevelopment. There are no
significant unavoidable earth-
related impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
AppendixB 4
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
CRITICAL AREAS
Impacts
• The entire Main Property would • Same as Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1; • Same as Alternative 1;
be capped with soil during site however, a lOa-ft. minimum however, a lOa-ft. minimum
cleanup/remediation, resulting shoreline setback would be shoreline setback would be
in the fill of all existing wetlands maintained. maintained.
and elimination of riparian
habitat on this property.
Wetlands would be re-
established and/or expanded
and riparian habitat would be
recreated/enhanced in a 50-ft.
minimum shoreline setback
area .
• Proposed construction and • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
redevelopment could cause
indirect impacts to on-site
wetlands, riparian habitat and
lake habitat related to
hydrologic conditions (in the
case of the wetlands) and
potential for erosion and
sediment deposition
(particularly during
construction). Significant
impacts, including to salmonid
fish in the lake, are not expected
with implementation of a TESCP
during construction and
installation of a permanent
AppendixB 5
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative I
stormwater control system, as
required by the City.
• With proposed redevelopment, • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative i. • Same as Alternative i.
no direct impacts would occur
to the retained/expanded
wetlands on the Isolated
Property or the re-
established/expanded wetlands
on the Main Property.
• With proposed redevelopment, • Same as Alternative 1. • No reduction of the Wetland D • No reduction of the Wetland D
a portion of the buffer on buffer would occur with the buffer would occur with the
Wetland D would be reduced to 100-ft. minimum shoreline 100-ft. minimum shoreline
25 feet; other portions of the setback area that would be setback area that would be
buffer would be expanded to maintained. maintained.
provide compensatory areas, as
allowed by the buffer averaging
provisions of the City of Renton
Municipal Code.
• Proposed buildings would be • Same as Alternative 1. • Proposed buildings would be • Proposed buildings would be
setback a minimum of 50 feet setback a minimum of 100 feet setback a minimum of 100 feet
from the shoreline, as required from the shoreline. from the shoreline.
by the 1983 City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program.
• Three stormwater outfalls • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
would be constructed within the
shoreline areas. These outfalls
would be located to avoid direct
impacts to wetlands and would
AppendixB 6
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FE IS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
be designed to prevent
erosions/siltation during
construction and operation.
Therefore, no significant
impacts to wetlands and the
lake are expected .
• With proposed redevelopment, • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
the shoreline setback area However, the publically However, a publically
would largely remain intact. A accessible pedestrian facilities accessible pedestrian facilities
publically accessible trail with would be location within the would be located within the
interpretive viewpoints would 100-ft. minimum shoreline lOO-ft. minimum shoreline
be located within the 50-ft. setback area, if approved as setback area, if approved as
minimum shoreline setback, if part of EPA's anticipated ROD part of EPA's anticipated ROD
approved as part of EPA's for the remediation project or for the remediation project or
anticipated ROD for the any N RD settlement. any NRD settlement.
remediation project or any NRD
settlement. The upland portion
of the Main Property would be ,
I covered in buildings, paved
areas and landscaping, providing
habitat for certain wildlife
species adapted to urban
environments.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
unavoidable impacts to critical
areas that cannot be mitigated
with the mitigation measures
AppendixB 7
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Impacts
o The entire Main Property would o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1.
be capped with soil during site
cleanup/remediation, limiting
the potential for exposure to
underlying contaminants. To
the greatest extent possible, this
cap would remain intact with
proposed redevelopment.
o The installation of deep o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1.
foundations (i.e., piles) and
utilities could generate
contaminated soil and/or
groundwater to which workers
and City staff inspectors could
be exposed. City staff that
maintain utilities could also be
exposed to contaminated
soils/groundwater. With proper
protection equipment, training
and handling and disposal of
contaminants, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
o Volatile contaminants in the o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1.
subsurface could generate
vapors that could intrude into
AppendixB 8
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
utility trenches and above-grade
structures. With separation of
living/working areas from
contaminants by the soil cap
and under-building parking, as
well as implementation of
institutional controls specified
during site remediation, no
significant impacts are
anticipated.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative 1.
unavoidable impacts to
environmental health that
cannot be mitigated with the
mitigation measures identified
in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document.
ENERGY-GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
Impacts
• Proposed redevelopment would • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1;
result in an increase in however, GHG emissions would however, GHG emissions would however, GHG emissions
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) be less due to less building be less due to less building would be less due to less
emissions relative to existing density and site population. density and site population. building density and site
conditions due to the increase in Development would result in an Development would result in an population. Development
building density and site estimated 860,434.8 MTC02e in estimated 841,938.8 MTC02e in would result in an estimated
population. Development lifespan GHG emissions. lifespan GHG emissions. 851,720.0 MTC02e in lifespan
AppendixB 9
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FE IS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
would result in an estimated GHG emissions (see Appendix
1,297,536.8 MTCO,e in lifespan C for calculations of these
GHG emissions. emissions).
o New development would use o Similar to Alternative 1; o Similar to Alternative 1; o Similar to Alternative 1;
energy in the form of electricity however, energy usage would be however, energy usage would however, energy usage would
for heating, cooling, lighting and lower due to less overall be lower due to less overall be lower due to less overall
other energy demands, and development on the site. development on the site. development on the site.
natural gas for heating and
cooking.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
o There are no significant o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1.
unavoidable energy or GHG
emissions impacts that cannot
be mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document. ,
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
Impacts
o Under the proposal, the site o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1. o Same as Alternative 1.
would be subdivided into seven
lots, four of which would
contain mixed-use
development, and three of
which would contain the
shoreline area.
AppendixB 10
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016 ,
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative i
• Redevelopment would occur in • Redevelopment would occur in • Redevelopment would occur in • Redevelopment would occur
nine buildings on the Main nine buildings on the Main ten buildings on the Main in ten buildings on the Main
Property, and would include: Property, and would include: Property, and would include: Property, and would include:
-800 residential units -708 residential units -692 residential units -692 residential units
-Approx. 245,000 sq. ft. -No offices uses -No offices uses -No offices uses
of offices uses -Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of -Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. -Approx. 33,190 sq. ft.
-Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses of retail uses of retail uses
retail uses -Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of -Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of -Approx. 9,000 sq. ft.
-Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses restaurant uses of restaurant uses
restaurant uses No development would occur on No development would occur No development would occur on
No development would occur on the Isolated Property. on the Isolated Property. the Isolated Property.
the Isolated Property.
• Site preparation and • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
construction of buildings and
infrastructure would result in
temporary construction-related
impacts to adjacent land uses
over the buildout period (i.e., air
emission, noise and increased
traffic). Due to the temporary
nature of construction and
required compliance with City of
Renton construction code
regulations, no significant
impacts are expected.
• Redevelopment would convert • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
the site from its current vacant,
partially vegetated state to a
mixed-use development, and
AppendixB 11
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
would restore a Superfund site to
a productive use .
• Redevelopment would result in • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1;
increased activity levels onsite however, activity levels on site however, activity levels onsite however, activity levels onsite
(Le., noise, traffic, etc.). In and their associated potential to and their associated potential and their associated potential
general, these activity levels impact adjacent land uses would to impact adjacent land uses to impact adjacent land uses
would be greater than the be less due to less overall would be less due to less would be less due to less
adjacent residential uses to the development onsite. overall development onsite. overall development onsite.
south (Barbee Mill), but similar
to the commercial uses to the
north (Sea hawks Training
Facility) and the existing and
planned commercial and hotel
uses to the east (proposed
Hawk's Landing hotel and
commercial uses east of 1-405).
Activity levels would be
consistent with the existing
urban character of the area and
no significant impacts are
expected.
• Proposed buildings on site would • Proposed buildings onsite would • Proposed buildings onsite • Proposed buildings on site
be up to 80 feet high and be up to 67 feet high and would be up to 64 feet high would be up to 64 feet in high
residential building area from residential building area from and residential building area and from residential building
approximately 94,600 to approximately 77,000 to from approximately 46,200 to area from approximately
209,000 sq. ft. in size. The 112,800 sq. ft. in size. The 88,000 sq. ft. in size. The 62,400 to 101,973 sq. ft. in
proposed height and bulk would proposed height and bulk would proposed height and bulk size. The proposed height and
be consistent with the type and be consistent with the type and would be consistent with the bulk would be consistent with
size of development size of development type and size of development the type and size of
contemplated in the COR land contemplated in the COR land contemplated in the COR land development contemplated in
AppendixB 12
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FE IS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
use/zoning classification and the use/zoning classification and the use/zoning classification and the COR land use/zoning
Urban shoreline environment. Urban shoreline environment. the Urban shoreline classification and the Urban
environment. shoreline environment.
• Proposed buildings would be • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1;
greater in height and bulk than however building height and however building height and however, building height and
the adjacent residential bulk would be less. bulk would be less. bulk would be less. Three
buildings to the south; however, buildings (buildings NW 2, SE 2
they would generally be similar and NE 2) would be one-story
to the surrounding existing taller than under the
commercial and planned hotel Preferred Alternative.
buildings to the north and east.
EXisting off-site features (i.e.,
roadways and the PSE
easement) and proposed on-site
features (i.e., setbacks,
driveways, parking areas and
landscaping) would provide
buffers between proposed
buildings and adjacent uses.
Architectural features would be
included that are intended to
enhance the compatibility ofthe
proposed development with
surrounding uses. Overall, no
significant land use compatibility
impacts are expected.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1 . • Same as Alternative 1 .
I
unavoidable adverse land use
~--
AppendixB 13
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment AlternatIves & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS,
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
• The proposed project would • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. The
generally be consistent with City and the Applicant are in
applicable plans, policies and the process of preparing a
regulations. However, it is Development Agreement that
unclear at this time whether would enhance the project
proposed redevelopment would design by providing additional
be consistent with all of the COR open space, street activation
land use/zoning classification (fountains, artwork, etc.) and
goals and requirements, opportunity for a possible
particularly regarding the design future public dock or pier (this
of the project. Possible dock is not proposed at this
mitigation measures could be time and would be subject to
implemented to enhance the future SEPA environmental
design of the project and review and consent from EPA).
achieve consistency with these
goals and requirements.
AESTHETICS/VIEWS
Impacts
• Proposed redevelopment would • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1.
change the aesthetic character
of the site from a partially
AppendixB 14
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FE IS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
vegetated area to a new mixed-
use development.
• Proposed buildings would be • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1;
greater in height and bulk than however, proposed development however, proposed however, proposed
the adjacent Barbee Mill height and bulk would be less. development height and bulk development height and bulk
development to the south and would be less. would be less. Three buildings
would be generally similar in (NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would
height and bulk to the Sea hawks be one-story taller than under
Headquarters and Training the Preferred Alternative.
Facility to the north.
• Views toward the site would • Similar to Alternative 1; however • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to Alternative 1;
change substantially to reflect a proposed buildings would be a however, proposed buildings however, proposed buildings
maximum seven-story mixed-maximum of six stories. would be a maximum of six would be a maximum of six
use development. Architectural stories, and in the southwestern stories, and in the
features and landscaping would portion of the site building SW 4 southwestern portion of the
be provided to enhance the would be four-stories high. site building SW 4 would be
project's visual appeal. Possible four-stories high.
mitigation measure could be
implemented to further
enhance the aesthetic character
of the development and
maintain views of the lake.
• View corridors are proposed • Similar to Alternative l. • Similar to Alternatives 1; • Similar to Alternatives 1;
along the main east/west public however, view corridors along however, view corridors along
roadway (Street '6') and along Street 'B', private driveways and Street '6', private driveways
the private driveways at the along the southern boundary of and along the southern
north and south ends of the site the site would be widened. boundary of the site would be
to provide views across the site widened.
towards Lake Washington.
AppendixB 15
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
Views toward the lake would be
blocked or partially blocked
from certain public view points.
Possible mitigation measures
could be implemented to
enhance views across the site.
• Proposed redevelopment would • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except
add new sources of light and that lighting and noise levels and that lighting and noise levels that lighting and noise levels
glare, and would produce shadows would be lower due to and shadows would be lower and shadows would be lower
shadows at the site. New light less overall development. due to less overall due to less overall
sources would be similar to development. development.
existing sources at the Barbee
Mill development and Seahawks
Headquarters and Training
Facility; however, the general
lighting levels on the site would
be higher. Noise levels would
be typical of an urban
development. Shadows from
the project would not impact
off-site uses, but would extend
onto certain on-site outdoor
areas.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant • Same as Alternative 1 . • Same as Alternative 1 . • Same as Alternative 1.
unavoidable adverse land use
impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015 -
AppendixB 16
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Altematives & Enhanced Altemative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Impacts
• Approximately 11.7 acres of • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except
open space and related areas that slightly more open space that slightly less open space and that more open space and
would be provided on site, and related areas would be related areas would be related areas would be
including: paved plazas, natural provided onsite (11.8 acres). provided onsite (10.6 acres). provided onsite (12.9 acres)
areas, landscaped areas, and would include a new 1.3-
unpaved trails and sidewalks. acre park in the southwestern
These areas mayor may not portion of the site.
meet the City's standards,
regulations and procedures for
open space. Approximately 3.4
acres of the on-site open space
and related areas would be
visually and physically accessible
to the general public (i.e., the
natural shoreline area and the
shoreline trail, respectively).
• Increases in the on-site • Similar to Alternative 1, except • Similar to Alternative 1, except Similar to Alternative 1, except
residential population, as well as that there would be slightly that there would be fewer that there would be fewer
on-site employees would fewer residents on the site and residents on the site and fewer residents on the site and fewer
increase demands on fewer employees; demands on employees; demands on employees; demands on
neighborhood and regional neighborhood and regional neighborhood and regional neighborhood and regional
parks, open space, trails and parks, opens space, trails and parks, opens space, trails and parks, opens space, trails and
recreation facilities, including recreation facilities would be recreation facilities would be recreation facilities would be
parks that are already at or reduced accordingly. reduced accordingly. reduced accordingly.
exceeding capacity on warm
days. The proposal_w_ould
AppendixB 17
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
contribute to these capacity A new l.3-acre park would be
issues. Additional parks and included in the southwestern
recreational facilities could be portion of the site that would
needed in the City, based on the provide additional
increased on-site population. parks/recreation area.
Certain on-site facilities (i.e., the A publically-accessible 12-ft.
shoreline trail) would provide wide enhanced fire and utility
opportunities for passive access lane would be provided
recreation. Areas for active outside the 100-ft. minimum
recreation could be provided shoreline setback. This access
onsite as well. Parks impact fees lane would connect to the
would be paid to help offset the properties to the north and
impacts of the project on City south of the site via 6-ft. wide
parks and recreational facilities. soft-surface trails. In addition, a
soft surface trail would be
provided within the 100-ft.
shoreline setback area, if
approved as part of EPA's
anticipated ROD for the
remediation project or any NRD
settlement.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• There are no significant • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative l. • Same as Alternative 1.
unavoidable adverse parks and
recreation impacts that cannot
be mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
AppendixB 18
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
TRANSPORTATION
Impacts
• The proposed redevelopment • Proposed redevelopment would • Proposed redevelopment would • Proposed redevelopment
would generate approximately generate approximately 5,800 generate approximately 5,656 would generate approximately
9,000 daily vehicular trips at full daily vehicular trips at full daily vehicular trips at full 5,829 daily vehicular trips at
buildout, including buildout, including buildout, including full buildout, including
approximately 865 AM peak approximately 445 AM peak approximately 435 AM peak approximately 435 AM peak
hour trips and 950 PM peak hour trips and 540 PM peak hour hour trips and 530 PM peak hour trips and 545 PM peak
hour trips. trips. hour trips. hour trips.
• With proposed redevelopment, • Similar to Alternative 1. • With proposed redevelopment, • Similar to the Preferred
and without WSDOT 1-405 and without WSDOT 1-405 Alternative.
improvements or project improvements or project
mitigation, four intersections mitigation, three intersections
would operate at LOS E/F: would operate at LOS E/F:
-Lake Washington Blvd. (1-405 -Lake Washington Blvd. (1-
NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.; 405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.;
-1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.; -1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.;
-Ripley Lane/Lake Washington and
Blvd.; and -Ripley Lane/NE 44th St.
-Lake Washington Blvd.
(Garden Ave.) at Park View
Ave.N.
• Without 1-405 Improvements or • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1; • Similar to the Preferred
project mitigation, excessive however, without 1-405 Alternative.
southbound queues (between Improvements or project
700-800 ft.) would be mitigation southbound queues
anticipated at the Lake (between 800-900 ft.) would be
Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane N anticipated at the Lake
intersection.
AppendixB 19
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane
N intersection.
o Without 1-405 Improvements or o Similar to Alternative l. o Similar to Alternative l. o Similar to Alternative l.
project mitigation, the site
access at Ripley Lane N is
anticipated to operate at LOS F.
o Given the site location, it is o Similar to Alternative 1 o Similar to Alternative l. o Similar to Alternative l.
anticipated that the proposed
redevelopment would be
occupied by residents and
employees who primarily rely on
personal automobiles and no
significant impacts to public
transportation would be
anticipated.
o Increases in population onsite o Similar to Alternative l. o Similar to Alternative 1. o Similar to Alternative l.
would result in associated However, a publically However, a publically
increased need for non-accessible trail would be accessible enhanced fire and
motorized facilities. Curbs, located within the 100-ft. utility access lane would be
gutters and sidewalks would be minimum shoreline setback, if located outside the 100-ft.
provided onsite, as well as along approved as part of EPA's minimum shoreline setback
Lake Washington Boulevard and anticipated ROD for the and would connect to the
Ripley Lane N. A publically remediation project or any NRD properties to the north and
accessible trail is also proposed settlement. south via trails. In addition, a
within the 50-ft. minimum soft surface trail would be
shoreline setback, if approved as provided within the 100-ft.
part of EPA's anticipated ROD minimum shoreline setback
for the remediation project or area, if approved as part of
any NRD settlement. EPA's anticipated ROD for the
AppendixB 20
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
remediation project or any
NRD settlement.
• 2,153 parking spaces would be • 1,362 parking spaces would be • 1,337 parking spaces would be • 1,352 parking spaces would be
provided and would meet provided and would meet provided and would meet provided and provide
applicable City of Renton applicable City of Renton applicable City of Renton adequate parking supply.
parking standards. parking standards. parking standards.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• With or without the 1-405 • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1 .
Improvements, and with the
identified project mitigation
measures, no significant
transportation-related impacts
are expected. Therefore, there
are no significant unavoidable
adverse transportation impacts
that cannot be mitigated with
the mitigation measures
identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts
• Cultural resource impacts were • Cultural resource impacts were • Certain construction activities • Same as the Preferred
not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. not analyzed in the 2010 DE IS. onsite (i.e., clearing and grading Alternative.
However, impacts are expected However, impacts are expected of the upland area, construction
to be similar to under the to be similar to under the of deep building foundations,
Preferred Alternative. Preferred Alternative. and excavation of utilities)
could require excavation into
-~
AppendixB 21
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative
2010 DEIS 2010 DEIS 2015 FEIS 2016
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative Enhanced Alternative
the soil cap (should it be
installed) and could result in an
inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources.
While it is unlikely that cultural
resources would be
encountered as part of
construction activities on the
site, a monitoring plan and
inadvertent discovery plan
would be implemented in the
event that any cultural
resources are encountered.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
• Cultural resource impacts were • Same as Alternative l. • There are no significant • Same as the Preferred
not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. unavoidable adverse cultural Alternative.
However, similar to under the resource impacts that cannot be
Preferred Alternative, no mitigated with the mitigation
significant unavoidable adverse measures identified in the 2015
cultural resource impacts are FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
expected that cannot be Document.
mitigated with the mitigation
measures identified in the 2015
FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document.
AppendixB 22
Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment AlternatIves & Enhanced Alternative
, .
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR D NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
____ , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-I (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft QuendaJ/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
"Initial Project Applications").
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW ("SEPA"),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the "DEIS") on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the "Addendum"). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "FEIS") and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City's request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
("the Development Agreement Statute")' the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City's Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and Determination of Consistency together
constitute the "Project-level SEPA Review."
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____ --', 2017.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW TH EREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
.'
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer's applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT elEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-B-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners'
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties' mutual satisfaction
("Future Dock Proposal"). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 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 ofthe Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA's overSight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(sl 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 (il 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 ofthe 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 ofthe sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would
delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.706.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City's authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as iffullY
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 maya mediator who
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
Denis Law
Mayor
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this __ day of ________ ~, 2017
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By: _________ _
Altino Properties, Inc.
Its:Authorized Representative
By: _________ _
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: _________ _
CITY OF RENTON
By: __________ _
Date: __________ _
ATTEST:
By:, _________ _
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Draft Quendall Terminals Develapment Agreement Page 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___ _
ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _
On this __ day of ,2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of , County of , personally appeared ______ ----'
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
STATE OF ___ _
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _ )
On this __ day of , 2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-i-Map
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
Exhibit A
SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.t'L, AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS A'JJOINING
LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RA:LROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
29;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5,
1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SO~TH 56°28'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 59°24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A;
THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE iNNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END
OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION;
ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF
LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY
NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE
HIGHWAY NUMBER : AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964
UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER
RECORDING NO. 20080619001179.
11/11/2016
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546
BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03
11/11/16
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Page 15
Exhibit A-l
SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
I
J. N66'~~~2~~,
300 0 150 300 "!RUE POINT --I-.
OF BEGINNING ..... I I
( IN FEET )
1 Inch = 300 It.
I ,
TAX ACCT. NO.
292405-9002-03
TAX ACCT. NO. I ~92405-9001-0;l
100.01
POIN;
~ ~&S'/
~
\:&./
~\)""~/
>J.<;,J'7
~ ORDINARY HIGH 0 0-.1)... . r
WAlER MARK .7'
AT lS.S' //
ELEVAllON (' N30'56'16"E
90.80'
SW 1/4
SECTION 29,
T24N,45E
DEEDED
200S061900117Q-...,,'
&=02,,'12-
R=1500.00
L~57.25
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON. WASHINGTON
1 CORNER
OF SEC. 29
-""-BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. ~ LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
-2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 BRH SEATILE, Washington DATE: 11/11/16
98102-3513 JOB NO. :2009050.03
Page 16
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the "SEPA Transportation Update"), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the "Update Notice") will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.1.5 Building SW4 shall be constructed at no more than 3 floors over
parking, building SW3 shall be constructed at no more than 4 floors over parking, and all
other buildings shall be constructed at no more than 5 floors over parking.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists ofthe 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 ofthe Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer's development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA's oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
Draft auendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include-one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA's Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates ("Initial Term"). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice oftermination. 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 ofthe sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a "grandfather" or "safe harbor" clause that would
delay the City's enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City's Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.706.170(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 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.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36. 70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. This Agreement is
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 980S7
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
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
10015W Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P .5.
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 maya mediator who
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATEOF ___ _
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___ _ )
On this __ day of • 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of , County of , personally appeared ______ --'
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print):, ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
STATEOF ___ _
COUNTY OF ___ _
) ss:
)
On this __ day of .2017, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
Notary (print): ________ _
My appointment expires: _____ _
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A -Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-l-Map
Draft Quenda/l Terminals Development Agreement Poge 14
Exhibit A
SURVEYOR'S METES AND BOUNDS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION Of GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELANDS SECOND CLASS ADJOINING
LYING WESTERLY Of THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-Of-WAY AND
SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
fOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
29;
THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5,
1,113.01 fEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 fEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE TO A POINT HEREINAfTER REfERRED TO AS POINT A;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 200.01 fEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING Of THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOUTH 56°28'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS
NORTH 59°24'56" WEST 100.01 fEET fROM SAID POINT A;
THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END
Of SAID LINE DESCRIPTION;
ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY Of
LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONLlARY STATE HIGHWAY
NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC STATE
HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964
UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER
RECORDING NO. 20080619001:79.
11/11/2016
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
DAKIN A. BELL, PLS NO. 37546
BRH JOB NO. 2009050.03
11/11/16
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 t1INOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Page 15
Exhibit A-I
SW 1/4 R5E, W.M.
I
/ ''11010 IL IL ~I
""l""" ......... "'.
300 0 150 300 TRUE POINT--I-..
OF BEGINNING I
TAX ACCT. NO, ,/
-9001-0 i I .... I I
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 300 tt.
& ~(j S~
~
TAX ACCT. NO.
29240S-9002-03 \)~./
~'V"-.~/ •
... 1>'7 ,;;-
.'\ 'Il'r "". ~ 0"""" "-WATER MARK G;;-'Ii
AT 18.8' //
ELEVAllON <,' N30'SS'lS"E
90.80'
SW 1/4
SECTION 29,
T24N.45E
- -r. ' .• , , 'PLAT OF BARBEE -=iJ ill.11 tvOL. 246. PGS. 25-39. -REC. NO. 20080208000182
I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
-""-BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS. INC. ~ LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323-4144 BAtt SEATTLE, Washington DATE: 11/11/16
98102-3513 JOB NO.:2009050.03
Page 16
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 18, 2017
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH flOOR, RENTON CITY HALL
1055 S GRADY WAY, RENTON, WA 98057
THE APPLICATION(S) LISTED ARE IN ORDER OF APPLICATION NUMBER ONLY AND NOT
NECESSARILY THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WILL BE HEARD. ITEMS WILL BE CALLED FOR
HEARING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER.
PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed-use
development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The
21A6-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed-use
buildings. Overall, the development would consist of 800 residential units (resulting in a net
residential density of 46.4 units/acre), 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail
and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for
public right-of-way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured
parking would be provided for 2,171 vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of
wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has
received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed
improvements include remediation of existing contamination, stormwater and sewer
improvements.
2/15/10 -ERC issued Determination of Significance. Comment period ends March 5, 2010.
12/10/10 -Issued Draft EIS. Comment period ends January 10, 2011.
1/5/11-Comment period extended to January 25, 2011.
1/21/11 -Comment period extended to February 9,2011
2/14/11-Scheduled for ERC DEI5 comment discussion.
HEX_AGENDA _04.18.2017
• DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
HEARING DATE: April 19, 2016
Project Name: Quendall Terminals
Owner: Altina Properties, Inc. and J. H. Baxter & Co., 800 S. Third Street, Renton WA, 98057
Applicant/Contact: Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle, WA
98101
File Number: LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and Environmental (SEPA) Review for a mixed-use development.
The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) and located
within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.24-acre site would be divided into 7 lots
of which 4 would contain multi-story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the development
would consist of 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95
units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The
applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.70 acres for public right-of-way and 0.65 acres of
private streets, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and
structured parking would be provided for 1,366 vehicles. The site contains sensitive
slopes, seismic hazards, wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake
Washington. The subject site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the property owners are currently working
on a remediation plan with EPA. Proposed improvements include remediation of
existing contamination and associated wetland and shoreline restoration as approved by
the EPA. The subject land use applications are assuming a clean site following an
approved and implemented Record of Decision from the EPA.
Project Location: SW J4 Section 29, Township 24 N, Range 5 E. Parcel 2924059002. South of the Sea hawks
VMAC Training Facility
Site Area: 21.24 acreas (upland)
Project Location Map
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
I B_ EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Staff report to the Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 2 of 45
Exhibit 2: Environmental Review Documents -Draft EIS, Addendum to the Draft EIS, FEIS and
Mitigation Document: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Environmental Review Committee Signature Sheets
Neighborhood Detail Map
Binding Site Plan
Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal and e-mail chains following
request.
Exhibit 7: Site Plan (black and white and color)
Exhibit 8: Parking Plan (black and white and color)
Exhibit 9: Area Outline of Spaces
Exhibit 10: Elevations
Exhibit 11: Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit 12 Conceptual Storm Drainage and Grading Plan
Exhibit 13 Roadway Sections
Exhibit 14 Conceptual Utility Plan
Exhibit 15: EA Letter addressing EPA and public involvement in the process
Exhibit 16: Advisory Notes/Plan Review Comments
Exhibit 17: Concurrence Memo
Exhibit 18: Additional Lanes Required
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commu
QUENDALL TERMINALS
& Economic Development , ,,,,Gring Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
I C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner(s) of Record:
2. Zoning Classification:
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation:
4. Existing Site Use:
5. Critical Areas:
6. Neighborhood Characteristics (2016):
Page 3 of 45
Altino Properties, Inc. and J. H. Baxter & Co.
800 S. Third Street
Renton WA, 98057
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
Vacant -Superfund Site
Sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, wetlands, and
Lake Washington
a. North: Seahawks Training Facility, COR
b. East:
c. South:
d. West:
6. Site Area:
King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) ROlN, 1-405,
undeveloped COR zoned property
Barbee Mill Development, R-10 zone (in 2009 zoned COR)
Lake Washington
21.24 acreas (upland)
I D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action
Comprehensive Plan (vested)
Zoning (vested)
Annexation
I E. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Existing Utilities
Land Use File No.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ordinance No.
5099
5099
1791
Date
11/01/2004
11/01/2004
09/09/1995
a. Water: Water service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12 inch diameter
water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and an 10 inch water main extending into
the Quendall Terminals site.
b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is a 12 inch sewer main extending
near the east property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel. The Baxter Lift Station is also located
in the north east corner of the site, within an eXisting Sanitary Sewer Easement, Rec. No.
2008090200178.
c. Surface/Storm Water: There is an existing 12 inch diameter stormwater line on N 42'd Place that
ends near the west property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel.
2. Streets: New streets would be required to be developed to serve the proposed development. Access to
these roads would be from N 42'd Place and Ripley Lane (Sea hawks Way).
3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of L
QUENDALL TERMINALS
) unity & Economic Development
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 4 of45
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (VESTED FEB. 5, 2010):
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table
c. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations
a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations
b. Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations
3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards
4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations
a. Section 4-7-230: Binding Site Plans
6. Chapter 9 Permits-Specific
a. Section 4-9-190: Shoreline Permits
b. Section 4-9-200: Site Development Plan Review
7. Chapter 11 Definitions
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (VESTED):
1. Community Design Element
2. Economic Development Element
3. Housing Element
4. Land Use Element
5. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
and Trails Element
I H. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF):
1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on
November 18, 2009 and determined the application complete on February 10, 2010. The project was
subject to an Envirmentallmpact Statement (EIS) therefore, per RMC 4-8-o50B.6., the project is exempt
from the 120 day review process.
2. The November 2009 application did not include a request for a Binding Site Plan. The Binding Site Plan
request was included in the February 2010 resubmitall. Binding Site Plan applications allow for vesting
persutant to the Washington State Vested Rights Doctrine. Therefore the subject project vested to the
regulations in place in 2010 when the Binding Site Plan application was submitted and the project was
determined complete. The project has vested up to ORD 5520. All code sections referenced in this staff
report are reflective of the vesting date, February 10, 2010.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commu •. , & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nt:aring Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 5 of 45
3. The project site is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington, north of the Barbee Mill
Development and south of the Sea hawks (VMAC) Training Facility, parcel number 2924059002. Access is
from 1-405 Exit 7.
4. The site includes 20.04 acres on the Main Property, which fronts along Lake Washington, and
approximately 1.20 acres on the Isolated Property located across Seahawk's Way to the northeast.
5. The Preferred Alternative re-submitted to the City on January 13, 2016 consists of 692 residential units
(resulting in a net residential density of 40.95 units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square
feet of restaurant spread across four Lots (2 -5). All buildings are designed to be constructed as 3 - 5
stories over one parking/commercial level. The table below provides a breakdown of what is proposed
on each lot (see site plan, Exhibit 7, for more details):
c--/;;' . ~ .. ~ ... . .. ...•....... , ... ' ",T';!]:'!!'; .... ;< " ........ ' .... 'j .. '" . '1'... .. ' ..
Lot 1 100 foot shoreline buffer area abutting Lot 2.
First Floor: 5,425 SF Retail, 4,500 SF Restaurant, 95 car parking garage, and 38 stall
Lot 2 (NW)
surface parking lot.
On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (NW 1 and NW
2). NW 1 is 5 floors with 71 units. NW 2 is 4 floors with 56 units.
First Floor: 4,700 SF Retail and 206 car parking garage.
Lot 3 (NE) On top of the' first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (NE 1 and NE 2).
NE 1 is 5 floors with 82 units. NE 2 is 4 floors with 72 units.
First Floor: 4,700 SF Retail, 318 car parking garage, and 42 stall surface parking lot.
Lot 4 (SE) On top of the first floor platform two residential towers are proposed (SE 1 and SE 2)
and a 130 car parking deck. SE 1 is 5 floors with 82 units. SE 2 is 4 floors with 72 units.
First Floor: 5,400 SF of Retail, 4,500 SF Restaurant, 347 car parking garage, and 151 stall
surface parking lot.
Lot 5 (SW) On top of the first floor platform four residential towers are proposed (SW 1, SW 2, SW
3, and SW 4). SW 1 is 5 floors with 71 units. SW 2 is 5 floors with 80 units. SW 3 is 4
floors with 64 units. SW 4 is 3 floors with 42 units.
Lot 6 100 foot shoreline buffer area abutting Lot 5.
Lot 7 Isolated Parcel. Identified as the Middle Parcel on the binding site plan.
6. The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to
1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake
sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology transferred the oversight of the
Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
7. The site received a Superfund designation from the EPA. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation
and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of contamination and develop a
cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e. Superfund).
8. The EPA's CERCLA process is a separate process then the City's land use review. The project manager at
the EPA for the site is Clair Hong, hong.c1air@epa.gov.
HEX REPORT09-1S1.dacx
City of Renton Department of'
QUENDALL TERMINALS
wnity & Economic Development
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Page 6 of 45
9. Currently the site is vacant. However, the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15) to define the baseline
assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in the final cleanup remedy.
These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and
Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2, for more details on the baseline assumptions).
10. In short the CERCLA remedy is assumed to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake
sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site (Main Property), including placement of a soil
cap across the entire Main Property and shoreline restoration in a 100 foot shoreline buffer. Potential
impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA
process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished.
11. Access to the site would be provided via to primary access points. The first would be an extension of N
42'd Place to Street A. The second would be a new crossing over the existing rail bed from Ripley Lane
(Sea hawks Way) to Street E. The overall development would gain access by the construction of three
new east west roadways and two new north south road ways, identified as Road A-E. The applicant
has proposed to dedicate Road A, B, and C and Roads 0 and E would be private driveways.
12. The property is located within the Commercial Office Residential (COR) Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and zoning classification.
13. The site is located within Design District C.
14. The site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards, and wetlands on the City Critical Areas Map.
Due to the baseline assumptions described above under FOF 6-10 it is assumed the only remaining
critical area would be seismic hazards following cleanup and wetland and shoreline restoration would
be located in the 100 foot shoreline setback.
15. The site is located within Shoreline Jurisdiction, Urban Shoreline designation.
16. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 -133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site.
17. The applicant is proposing to begin construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
identifing a remedy for clean up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.
18. A total of 75 comment leters from both the public and agenecies were received during the comment
period on the DEIS, and 8 people commented at the DEIS public hearing held on January 4, 2011. A
total of 12 letters were received during the comment period on the EIS Addendum. Please see Exhibit
2, FEIS, Chapter 3 for comment letters and responses.
19. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended),
on February 19, 2010 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance (OS)
for the Quendall Terminals Project, which initiated the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process.
The following table provides a time line related to the EIS process for the project:
Date .
. EIS Action, see Exhibits 2, 3; and 15. " .•.
• • •••••••••• ••
2/19/10-EIS Public Scoping Period, 70 days (extended) 4/30/10
4/27/10 Public Scoping Meeting
12/10/2010 DEIS Issuance
12/10/10 -DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended) 2/09/11
1/04/11 DEIS Public Hearing
HEX REPORT 09-151.dacx
City of Renton Department of Commw . ~ Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
r ,t;ar;ng Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 7 of 45
10/19/12 EIS Addendum Issuance
10/19/12 -EIS Addendum Public Comment Period 11/19/12
8/31/15 FE IS Issuance
8/31/15 -EIS Public Appeal Period 9/24/15
9/24/15 Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back
2/18/16 Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the
Appellant and Applicant
2/22/16 Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner.
Appeal Dismissed.
20. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERe) issued a Mitigation Document on August 31, 2016 which includes 91 mitigation measures for the
project, Exhibit 2, Mitigation Document. The mitigation measures address impacts to Earth, Critical
Areas, Environmental Heath, Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land and Shoreline Use,
Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Cultural Resources, and Construction Impacts.
21. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file,
and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report
and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report, also see Exhibit 16.
22. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the
City's Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of the COR designation is to provide opportunities for
large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multifamily projects developed through a master plan and
site plan process incorporating significant site amenities and/or gateway features. COR sites are
typically transitions from an industrial use to a more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment
opportunities on Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River. The proposal is compliant with the COR land
use designation and the Community Design Element, Economic Development Element, Environmental
Element, Housing Element, Land Use Element, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space and Trails Element if
~ conditions of approval are met. See analysis, Exhibit 2, DEIS Page 3.6-1-3.6-13.
23. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The site is classified Commercial/Office/Residential (COR)
on the City's Zoning Map. Development in the COR Zone intended to provide for a mix of intensive
office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development
that is integrated with the natural environment. Commercial retail and service uses that are
architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high
economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone.
The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be
designed accordingly. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all
conditions of approval are met:
Compliance
Compliant if
condition of
approval are
met
HEX REPDRT09-151.docx
Co.RzoneDevelo~ Standards. and Analysis
Density: The allowed density range in the COR zone is a minimum of 30 to a maximum
of 50 dwelling units per net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of
sensitive areas, areas intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements.
In the COR zone, the same area used for commercial and office development can also
City of Renton Department of I
QUENDALL TERMINALS
7unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 8 of 45
be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are
utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to
ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in
another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance.
Staff Comment: Based on the provided site plan 4.35 acres would be located in rights-
of-way or private access easements. At this time, the EPA has not issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) for the remediation project or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD)
settlement. As such the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or
expanded wetlands has not been determined. Once the EPA has issued a ROD and the
extent of the wetland has been determined, the area included in sensitive areas could
be calculated. Until which time this number is identified the City is unable to
determine compliance with density for the project site. However, based on gross land
area and 4.35 acres in rights-of-way or access easements the current density would be
calculated at 40.95 dulac which is below the maximum of 50 dulac.
To ensure that the overall site is compliant with the maximum density, staff
recommends as a condition of approval that upon the EPA ROD and NRD settlement, a
density worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager
identifying compliance with net density for the overall site. Once compliance is
identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the final binding
site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire
property.
,/ lot Dimensions: There is no minimum lots size, width or depth in the COR zone.
Compliance
robe
determined
at Site Plan
Review
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
Setbacks: Setback are determined through site plan review in the COR zone.
Staff Comment: See the Mitigation Document for setbacks established as mitigation
for the subject project. The setbacks identified in the EIS Addendum and Mitigation
Document shall be the minimum setback applied to the project, which are as follows:
100foot setback from the OHWM of Lake Washington -Mitigation Measure B6
40 feet from the site's south boundary (adjacent to Barbee Mill) -Mitigation Measure
El
38 feet from the site's north boundary (adjacent to the Seahawk's Troining Facility) -
Mitigation Measure El
70 feet from the east boundary as shown on the Preferred Alternative, Site Plan,
Exhibit 7.
All setbacks should be measured from the underlying parcel boundaries and the
OHWM and not from the edge of the proposed lots in the binding site plan. There are
no setbacks required from the edges of the individual lots created as a part of the
binding site plan except as noted above.
Building Standards: The COR zone has a maximum building coverage of 65% of total
lot area or 75% if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage.
The maximum building height is 10 stories and/or 125 ft., unless when a building is
abutting a lot designated as residential.
Staff Comment: Lots 2, 4, and 5 are proposed to contain some surface parking stalls
therefore the building coverage maximum for these lots would be 65%. Specific
colculations per lot would be identified at Site SpecifiC Site Plan Review. Based on the
calculations provided on the site plan, Exhibit 7, the total impervious area would be
City of Renton Department of Commu '. & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09·1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 9 of 45
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
HEX REPORT 09·151.docx
665,548 SF (15.27 acres) which equates ta approximately 72% of the site and the total
overoll bUilding coverage would be 392,976 SF (9.02 acres) or 42.47% building
coverage for the overall project, which would be compliant with building coverage
maximums. Based on the proposed Preferred Alternative, it appears Lot 3 may exceed
the maximum building coverage per code, as currently designed. However, based on
the overall building coverage standards above, if Lot 3 is developed in combination
with another lot the two lot coverages could be combined to identify compliance with
the overall site coverage. To ensure compliance with building coverage standards staff
recommends as a condition of approval that all lots shall meet maximum building lot
coverage either individually or combined through site plan review.
Building Height was reviewed through the EIS process and the building height shall
comply with Mitigation Measure E4, F9, and F11 also as shown on Exhibit 7.
Upper Story Setbacks: Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50')
in height shall include upper story setbacks as follows: The minimum setback for a
fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (10') minimum from the preceding
story, applicable ta each stary.
Staff Comment: A number of proposed residential towers would exceed 50 feet in
height and would be required to comply with the upper story setback standards.
Based on the conceptual elevations, Exhibit 10, it appears the upper stories may not
comply with the minimum setback standard. Each individual building would be
reviewed for compliance upon lot specific site plan review.
Roofllne and Fa~ade Modulation: Buildings shall provide vertical and horizontal
modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a
minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds
interest .and quality to the project.
Staff Comment: Based on the conceptual elevations, Exhibit 10, it appears the building
designs begin provide verticol and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades
however compliance with the minimum standards cannot be determined at master
site plan review. Each individual building would be reviewed for compliance with the
above standards and Mitigation Measures E3, F1, and F15 upon lot specific site plan
review.
Landscaping: On site landscaping required along street frontages is determined
through site plan review.
Stoff Comment: As discussed in the mitigation document, Mitigation Measure El, E2
and F5. The project shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen
between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The applicant provided a conceptual
landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re-submittol dated 12-16-2015, Exhibit
11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan a 20 foot wide landscape buffer
is propased west of Rood C and a 10 foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of
rood C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10 foot Wide
landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5 foot wide landscape buffer is
proposed east of Rood C along the north praperty line (Seohawk's Training Camp). The
proposed preferred alternative would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2,
and F5. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the minimum landscape
buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11.
Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street
A and Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A,
City of Renton Department of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
JUnity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April19, 2016 Page 10 of 45
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review or as
conditioned
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
B, and C. All street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and
the tree grates are required to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does
nat comply with the minimum caliper inches and/or tree grates sizes as such staff
recammends as a condition of approval that a final detailed landscape plan shall be
submitted for review and approval for the common areas prior to application for any
lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of the binding site
plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan.
Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot
specific site plan review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for
parking garages, surface parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape
details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted in Mitigation Measures F4, G12 and G13.
Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations
require the retention of 5 percent of trees in a commercial zone.
Staff Comment: As explained above in FOF 9 and 10, the site conditions are assumed
post site remediation. As such, it is assumed that no trees would remain on the site
following remediation, therefore zero trees are located on the project site. The
provided landscape plan identifies new trees would be planted throughout the site,
therefore the praject is compliant with the minimum tree retention standards.
Parking: The following parking ratios apply to the proposed development:
Attached dwellings: A minimum of 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger unit, 1.6 per 2
bedroom unit, and 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio unit.
Eating and Drinking Establishments: A minimum of 1 per 100 SF of net floor area
Retail Sales: A maximum of 0.4 per 100 SF of net floor area
Staff Comment: The overall project includes 692 residential units, however the
application did not identify if these units were studio, 1, 2, or 3 bedroom units. As such
the minimum parking standard could not specifically be calculated. However,
assuming a minimum requirement of 1.8 per unit a total of 1,246 stalls may be
required for the proposed residential.
For both the restaurant and retail areas net square footage was not provided
therefore specific minimum and maximum parking standards could not be calculated.
However, based on gross SF a minimum of 90 stalls would be required for the 9,000 SF
of restaurant and a maximum of 80 stalls would be required for the 20,025 SF of retail
component. Together all three uses could require up to 1,416 parking stalls.
Based on the provided parking plan, Exhibit 8, a total of 1,366 parking stalls are
proposed across the site, in both structured parking garages and surface parking lots.
Overall, the site appears to have capacity to meet minimum ond/or maximum parking
standards per code. Mitigation Measure H6, requires compliance with minimum off
street parking standards af the RMC. Campliance with the minimum standards,
Mitigation Measure H6, minimum stall and aisle dimensians, ADA standards, and
parking lat landscaping standards wauld be reviewed in detail at site plan review.
As noted in Mitigation Measure F12, the required amount of parking may be reduced,
relocated and/or redesigned through transportation demand management (TOM) or
other means to allow for an enhanced aesthetic character at the graund level and
pedestrian experience. In addition Mitigation Measure H7 requires the implementation
of TOM and shared parking agreements between uses to reduce parking demand
City of Renton Department of Commu ,& Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 11 of45
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review
Compliance
to be
determined
at Site Plan
Review
during peak period. A TOM program and/or a shared parking agreement was not
included with the master site plan application materials. As such, staff recommends as
a mitigation measure that a TDM program and draft shared parking agreement
become a submittal requirement of site specific site plan review, identifying
compliance with Mitigation Measures H7 and F12.
On street parking is included in the proposed overall project design on Streets A, Band
C. The on street parking shall be maintained as public parking and nat allocated to a
specific use within the proposed development. In addition, Mitigation Measure G4,
requires public parking be provided for the public trail to be located along the
shoreline. This parking shall be located in the same general area as the
retail/restaurant parking and the applicant is required to specifically identify the
parking prior to site plan approval. The provided parking plan does not specifically
identify the public parking therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval that
a parking plan be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed
shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by
the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources
Director.
Screening: Surface Mounted Equipment, Roof-top Equipment, and outdoor storage,
loading, repair, maintenance and work areas shall be screened pursuant to RMC 4-4-
095.
Staff Comment: Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot
specific site plan review.
Refuse and Recycling: Multi-family developments require a minimum of 1.5 SF per
dwelling unit in multi-family residences shall be provided for recydables deposit areas
and a minimum of 3 SF per dwelling unit shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A
total minimum area of 80 SF shall be provided for refuse and recydables deposit
areas.
Retail development require a minimum of 5 SF per every 1,000 SF of building gross
floor area for recydables deposit areas and a minimum of 10 SF per 1,000 SF of
building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum
area of one hundred square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit
areas.
Stoff Comment: Based on 692 residential units 1,038 SF of recyclables deposit areas
and 2,076 SF of refuse deposit areas shall be provided for the overall project. Based on
a proposal for a 9,000 SF of restaurant and 20,025 SF of retail a combined tatal of
145.13 SF for recyclables deposit areas and 290.25 Sf of refuse deposit areas shall be
pravided for the overall praject. The applicatian materials did not identify an area for
refuses and recycling on the project site. Detailed compliance with these standards
wauld be reviewed at lot specific site plan review.
24. Design District Review: The project site is located within Design District 'C'. The following table
contains project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District 'C' Standards
and Guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E. It should be noted that a large number of the design
standards will be deferred to lot specific site plan review as they do not apply at the Master Site Plan
stage. Those standards that apply have been incorporated below, otherwise a note is provided
indicated the standards of a particular subsection will be deferred to site plan review. However, even if
a specific design standard in reviewed at Master Site Plan review stage the same standard shall be
reviewed again for compliance with the Master Site Plan at lot specific site plan review.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of (
QUENDALL TERMINALS
lunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 12 of45
Compliance Design District Guideline and Standard Analysis .. .
1. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the
Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses
enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity.
a. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts;
plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at
high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe convenient network of streets
of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation and provide service to businesses.
Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local street in addition to public
arterials.
Staff Comment: The proposed master site plan identifies Roads A -E in a gridded
network. Road A connects to N 42'd Place that connects with Lake Washington Blvd.
and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Woy) to connect to the overall City street grid.
Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the
roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special
design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation
function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as principal arterial on the City's Arterial
Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a
concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic,
narrow travel lanes, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local road (public or private)
Staff Comment: The provided master site plan has three "pedestrian oriented streets"
Streets A, B, and C. Roads D and E would be classified as internal or local roods, privote.
Bosed on the proposed hierarchy of streets that provide organized circulotion the
project is compliant with the standards. However, to ensure that ot individuol site pion
review each building is designed in accordance with the standards applied to each
street, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the street classification is
noted on the binding site plan.
b. Building Location and Orientation: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to
other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking
areas, and other land uses; and increase privacy for residential uses.
Compliance
to be
determined
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
Standard: Buildings shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses, feature "pedestrian-
oriented facades," and have clear connections to the sidewalk, if located on pedestrian
City of Renton Department of Commu ~ & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
" .... aring Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 13 of 45
at Site Plan oriented streets.
Review
Staff Comment: A building facades proposed along Streets A, B, ond C shall have
pedestrian-oriented facades. Based on the conceptual elevations provided some
buildings would begin to comply with the above standard. However, it should be noted
that a significant length of Road A and C features parking structures and do not feature
pedestrian oriented uses such os retail. Staff encourages the addition of pedestrian
oriented uses at the ground level to be added at site plan review to increase
compliance with the above intent, guideline and standards, it should also be noted that
the analysis completed in the EIS would allow for the addition of commercial uses at
the ground floor.
Standard: Buildings that do not have a pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have
Compliance landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten
to be feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk.
determined Staff Comment: As noted above a significant portion of the ground floor of all the
at Site Plan proposed buildings would be structure parking garages and would notJeature
Review pedestrian-oriented uses. As such, these portions sholl be screened with a minimum of
10 feet of landscaping measured from the back of the sidewalk to the building facade.
c. Building Entries: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that bUilding
entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
d. Service Element Location and Design: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading
docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening
them from view in high visibility areas.
~ -
e. Gateways:
Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, special design
features and architectural elements at gateways should be provided. While gateways should be
distinctive within the context of the district, they should also be compatible with the district in form
and scale.
Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually
prominent features.
Staff Comment: The Quendall Terminals site is located at the Gateway to not only the
Kennydale Neighborhood from 1-405 but is also is Gateway to the entire City of Renton
CampI/ant from the north. Mitigation measure F14 requires that design features such as public
if condition art, special landscape treatment, additional open space/plaza, landmark building form,
of etc. be prOVided to further enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site. The re-
approvalis submitted Preferred Alternative did not provide any additional gateway feature as
met required in mitigation measure F14 nor does the resubmittal comply with the subject
design standards. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a
"gateway feature" package be prepared for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common
amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to
condition of approval 3.
Compliant Standard Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians if condition
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Deportment of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 14 of 45
of and vehicles.
approval is
Staft. Comment: See comments above. met
Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following:
1) Public art
2) Monuments;
Compliant 3) Special landscape treatment;
If condition 4) Open space/plaza;
of
opprovalls 5) Identifying building form;
met 6) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards;
7) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo);
8) Neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs do not qualify).
Staft. Comment: See comments above.
z. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate
various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and
other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in
reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining
contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades;
minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban
edge to the district.
a. Surface Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in
back of buildings.
Standard: Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building and may not occur
between the building and the street. However, if due to the constraints of the site,
parking cannot be provided at the side or rear of the building, the Administrator may
allow parking to occur between the building and the street. If parking is allowed to
occur between the building and the street, no more than sixty feet (60') of the street
frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and
0/ vehicular access.
Staft. Comment: Parking is not provided between the buildings and the designated
Pedestrian Oriented Streets, A, B, and C. Parking is provided between the buildings and
private street D and E. The design af individual sUrface parking lots would be reviewed
at the time of each lot specific site plan review and landscaping and screening will be
required to be incorporated into the site specific design review. The location of the
sUrfoce parking lots meets the intent of the standards.
Standard: On Designated Pedestrian Oriented Streets on-street parallel parking shall be
0/
required on both sides of the street.
Staff Comment: Porollel parking is provided on Roads A, B, and C. See further discussion
below under FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review.
Meets Standard: Surface parking lots shall be designed to facilitate future structured parking
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commun
QUENDALL TERMINALS
. Economic Development , , ... aring Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 15 of 45
exception and/or other infill development. For example, provision of a parking lot with a minimum
dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200') and one thousand five hundred feet
(1,500') maximum perimeter area. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in
the original parcel.
Staff Comment: The master site plan identifies surface parking lots that do not meet the
standard dimension above to demonstrate future structured parking. However, the
subject parcel is constrained by both Lake Washington shoreline setback of 100 feet and
an odd shape along the south property line. Furthermore, the surface parking lots are
located along the north and south property lines to address public comment and
concern related to bulk and scale, access to views, and access to light and air as
evaluated in the EIS, Exhibit 2. As such, the proposed surface parking meets the
exception standards for inherent constraints Of the site.
b. Structured Parking Garages: With the exception ofthe standard noted below, campliance to be
determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of
structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the
overall impact of parking garages.
Intent of
the
standard is
met with
conditions
of
approval
Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets
(a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along
street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building
frontage width.
(b) The entire fa~ade must feature a pedestrian-oriented fa~ade.
Staff Comment: Streets A, 8, and C should be considered pedestrian oriented streets as
noted above. However, special circumstance apply to the subject site that limit the
developments ability to provide below grade parking, particularly environmental heath
concerns related to the sites soil contamination (more information can be found in
Exhibit 2, DEIS). Due to these special circumstances the proposed master site plan with
commercial uses located primarily along Road 8 would be compliant with the intent of
the design standard if sufficient landscape screening is provided between the structured
parking and the pedestrian oriented street. Ten feet of screening landscaping is required
along high visibility streets, using a similar standard 10 feet should be provided to screen
the above ground parking garages. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that
either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a
minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking
garage.
c. Vehicular Access:
Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or
eliminating vehicular access off streets.
Intent of
the
standard is
met with
conditions
of
approval
Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings.
Staff Comment: The site plan is designed to provide access to the parking garages from
Road C at six locations, access to the two parking decks are propased from Road A at
two locations and access to the surface parking lots can be gained from both the private
streets D and E or Road C. Each additional curb cut interrupts the sidewalk minimizing
consolidated safe pedestrian walkways. Based on the site constraints, i.e. bordered on
one side by Lake Washington and the other by an old rail corridor some curb cuts can be
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
City of Renton Deportment of (
QUENDALL TERMINALS
/Unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 16 of45
CampI/ant
if condition
of
opprovoli.
met
expected alang Roads A and C, no curb cuts should be permitted along Raad B.
Furthermore, the parking decks are accessed separately then the graund level parking
garages, the parking decks could be accessed internally fram the ground level parking
garages to consolidate access points. Staff recammends as a conditian af approval that
curb cuts be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted pedestrian
mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. If the
project complies with the condition of approval the intent of the guideline has been met.
Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points shall be
restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured
horizontally along the street.
Staff Comment: Based on the provided site plan, parking lot entrances are closer than
500 linear feet. As such, these entrances spaces shall be reduced to meet the standard.
Staff recommends as a condition of approval that vehicular access points be restricted
to one entrance and exit per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street.
3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village
by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building
entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant
to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and
promote. the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular
traffic.
a. Pedestrian Circulation and pathways to parking lots:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and
enhance the pedestrian environment and provide safe pedestrian connections to buildings, parking
garages, and parking lots.
Compliant if
condition of
approval i.
met
HEX REPORT09-1S1.docx
Standard: A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and
connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and
abutting properties shall be provided.
(a) Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety.
(b) Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the
applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the
development.
Staff Comment: The pravided site plan includes a number of pedestrian connection via
sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline. However,
based on the provided site plan some key connections are missing. For example the
sidewalk along the west edge of Road C does not continue along the private street E
either north or sauth. To the west is the troil connection and to the east is the access
point to Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Again you see the same missing connection
along the south edge along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the
residential court yards show stairways along the Lake side af the development but no
stairways are provided for the buildings east af the lake. In order to ensure the averall
site maintains a pedestrian circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated
and cannects buildings, open space, parking areas, and existing public roads, and
provides for public safety staff recommends as a condition of approval that an updated
site plan is pravided identifying a complete cannected pedestrian pathway system for
City of Renton Department of Commun. i Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Ilearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 17 of 45
review and appraval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate
compliance with mitigation measure H3. The appraved pedestrian pathway system
shall be shown an the binding site plan upon recording.
Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by
Compliance material or texture (Le., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting
to be paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be
determined perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty
at Site Plan feet (150') apart. Review
Statt Comment: To be reviewed for compliance at lot specific site plan review.
Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100
or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least
12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed
Compliant if walking surface.
condition of (b) Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a
approval is hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no
met smaller than five feet (5') and no greater than twelve feet (12').
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate the anticipated number of users.
Statt Comment: Pursuant to mitigation measure G6, 15 foot wide sidewalks shall be
provided along Street B-Ali ather sidewalks shall meet the minimum standards as
identified in the Transportation Section, FOF 26 and Exhibit 16.
Standard: Mid-block connections between buildings shall be provided.
Compliant if Stott Comment: The provided site plan identifies 11 crossings along Road C, 3 along
condition of Road B, and 4 to the center of each round about. However, no crosswalks are provided
approval is across Road A to access Lake Washington Blvd. or Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way).
met Crosswalks shall be included in the pedestrian circulation plan as conditioned above to
evaluate pedestrian safety and vehicular mobility.
-.
b. Pedestrian Amenities: Compliance to be reviewed at lot specific site plan review.
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting
and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of
activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
4. LANDSCAPING, RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area b the
community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and
visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide
the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such
activity.
a. Landscaping: With the exception of the standard noted below, compliance to be determined at
Site Plan Review.
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture of concept of an area; provide visual
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
City of Renton Department of
QUfNDALL TERMINALS
1Unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report 01 Hearing Date April 19, 2015 Page 18 0145
and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the
community.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: On Pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree
grates.
Standard: Underground, automatic irritation systems are required in all landscape
areas.
Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted with the conceptual landscape
plan. An irrigation plan shall be provided for all common landscaping along with the
detailed landscape plan for common landscaping, as detailed above in FOF 23,
Landscaping. All individual lot landscape plans and associated irrigation plans will be
reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
b_ Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
Intent: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents,
workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in
convenient locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to
promote pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners.
Compliant if
condition of
opprovoli.
met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
Standard: All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or
more dwelling units shall provide common opens space and/or recreation areas equal
to fifty (50) SF per unit. The area shall be aggregated and usable for residents, subject
to the approval of the Director. One or more of the following shall be include when a
part of a development of more than 100 units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or mUlti-purpose open spaces
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above
the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are
provided as an asset to the development.
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public
street system;
(d) Recreation facilities including but not limited to tennis/sports courts, swimming
pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
(e) Children's play areas.
The following shall not be considered common open space:
(a) Required landscaping, driveways, parking or vehicular use areas;
(b) Yard setback areas
(c) Private decks, balconies, and ground floor open space/recreation area
requirements
(d) Landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as
pedestrian trails.
Staff Comment: Based an the completed mitigation document, mitigation measure G12
requires landscaped plaza areas on top of the parking garages. The prOVided
landscape plan, identifies campliance with mitigation measure G12, and provides 2.7
acres of plaza space. Based an the provided the site plan and landscape plan (Exhibit 7
and 11) the plaza spaces provide a generic passive recreation plaza space which only
City of Renton Deportment of Cammul
QUENDALL TERMINALS
~ Economic Development aring Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 19 of 45
contains landscaping. These plaza areas could provide other amenities to the
residences such as children's ploy areas, swimming pools, bocce ball courts, eating
areas, water features, or other amenities. To ensure these spaces meet the intent of
the deSign district a detailed design of these areas shall be submitted with lot specific
site plan review. Each plaza area sholl provide a unique space that includes both
landscaping and amenities as approved by the Director.
Mitigation Measure G8 requires 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor areas for active
recreating, such as Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, exercise rooms, or active
recreation areas in the courtyards. Active recreation areas were not identified in the
re-submitted application materials to identify compliance with mitigation measure G8.
As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that either the site plan is
updated to identify 1.8 acres of active recreation area or a plan is provided to identify
which portion of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot prior to lot specific site
plan review.
5. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human
scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To
discourage franchise retail architecture.
a. Building Character and Massing: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure
that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
b. Ground-Level Details: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure that bUildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale
character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or
distant public view have visual interest.
c. Building Roof Lines: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban
project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
-
d_ Building Materials: Compliance to be determined at Site Plan Review.
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use
of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that
add visual interest to the neighborhood.
S_SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance;
encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality
signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create
color and interest.
Staff Comment: A signage package was not included with the application materials. The signoge of
the overall development should be coordinated with the building design and should consider both the
residential development and the retail and restauront business that are proposed to be located
throughout the site. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities staff recommends as
a condition of approval that an overall sign design package shall be submitted for review and
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of L ?unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151 QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 20 of 45
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the
site.
Compliant
if condition Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name ofthe larger development.
of
approval is Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
met
Compliant
if condition
of
Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
approvalls Staff Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
met
Compliant
Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the if condition
of overall building design.
approvali. Staff. Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
met
Compliant Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary
if condition entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (5') above finished grade, including support
of structure.
approval i.
met Staff. Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
Compliant Standard: Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or
if condition shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately,
of sign age may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the
approval i. Director.
met Staff. Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
Standard: All of the following are prohibited:
a. Pole signs;
Compliant b. Roof signs; and if condition
of c. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated
approval is cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are
met permitted as area signs with only the individual letters back-lit (see illustration,
subsection G8 of this Section).
Staff. Comment: See comments above under 5. Signage.
6. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as
plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase
the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Staff. Comment: Lighting proposed on each individual building shall be reViewed at the time of lot
specific site plan review for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and mitigation
measure F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures 811 and F7 to
ensure adverse lighting effect on wetland, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
down lighting and shielding among ather techniques.
However, common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commun, i Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 21 of 45
roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, apen space/plaza, and ather
comman areas, as required by mitigatian measures F13 and H9 and the design standards. A cammon
site lighting plan was not included in the re-submittal of the Preferred Alternative therefore staff
could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or compliance with the design
standards. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a site lighting plan be provided
identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9 and the design standards for the
common areas for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, the Public Works
Department, and Community Services.
Compliant Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building
if condIt/on entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting
of and decorative street lighting.
approval is
met Staff.. Comment: See comments above under 6, Lighting.
Compliant Standard: Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces)
if condition and/or to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees,
of other significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork.
approval,.
met Staff.. Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting.
Standard: Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and
Compliant vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved
if condition administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-
of 075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or
approvalis decorative lighting, right-of-way-lighting, etc.). met
Staff.. Comment: See comments above under 6. Lighting.
25. Critical Areas:
a. Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas
Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). As noted above in FOF 9 and 10 an assumed baseline condition has
been established for the Quendall Terminals development, see DEIS pages 3.2-2 for details on
wetland baseline conditions. The outcome of the EPA's ROD and NRD Settlement would
specifically identify the extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded
wetlands and critical areas on the project site. It is assumed at this phase of the development
that the proposed project would not result in impacts to the recreated wetlands and/or their
buffers, see Mitigation Measure 84. Once the ROD and NRD Settlement has been established
and recreated wetlands and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas
should be specifically reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas
regulations. The DEIS assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of
wetland buffers on adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site specific site
plan review should include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project
compliance with the criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results
in the project's inability to comply with the critical area regulations as currently designed and
assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged
within proposed lots 1 and 6), Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the
critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in
what will become NGPA tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a Major
Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-2ooJ a new application would be
required.
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of I
QUENDALL TERMINALS
wnity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 22 of45
b. As noted in Mitigation Measure (10, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is
assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, the City reviewing officials shall determine whether the
applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any difference between
the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include impacts to reestablished
critical areas beyond buffer averaging. To ensure a true baseline condition is known at the time
of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recording of the binding site
plan, staff recommends a condition of approval that a site plan application, construction permit
application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and
approval prior to a ROD and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA.
c. The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions of approval are
complied with.
26. Master Site Plan Review: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.B, Master Site Plan Review is required for
development in the COR zoning classification when a project is not exempt from Environmental (SEPAl
Review. For Master Plan applications compliance with the review criteria for Master Site Plans are
analyzed at a general level of detail to ensure nothing would preclude the development of the Site Plan.
Given Site Plan applications are evaluated for compliance with the specific requirements of the RMC 4-
9-200.E.3 the following table contains project elements intended to comply with level of detail needed
for a Master Site Plan request:
Compliance Site Plan Criteria and Analysis ........ ,', .': , ... «, ' ,
Compliant i/ a. Comprehensive Plan Compliance and consistency.
Conditions
a/Approval Staff Comment: See previous discussion under FOF 22, Comprehensive Pion Analysis.
are Met
Compliant i/ b. Zoning Compliance and Consistency.
Condition.
o/Approval Staff. Comment: See discussian under FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard
are Met Compliance.
Compliant i/ c. Design Regulation Compliance and Consistency.
Condition.
o/Approval Staff. Comment: See discussion under FOF 24, Design District Review.
are Met
N/A d. Planned action ordinance and Development agreement Compliance and
Consistency.
e. Off Site Impacts.
Staff. Comment: Off-site impacts were extensively evaluated through the DEIS and EIS
Addendum process. The Preferred Alternative proposal was formulated by the
opplicants based on information provided in the DEIS, comments from agencies and
the public, input and continued coordination between the applicant and the City, and
Compliant i/ additional analysis. Under the preferred alternative redevelopment assumptions were
Conditions omended in the following areas:
o/Approval • Shoreline Setback -increased to 100 feet. are Met • Setbacks from Adjacent Properties
• View Corridors
• Building Height Modulations
• Open Spoce and Related Areas
• Building Design
• Emergency Access
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commu . & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 23 of 45
HEX REPORT09-1S1.docx
For a detailed analysis of the changes see Exhibit 2, EIS Addendum pages 2-12 -2-14
and Figures 2-5 -2-9.
Structures: Restricting oversea Ie structures and overconcentration of development on
a particular portion of the site.
Staff Comment: As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height
were analyzed for impacts on adjacent properties. As a result mitigation measures E3,
E4, F1, FB, F9, FI1, and F15 were established. Provided the project complies with
these mitigation measures which address setbacks from adjacent properties and Lake
Washington, building height, and building modulation, the Preferred Alternative
proposed would not result in an overconcentration of development on any particular
potion of the site.
Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review: 2. Parking and Vehicular Access,
subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian Environment.
Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities,
rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from
surrounding properties.
Staff Comment: Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot
specific site plan review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading
areas that would include loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a
level of delivery for the retail and restaurant uses, that could be accommodated in the
parking garages or the private roadways at off peak hours.
Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features.
Staff Comment: The subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The
current site is vacant and allows for expansive views to the neighboring properties as
well as the public right-of-way, Lake Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way),
and N 44th St. The addition of multi-story structures and development on the site will
impact views from the surrounding area. These impacts were evaluated in the DEIS
and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of the DEIS and section 3.2 of
the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred Alternative was developed
with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center of the site. In
addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges af the
property. Finally, the residential tawers are separated with plaza space an top of the
parking garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the
public rights-of-way and the development located an the hill behind the subject site.
Mitigation Measures F1 -F15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics
and views. To ensure the east west view corridor are maintained staff recommends as
a condition of approval that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet and
that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of
BOfeet.
Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally
enhance the appearance of the project.
Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard:
City of Renton Department of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 24 of 45
Landscaping.
Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
Staft. Camment: See Lighting discussion under FOF 24, Design Review: Lighting.
f. On Site Impacts.
Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building
placement, spacing and orientation.
Staff Comment: The proposed building layout provides semi-private court yards
between each residential tower which would allow access to light and air in each unit,
in addition adequate separation for privacy. The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for
a large number of residential units to have an opportunity for views of Lake
Washington. For those units located over Road B and the retail/restaurant area some
additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. SpecifiCS of noise
reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as
window coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to
natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and
pedestrian and vehicle needs.
Staft. Comment: The proposed building design includes parking structures on the
ground floor. It is assumed that the EPA ROD would not permit sub-grade parking as
such above grade parking would be required. The proposed parking structures have
been conditioned to be screened with a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping where they
front a road. However, the parking garages will also be visible from Lake Washington
Compliant i/ if you are walking on the proposed trail, a public promenade, booting, or live across the
Conditions Lake on Mercer Island. These parking garoges are not designed to have a relation to o/Approvol
are Met the natural characteristics of the shoreline and appear to wall off the lake from the
development. Conceptual elevations were provided depicting the building elevation as
seen from Lake Washington, Exhibit 10. Based on the conceptual elevations it is clear
that the parking garage becomes the dominate structure and aesthetic seen from the
Lake Washington. In order to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relationship
to the naturol chorocteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.) staff recommends a
condition of approval that the east elevations shall be re-designed to reduce the
parking garage walls from the view along the lake. An artistic rendering was provided
in the EIS Addendum, Figure 2-8 that depicts a view of the development from Lake
Washington. In this rendering walls are minimized by landscape screening and
berming along the shoreline. In addition to architecturol treatments landscape
treatments could be employed to reduce the parking garage walls along the Lake side
of the development.
Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting
impervious surfaces.
Staft. Comment: See FOF 9 and 10, which provides an explanation of the baseline
conditions on the site.
Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to
provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and
generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commun
QUENDALL TERMINALS
: Economic Development " ... aring Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 25 of 45
Compliant if
Conditions
of Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage
from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
Staff Comment: See FOF 23, Zoning Development Standard: Landscaping.
g. Access
location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage
streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and
egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties.
Staff Comment: The overall development has two primary access locations, one from
Lake Washington Blvd. N at N 42'd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks
Way). Both access locations cross the King County owned rail road right of way. There
is an existing crossing of the rail road right of way at N 42'd Place but no existing
crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are two primary access points to the
development, the applicant would be requred to receive approval from King Coundy to
construct a second crossing across the rail-road right-of-way. This crossing shall
include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. Staff recomends as a
condition of approval that documentation be provided to the City identifing rights to
construct a crossing for vehicles and pedestrians prior to site plan review application
and construction permit application submittal. Also See FOF 24, Design Review: 2.
Parking and Vehicular Access, subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian
Environment.
Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation
system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian
access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency
access ways.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review: 2. Parking and Vehicular Access,
subsection c. Vehicular Access and 3. Pedestrian Environment.
Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access.
Staff Comment: Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum.
Currently no public transit service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The
closest transit service to the site is provided vio 0 diol-o-ride service area fixed route
service in the vicinity of the NE 30'h st. interchonge and 1-405. Future potential public
tronsportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound
Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44'h Street interchange.
Mitigation measure H3 and H9 require thot provisions for safe pedestrian circulation
shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when planned
public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a
condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public right of way,
Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this mitigation
measure.
Currently there are no non-motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall
Terminals site, however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In
addition, the existing rail road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently
purchased by King County and is identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle
Master Plan as a future "rails to trails" planned multi-purpose trail corridor. In
February 2016, a DEIS was issued evoluating alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor
which continues to include a multi-purpose trail at this location. Considering, the site
City of Renton Department of L
QUENDALL TERMINALS
lunity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 26 of 45
Compliont if
Conditions
o/Approval
are Met
Compliant i/
Conditians
o/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
does not currently have public transit options the primary form and most readily
available farm of alternative non-motorized tronsportation is bicycles. Staff
anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and restauronts
proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, os identified in the Mitigation
Document (page 26) to mitigate system-Wide transportation impacts on planned
vicinity transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of
the project the applicant shall prepare a TOM plan to the satisfaction of the City of
Renton that could include on-site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower
facilities. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends a condition of approval that
bicycle parking be provided in the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and
public trail users in addition to secure weather-pratected bike facilities shall be
provided for the residential units. Bike parking should be proVided at a ratio of 10
percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and restaurant uses and at a ratio of
0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be located on
balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation Division anticipates that
individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary farm of tronspartation would nat use the
multi-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor, therefore staff
recommends as a condition of approval that a bicycle lane shall be constructed an both
the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) with or without the
construction of the mUlti-purpose trail.
Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24, Design Review: 3. Pedestrian Environment.
h. Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points
and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the
occupants/users of the site.
Staff Comment: See FOF X, Design District Compliance: Recreation Areas and Common
Open Space.
i. Design: The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally
consistent, and provides quality development.
Staff Comment: The proposed overall urban design concept is internally consistent
based on the conceptual elevations (Exhibit 10). However, each site specific building is
required to undergo site plan review including detailed design review. Additional
architectural details and fo~ode treotments will be reviewed and evaluated at that
time. To ensure that each building developed on each lot maintains a consistent design
concept, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a compatible architectural
design shall be maintained throughout the site and that consistency shall be evaluated
at site plan review for each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 with each other.
j. Distinctive Focal Points: The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public
area plazas prominent architectural features, or other items.
Staff Comment: The proposed plan contains limited distinctive focal points, no
prominent plazas are proposed and architectural features are unknown at this time.
The two round about features located in Road B provide limited public focal points on
site. These roundabouts could be designed with additional amenities such as art work
and/or fountain features to add interest and proVide a gateway feature. Based on the
provided utility plan, the roundabout located at the intersection of Road Band C has a
sewer man hole located in the center. The location of this man hole limits the
City of Renton Department of Commu . & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 27 of 45
opportunities for this round about to feature a point of visual interest or focal point.
However, based on the artistic renderings provided in the EIS Addendum, Figure 2-8
and 2-9 both of these roundabouts would feature a center water fountain. There are a
number of inconsistencies in the provided plans and it is diffiCUlt to determine if these
roundabouts would meet the intent demonstrated in the artistic renderings. The
gateway features that could be added to the roundabout however would not provide a
plaza space or prominent architectural features, but would provide a gateway feature.
To ensure the distinct focol points are provided, staff recommends as a condition of
approval that usable public plaza space is provided along Lake Washington and the
NW corner of the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The
details of the design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review
for lots 5 and 2.
k. Conservation of Area Wide Property Values
Staff Comment: The proposed development would add amenities to the area which
could add value to area wide properties. View impacts and traffic impacts are also
,/ anticipated, which could reduce more localized property values. Overall, the
development would facilitate the remediation of a contaminated Superfund site. The
impravement to Environmental Heath as a result of cleaning up a Superfund site with
the oversite of the EPA is anticipated to add value to area wide property values.
Compliant if I. Provision of Adequate light and Air
Conditions
of Approval Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Moster Site Plan Review: f. On site Impacts, Structure
are Met Placement.
Compliant if m. Mitigation of Noise, Odors and Other Harmful or Unhealthv Conditions
Conditions Staff Comment: Due to the sites superfund designation the DEIS evaluated
of Approval Environmental Heath, section 3.3. As a result of this analysis mitigation measures Cl -
are Met Cl0 were established. The project shall comply with these mitigation measures.
n. Prevention of Neighborhood Deterioration and Blight
,/ Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: k. Conservation of Area Wide
Property Values.
o. Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines
and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines
Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: e. Off Site Impacts, Views. The
proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public access to the shoreline.
This trail could double as a fire lane lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
Compliant if width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA, ROD and NRD Settlement, it is
Conditions anticipated that access to the lake shore would not be permitted. However, mitigation
of Approval measure Bl0 requires that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive
are Met viewpoints. Based on the proVided drawings details of this trail are not included and
the design does not comply with the mitigation measures identified in the mitigation
document. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed trail
design be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager
and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site plan review and
construction permit applicatiOn.
Compliant if Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to
Conditions accommodate the proposed use:
HEX REPORT 09-151.dacx
City of Renton Department of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
1 unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 28 of 45
of Approval Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Availability and Impact on Public Services.
are Met
Phasing: The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application.
However, due to the scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want
to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant
would like to consider phasing of the infrastructure construction a phasing plan would
be required to be submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval as a part of
the first site plan review application .
.r Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200L Expiration and Extensions af Site Plan Review, for non-
phased Master Plans the Hearing Examiner shall determine the expiration date for the
Master Plan which may exceed two years but shall not exceed five years. Staff
recommends 5 years from the date of the decision for the period of validity of the
subject master plan. However, it should be noted that all lot specific site plan review
applications shall be submitted and approved as well as a building permit for each of
the subsequent buildings within the 5 year time frame for the project to remain valid.
27. Binding Site Plan: An optional process for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or
mixed use zones CN, ai, CA, CD, CO, COR, UC, IL, 1M, and IH through a binding site plan as authorized in
chapters 58.17 and 64.34 RCW. This method may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and
short subdivision procedures. The applicant has applied for a Standard Binding Site Plan per RMC 4-7-
230B.1.a. and is located in the COR zone a mixed use zone. The proposal is compliant with the binding
site plan standards if all conditions of approval are met
Compllancec Subdivision Regulations and Analysis -•. ...•...•. .. '.' . .......
Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or more
contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site
plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or
divisions shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district.
New nonconforming lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
Staff Comment: The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in FOF 23 above.
.r The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed
lots 1, 6, and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers, shoreline
buffer, or NRD Settlement mitigation as identified through the EIS process with the EPA.
As such, lots 1, 6, and 7 should become open space trocts instead of lots because these
areas would not be buildable if created.
The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified
as a lot or tract on the binding site plan. This area remains a part of the parcel and shall
be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a
troct unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial,
.r or mixed-use zone.
Statt Comment: The site is located in the COR zone.
Zoning Code Requirements: Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall .r comply with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the
underlying zoning district.
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commu
QUENDALL TERMINALS
( Economic Development • ,r::.oring Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report 01 Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 29 0145
Compliant i/
Conditions
o/Approval
are Met
Staff Comment: See comments above, Legal Lots, FOF 27.
Shared Components: Under either new construction or existing development,
applicants for binding site plan may proposed shared signage, parking, and access if
they are specifically authorized per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5, and
other shared improvements as authorized in other sections of the City's development
standards.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not requested shared signage or parking, however
shared access has been proposed.
Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Measure H7. A proposal for shared
parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared parking is
proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be
noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
Shared access has been proposed through an internal street system, identified as Roads
A-E. The applicont has indicated that Raads A -C would be dedicated public right-of-
way and Roads D and E would be private streets. However, due to the properties
deSignation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City is not willing to accept the proposed
public rights-of-way dedications and Roads A -C sholl become private on the recorded
binding site plan. Because Roads A -C will be private streets it is necessary ta maintain
public access to the development, therefore an easement for public access and
emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access
easement sholl be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services
Division prior to binding site plan recording.
A shared signage package was not submitted with the application.
Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC
Not yet 4-5-010.
determined Staff Comment: Building code compliance will be reviewed at the time of building
permit submittal.
Comptiont i/
Conditions
o/Approval
creMet
Compliant i/
Conditions
o/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
Infrastructure Provisions: Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site
plan or in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets,
other public ways, water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes, for the
entire property covered by the binding site plan.
Staff Comment: Upon Binding Site Plan recording details shall be included identifying
compliance with the infrastructure provisions. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
project manager, Current Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval
prior to recording.
Access to Public Rights-of-Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site
plan shall have access to a public street, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by
means of direct access or access easement approved by the City
Staff Comment: See comments above under "Shared Components" to address lot
access. Each lot would be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed.
However, a phasing plan for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided
with the application, therefore staff recommends as a candition of approval that all
comman facilities including but nat limited to roadways, utilities, common landscaping,
and public art/gateway features shall be permitted, constructed, and determined
substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior to Binding Site
Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a
City of Renton Department of l
QUENDALL TERMINALS
/Unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 30 of 45
separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review.
Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space, parking,
access, signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the
binding site plan and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-08017, and 4-4-100E5.
,/ Conditions of use, maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open
space, parking, access, sign age and other improvements shall be identified on the
binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar properly
recorded mechanism.
N/A
Compliont i/
Conditions
o/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
Staff Comment: See discussion above under "Shored Components"
Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any
subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and
recorded binding site plan.
Staff Comment: The pravided binding site plan does nat contain a provision for requiring
subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved ond
recoded binding site plan. As such, staff recommends compliance with this standard as
a candition of approval.
Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the
applicant shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding
site plan
Staff Comment: No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Improvements: The following tangible improvements shall be provided for, either by
actual construction or a construction schedule approved by the City and bonded by the
applicant, before a binding site plan may be recorded: grading and paving of streets
and alleys, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm
sewers, street lights, water mains and street name signs, together with all
appurtenances thereto to specifications and standards of this Code, approved by the
Department and in accordance with other standards of the City. A separate
construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated
engineering plans prepared per the City Drafting Standards.
2. Phasing of Improvements: To satisfy these requirements, the Administrator is
authorized to impose conditions and limitations on the binding site plan. If the
Administrator determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will not adversely
impact the public health, safety or welfare, the Administrator may allow requirements
to be satisfied prior to issuing the first building permit for the site, or prior to issuing
the first building permit for any phase, or prior to issuing a specific building's certificate
of occupancy, or in accordance with an approved phasing plan, or in accordance with
plans established by a development agreement or as otherwise permitted or required
under City Code.
Staff Comment: A Phasing plan was nat included with the application. As such, staff
recommends as a condition of approval that all common facilities including but not
limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees or landscape
strip), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping, trails, and public
art/gateway features shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially
complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior to Binding Site Plan
Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless a
separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review and if the Administrotor
City of Renton Department of Commu
QUENDALL TERMINALS
~ Economic Development j H;;oring Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 31 of 45
determines that any delay in satisfying requirements will nat adversely impact the
public health, safety or welfare.
Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, include but not limited to
the following mitigation measures:
• B10 -public trail
• G2 -public trail and open spoce
• G3 -Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
• G7 -trail signage
• G9 -crosswalk
• G10 -trail amenities
• H3 -frontage improvements along Lake Woshington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
• H4 -trail
• H5 -traffic calming measures
• HB -fire access road
• H10 -bicycle lane
• Hll -H15 -off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
signalization
All the above mitigation measures shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and
substantial complete prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project
site. The obove mitigation measures are necessary to protect the public health, safety
and welfare and to mitigote the substantial impacts of the project.
28. Availability and Impact on Public Services
comllii~hce ; A1f..ilabilltY~lIdlrj1pa~ bn.~blfcse;;'iCI!S.A~~~si; •
HEX REPORT 09-1S1.docx
Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist
to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code
required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee would be applicable to the
proposal.
Pursuant to mitigation measure H8 of the Mitigation Document, A fire access road shall
be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to
support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle
access. If located in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the
EPA ROD and any NRD settlement, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If
EPA's ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the minimum
100-foot shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the
westernmost buildings on site, and could be combined with the trail.
Mitigation Measure H8, allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100 foot
shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However, the looped
water line required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in
a paved surface, see comments below under Water. Considering the water service
City of Renton Department of C
QUENDALL TERMINALS
unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 32 of 45
requires paved access staff recommends that the water maintenance road and the fire
access be combined, this would allow the trail which is to be located in the riparian
area to be constructed of soft surface materials, see additional comments below under
FOF 29 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any
additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School)
and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be
bussed to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it
,/ anticipated that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the
Quendall Terminals Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be
evaluated upon lot specific site plan review.
Not
compliant
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to
mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is
payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
Parks: A Park Impact Fee would be required for the proposed multi-family units. The
fee in effect at the time of building permit application is applicable to this project and is
payable at the time of building permit issuance.
Staff Comment: Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, Exhibit 2.
The mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation mitigation
measures (G1 -613) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas. Specifically
mitigation measure G2 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of "Natural Public Open
Space Areas" and "Other Related Areas" be provided on the site. The Natural Public
Open Space Area shall include a 0.5 acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the
trail. The Other Related Areas on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape
courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas and Lot 7. The provided Site Plan, Exhibit 7,
identifies 3.22 acres of Natural Areas along the Shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and
6.47 acres in "Other Related Areas". Based on the pravided site plan the Preferred
Alternative does not identify compliance with Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation
Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the trail to be determined by the City's
Community Services Administratar. Currently public trail hours are dawn to dusk,
signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of
public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An
easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site plan. Mitigation
measure G10 requires that the trail shall be enhanced with site amenities such as tables,
litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage etc. and appraved by the Community
Services Administrotor. Details of the trail's design and site amenities was not included
in the application materials. Mitigation measure G11 requires that the trail connect to
the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. The provided site plan shows the
trail ending in the surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This
design is not in compliance with mitigation measure G11. Based an the above analysis
the provided materials were not compliant with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and
G11. As such staff recammends as a condition of approval that the applicant provide an
updated site plan and any ather necessary materials to identify compliance with
mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G11 for review and approval of the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrotor prior to lot
City of Renton Department of Commun. ,Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
nearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 33 of 45
Compliant i/
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
specific site plan review or binding site plan recording.
Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage
of all surface water.
Staff Camment: The preferred alternative is assumed to use the 2009 King County
Surface Water Design Manual, with the City Amendments, for the proposed storm water
facilities. Storm water was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following
elements: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use
(Exhibit 2). As a result of this analysis mitigation measures Al, Al0, All, B2, and B7
were established and will become a condition of this permit. Because the internal
streets of the development are required to be private, the storm water system for the
development will be required to be private. A storm water covenant for allowing the
City access to inspect the storm water facility and assigning maintenance responsibility
of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding site
plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to storm water shall be
maintained staff recommends as a condition of approval that that the applicant
provided a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the
developer/ property owners/ HOA respansibilities for the maintenance of all common
faCilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and Master Site
Plan.
A drainage plan and drainage report (TIR) (based on the City of Renton Amendments to
the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual) is required to be submitted with the utility
construction permit. The site is lacated in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested
site conditions. The applicant is praposing to use the direct discharge exemption for
the project. Water quality treatment is proposed for the project and should follow the
requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water
Manual. Storm water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of
the geotechnical report shall be fallowed in the design and construction of the project.
The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, wham has
provided project specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14,
2009. As noted in Exhibit 16, the updated TlR required to be submitted with the
construction permit should include, an offsite analysis repart that assesses potential
offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project
site and proposed appropriate mitigation for any of the identified off site impacts,
KCRTS printout of all land use input values for pre-and post-developed impervious and
pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and developed
condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology.
As noted above under FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review, subsection Phasing, staff
recommends an approval of the subject master site plan and associated binding site
plan for S years. The Hearing Examiner has discretion to determine the project
expiration time frame, which connot exceed 5 years. Staff is recommending the S year
maximum expiration date understanding the scale of the subject praject and the
necessary clean-up of the site under the Superfund designation. However, the City is
also subject to the Western Washington Phase /I Municipal Starmwater permit. Per the
requirements of the Phase /I permit; all prajects that have been approved prior to
January 1, 2017 and have not started construction by January 1, 2022 shall fallow the
new Surface Water Drainage Manual. Assuming an approval of the subject project no
later than May of 2016 the recommended 5 year approval would result in an expiration
date of May 2021. If the applicant requests a one-year extension or submits building
City of Renton Deportment of (
QUENDALL TERMINALS
'unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 34 of 45
Compliant i/
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
Compliant i/
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
Compliont if
Conditions
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
permits the expired land use permit could be extended beyond January 1, 2022 for
construction. Based on the City's obligations under Western Washington Phase /I
Municipal Storm water permit, staff recommends as a condition of approval that any
extension to the project approval beyand January 1, 2022 or building and construction
permits submitted that would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022 shall be
subject to the updated storm water manual, in effect at the time of extension or
application.
All utilities: The information provided in the utility plan, Exhibit 14, is not adequate to
confirm if there is compliance with the minimum utility spacing standards. The
required horizontal and vertical separation as per City of Renton Standards should be
provided between the utility lines. To comply with this standard additional pavement
width may be required in some areas; if this is the case roads may need to be modified
accordingly.
The title report submitted with the application is dated 2009, which is 7 years old and
out-of-date. As such, staff is unaware if the easements reflected on the drawings are
current. Based on the information provided there are existing easements that cross the
property in areas proposed for buildings. Any existing utilities under the proposed
building or that will result in a conflict shall be required to be abandoned and removed,
and the easements shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approval. An
updated title report will be required to be submitted prior to Binding Site Plan
recording.
Water: New water lines are proposed to be constructed to provide service to the new
Lots and buildings. The water utility main lines for the project will be public water lines.
However, these lines will primarily be located in private streets; as such a minimum 15
foot wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton
for the public water lines located on site.
Based on the provided conceptual utility plan, Exhibit 14, the water line design shall be
amended as follows:
• Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property
frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The existing
water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location
of the proposed new Road A.
• Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be
within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100 foot buffer.
The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the building
foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. To comply with these
conditions, the buildings will need to be moved back further to the east to
allow for the construction of the water main.
• Complete the water main loop within a paved surface with sufficient access for
maintenance along the west side of the project from Street B to Street E.
Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the above water line design changes
shall be provided and an updated conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review
and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to lot specific site plan application and
construction permit application.
Sanitary Sewer: New sewer lines are proposed to be constructed to provide service to
the new Lots and bUildings. The sewer utility main lines for the project will be public
City of Renton Department of Commu . & Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
___ Gring Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19,2016 Page 35 of 45
of Approval sewer lines. However, these lines will primarily be located in private streets; as such a
are Met minimum 1S-foot wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
sewer main located in the private streets. Each individual building is required to be
served by individual side sewers.
Compliant if
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
The provided sewer report states that the sewer system was designed to convey the
peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location at a new manhole installed on an
existing 12" diameter City of Renton sewer pipe, which would lead to the existing
Baxter lift station, a City owned facility. A sewer report was submitted with the
application which showed an allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day for infiltration and
inflow at the existing lift station. Based on review by the City's Waste Water
Department, the allowance number should be increased to 1,500 gallons/acre/day. As
such staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised sewer report be
submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate the existing
Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance.
The current utility plan identifies a sewer man hole located in the center of the island
on Street B. The manhole should be relocated outside of this area to ensure the City's
sewer maintenance department can access the facility. Utility casing may need to be
provided on pipes constructed through the islands.
Transportation: Access to the site is proposed via the development of new internal
Roads A-E. The primary site access from public streets is proposed at two locations
one from N 42 0d Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Sea hawks Way). See additional
comments related to roads and access above under FOF 24, Design Review: 2. Parking
and Vehicular Access, subsection c. Vehicular Access and FOF 26 Master Site Plan
Review: g. Access.
Transportation impacts were extenSively evaluated in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and in
the FEIS, Exhibit 2. As a result mitigation measures H1-H1S are a requirement of the
project, and are conditions to be completed prior to temporary occupancy of any
building on the site. Mitigation Measure H3 requires frontage improvements along the
west side of lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley lane (Sea hawks Way) in front of the site.
Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel lane additions, signalization, and
additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing roadways or areas to be
dedicated. Per mitigation measures G3 and H3, provisions for safe pedestrian
circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the site, which shall include
the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along two private access
roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The private access at
the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including landscaped
planter and sidewalk to be provided on the north side matching the existing landscaped
planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at the
Ripley lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and
6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access.
The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent
property owners as some of the required improvements will impact property outside of
existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the
applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King Counyy,
who owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 lake Washington
Blvd. N, and WSDOT. Do to the necessary coordination with adjacent property owners
and WSDOT staff recommends as a condition of approval that before construction
permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the
City of Renton Department of
QUENDALL TERM/NALS
munity & Economic Deve/opment Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 36 of 45
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
required off-site improvements between the developer and all other affected
properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager
with the construction permit application and the first building permit application for
the site.
The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could
cause some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off-site improvements, such
as southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented
directly north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these miflgation
measures Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review
of the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation
Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-
1. In addition the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains
some inconstancies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and
requirements evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve
the inconstancies between the mitigation measures, Figure 2-1 and the traffic analysis,
a new graphic has been created and is attached as Exhibit 18 which fully depicts
additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the Mitigation
Document. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that all new lanes as shown
on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
In addition the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the
internal road cross sections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's
Transportation Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections,
for pedestrian walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards.
This evaluation coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards
of the zone has resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections.
These roads will become private roads for the purpose of the project as such strict
adherence to the City's standard street cross sections is not required, however the
design of the streets shall meet minimum standards to accommodate the demand
created by the development. Public access will be required for access to the proposed
retail and restaurant uses; in addition to meet the standards of public access under the
shoreline master program (see FOF 29), as such staff recommends as a condition of
approval that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways
and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details
on street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the
development for pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and
landscaping. As noted above under FOF 24 Design Standards, the street cross section
design will vary depending upon the proposed ground floor design of each building. In
general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6 foot sidewalk in those areas
where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street, or a 12 -15 foot sidewalk is
required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at
the ground floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in
places to 8 or 6 feet in width, travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places,
a 0.5 foot is added to account for the curb width, and the required site landscape
setbacks are reflected in the cross section amendments. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that the applicant amended the street cross section as shown in
Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit review; in addition an updated site plan
shall be submitted identifying compliance with the amended cross sections.
Road A is currently designed with a center turn lane; the need for this turn lane was not
analyzed in the EIS documents or in a separate transportation study submitted with the
City of Renton Department of Communi
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Economic Development ng Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 37 of 45
application. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a study is
completed to identify the need for a center turn lane in Road A. Depending upon the
outcome of this study, Road A street designs shall be amended accordingly.
The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to generate 5,656 net new average weekday
daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate
approximately 435 net new trips (104 inbound and 331 outbound). During the weekday
PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 530 net new trips (340
inbound and 190 outbound). The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic
Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as shown in Exhibit 17.
See additional comments related to pedestrian connectivity and bicycle access above
under, FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, subsection g. Access.
29. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: No shoreline development shall be undertaken on
shoreline of the City without first obtaining a substantial development permit. No permit shall be
issued unless the proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP, and the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971). The site is located in the Urban Environment of the SMP and is consistent
with the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act as demonstrated in the table
below if all conditions of approval are met.
Compliant if
Conditians
ofApproval
are Met
HEX REPORT 09-151.dacx
Use Regulations:
a. Commercial: New commercial development on Lake Washington which are
neither water-dependent, nor water related, nor water-enjoyment, nor
which do not provide significant public access to and along the water's
edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline.
Staf( Comment: The proposed commercial development is not water-dependent, nor
water related, nor water enjoyment. However, a public trail is provided along the
shoreline to provide public access along the water's edge, if approved by the EPA ROD
and any NRD settlement. Conditions of approval have been recommend throughout this
staff report for designated public parking for trail use, amenities to be incorporated into
the trail including view points, large public plaza spaces along the lake side of Rood B,
and a public promenade along the lake side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and
5. If all these conditions of approval are met significant public access along the water's
edge would be provided and therefore the new commercial development would be
considered a permitted use. However, if the public amenities are prohibited by the EPA
ROD and any NRD settlement the subject use would not be permitted, because
significant public access is not provided. As such, staff recommends as a condition of
approVal that if the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public
access from the project a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval
prior to canstruction permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that
complies with the shoreline master programs requirements for significant public access.
b. Parking: Public parking is to be provided at frequent locations. Both public
and private parking is discouraged along the water's edge.
Staf( Comment: Surface parking and structured parking are both proposed
approximately 100 feet bock form the OHWM. These parking lots are not located along
the water's edge.
City of Renton Department of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
munity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendotion
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 38 of 45
Compliant if
Conditions
a/Approval
are Met
Incorporation of Public Recreational Opportunities: Commercial developments should
incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline for the general public.
Multi-family development shall proVide public access along the water's edge, in the
Case of lake Washington, significance public access shall be provided.
Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposed public access which includes a troil
within the share line riparian area. The Mitigation Document requires this trail included
view points and amenities. The proposed troil begins to meet the standard of
Significant public access. The trail is the only amenity provided in the Preferred
Alternative which on its own does not pass the test of significant public access. There
are a number of apportunities for additional public access to be incarporoted into the
project design, some of which have been identified throughout this staff report,
including a public plaza at the terminus of road B. This plaza space would provide visual
access to the lake and could include amenities such as benches, terraced setting, public
art, or gateway features. Furthermore, as noted above under FOF 28 Availability of
Public Services, the looped woter main required around buildings proposed on Lot 2 and
5 is required to have an access roadway and be located out of the shoreline riparian
area. The waterline requirement combined with the fire occess requirements presents
an opportunity to combine both the water line, fire access and deSign the space in a
way that it could be used as public access to the shoreline. This space, if designed with
amenities such as public art, seating, water feotures, etc. would create a public
promenade with visual access to the shoreline. The addition of a public promenade
along the lake side of both Lots 2 and 5 would odd significant public access to the
project. As such, staff recommends as a condition af approval that a public promenade
is added along the lake side af the buildings on Lot 2 and 5. This promenade should
connect to the terminus of Rood B and the surface parking lots at the north and south
ends of the site.
See comments above under "Use Regulation.
View Impacts: The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed
commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area .
./ Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit what steps have been take in the
design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference
with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people the area.
Compliant
if
conditions
of approval
are met
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
Staff Comment: See FOF 26 Master Site Plan Review: e. Off Site Impacts, Views.
Setback: A commercial building should be located no closer than 50 feet to the ordinary
high water mark.
Staff Comment: See FOF 24 Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Setbacks.
The provided conceptual utility plan, identifies the required looped water line in the
shoreline riparian area (100 foot buffer). Pursuant to the EIS and Mitigation Document
a 100 foot shoreline buffer was required from the OHWM of Lake Washington. This
area is assumed in the baseline conditions to be utilized for habitat restoration and
wetland mitigation and buffers. The waterline shall not be constructed within the
riparian area and shall be located outSide the buffers. Staff recommends as a condition
of approval that the waterline shall be relocated outside the 100 buffer and on updated
conceptual utility plan shall be provided identifying compliance with this standard.
City of Renton Department of Commun
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Economic Development 'ing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016 Page 39 of45
I,. CONCLUSIONS:
Time Requirements for Shoreline Permits: RMC 4-9-190J permits extension of the
standard SSDP time lines identified in RMC 4-9-190J.2. if consistent with RCW 90.58.143
and the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval of the
Department of Ecology, established appropriate time limits as part of a SSDP. SSDP are
valid for 2 years with the potential to authorize construction up to 5 years after the
effective date ofthe SSDP, if construction application are submitted, permits are issued
and foundation inspection are completed.
Staff Comment: Given the project cannot move to construction until the EPA issues a
ROD and a NRD Settlement is determined, two years may not be sufficient to complete
the project and obtain all necessary permits. Therefore, stoff recommends that the
SSDP expiration date be consistent with the Master Plan expiration date. Staff
recommends that there shall be no extensions authorized to the SSDP beyond the 5
years, unless the project complies with the updated Shoreline Master Progrom, adopted
in 2011.
1. The subject site is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Comprehensive Plan designation
and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation provided the applicant
complies with all conditions of approval, see FOF 22.
2. The subject site is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning designation and complies
with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 23.
3. The proposed development complies with the Design District C Standards provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 24.
4. The proposed development complies with the Critical Areas Regulations provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 25.
5. The proposed development complies with the Master Site Plan Review Criteria provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 26.
6. The proposed Binding Site Plan complies with the subdivision regulations as established by City Code
and state law provided all City Code, advisory notes and conditions are complied with, see FOF 27.
7. Safe walking routes to the school bus stop will be evaluated at lot specific site plan review. The Renton
School District has indicated they can accommodate the anticipated number of students, see FOF 28.
8. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development in all City
Codes and conditions of approval are complied with, see FOF 28.
9. The proposed development complies with the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline
Management Act standards, see FOF 29.
10. An expiration date shall be set by the Hearing Examiner for the Master Site Plan, see FOF 26.
11. Key features, which are integral to this project include a 100 foot shoreline setback, public trail, building
height modulation, setbacks from the north and south property lines, and view corridors.
I J, RECOMMENDATION:
Master Site Plan and Binding Site Plan:
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Deportment of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
munity & Economic Development
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Page 40 of 45
Staff recommends approval of the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative (692 Residential Units, 9,000 SF
of restaurant, and 20,025 SF of retail) Master Plan and Binding Site Plan, File No. LUA09-151, with an
expiration date 5 years for approval, as depicted in Exhibit 7, subject to the following conditions:
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit:
Staff recommends approval of the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative (692 Residential Units, 9,000 SF
of restaurant, and 20,025 SF of retail) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, File No. LUA09-151, with an
expiration date of 5 years with no extensions authorized to the permit beyond the 5 years, unless the project
complies with the updated Shoreline Master Program, adopted in 2011, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document dated,
August of 2015.
2. All lots shall meet maximum building lot coverage either individually or combined through site plan
review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside through the binding site plan.
3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street
trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common landscaping (including
irrigation), trails (including signage and amenities), public art/gateway features, and habitat
restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD shall be permitted, constructed, and determined
substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project
Manager prior to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any
individual lot, unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any
delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare.
4. The minimum partial sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier (buffers) shall be maintained along the
north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11 and shall be identified on the recorded binding site
plan, as required by Mitigation Measures E1, E2, and F5.
5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk when the
sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for each site shall be
reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the Binding Site
Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts as referenced and required
by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded and noted on the
face of the recorded Binding Site Plan.
7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review, this should
be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
8. Roads A -C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an easement for public
access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The public access easement
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property Services Division prior to binding site
plan recording.
9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent development of
the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding site plan. The required
statement shoUld be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Property
Services prior to recording.
10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the hours of public
use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the
Community Services Administrator with the construction permit application. The trail and associated
sign age shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Communi
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Economic Development ing Examiner Recommendotion
LUA09-151
Page 41 of45
11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public access shall be
noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
12. Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to Mitigation
Measures:
• BlO -public trail
• G2 -public trail and open space
• G3 -Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of lake Washington Blvd.
and Ripley lane N.
• G7 -trail signage
• G9 -crosswalk
• GlO -trail amenities
• H3 -frontage improvements along lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley lane N
• H4-trail
• HS -traffic calming measures
• H8 -fire access road
• H10 -bicycle lane
• Hll-H1S -off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and signalization
shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first
building on the project site.
13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and Care
Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements matching the south
side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be provided on the east north side.
The new private access to be located at the Ripley lane (Sea hawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide
landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access. These off-site improvements
shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first
building on the project site
15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a minimum 10
foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking garage. Compliance with this
condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve uninterrupted
pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be permitted along Road B. Access
points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the ground level parking garages. Compliance
with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit per 500
linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is required per fire
and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan
review.
18. To ensure the semi-private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed design of these
areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan review. Each plaza area shall
provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and amenities as approved by the Director.
HEX REPORT09-1S1.docx
City of Renton Department of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
munity & Economic Development
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 42 of 45
19. To ensure that all uses receive equal signage opportunities an overall sign design package shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of
any sign permit for the site.
20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows:
a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington
b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Sea hawk's Training Facility)
21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum width of 74 feet
and the semi-private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of 80
feet.
22. East elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-designed to reduce to the parking
garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the
natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming
and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed at site plan review.
23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units on site. Bike
parking should be provided at a ratio of O.S stalls per unit. Bike parking for the residents shall not be
located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking plan shall be provided with lot specific
site plan review.
24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals site and a
consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building proposed on lots 2, 3, 4,
and S.
25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of the building on
Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the design of this space shall be
included in the lot specific site plan review applications for lots 2 and S.
26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the infrastructure
provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review project manager, Current
Planning project manager, and Property Services for approval prior to recording.
27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the critical area
regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the buffers of the
recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to
ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that all wetlands and associated buffers are
contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the change to the overall development is considered a
Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be
required.
28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane (Sea hawks Way)
with or without the construction of the mUlti-purpose trail.
29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction
permit review.
30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities built on site and
assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners/developer/HOA shall be
required to be recorded with the binding site plan.
31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping, open space,
sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be maintained, the applicant shall
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
City of Renton Department of Commun
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Economic Development ing Examiner Recommendation
LUA09-151
Page 43 0145
provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property
owners/HOA responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the
Binding Site Plan and Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding
Site Plan.
32. Any extension to the project approved beyond January 1, 2022 or building and construction permits
submitted that would extend the project beyond January 1, 2022 shall be subject to the updated
stormwater manual, in effect at the time.
33. A minimum 15 foot wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public sewer mains
located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of
Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording.
34. A minimum 15 foot wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Renton
for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to binding site plan recording.
35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on the subject
site.
36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that will reevaluate
the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which should be 1,500
gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works Department.
37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the proposed
binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easement shall be
relinquished or amended subject to City approval. Final documentation shall be submitted for review
and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording.
38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the center of Road
B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the facility.
39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be completed for the
required off-site improvements between the developer and all other affected properties. Such
agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager with the construction permit
application and the first building permit application for the site.
40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the timing
identified above per condition of approval 12.
41. A public promenade along lake Washington extending along the front of lots 2 and 5, connecting to
Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end shall be incorporated into the design of the
buildings on lots 2 and 5. This promenade shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
art, water features, etc. Design of the promenades compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at
the time of lot specific site plan review.
42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of lake Washington shall be identified on the final
binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved
by the Property Services Division.
43. An easement shall be secured from King County or other future property owners of the rail-road right-
of-way to provided vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-
way. The easement shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be recorded concurrently
with the binding site plan.
HEX REPORT09-151.docx
City of Renton Deportment of
QUENDALL TERMINALS
7lunity & Economic Development
Report of Hearing Date April 19, 2016
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-151
Page 44 of45
44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to induvidual site plan review application for any
lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and construction permit issuance.
I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted to the
Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density for the overall site.
Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units per lot shall be recorded on the
final binding site plan to allow the maximum permitted density to be shared among the entire
property.
II. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and
approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common landscaping installation is
approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved, a final detailed landscape plan, or
phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance with the approved phasing plan.
III. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the proposed
shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and Natural Resources Director. The
approved public parking shall be identified on the recording Binding Site Plan.
IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site
shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a Record of Decision (ROD)
and NRD Settlement completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD and NRD Settlement
issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed baseline
assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project changes are not
necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C1O.
V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials to identify
compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, GIO, and Gll for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator.
VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered common amenities
such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed pursuant to condition of approval
3.
VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian pathway
system, including an evaluation of on-site crosswalks to ensure pedestrian safety. The
pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4
and H9. The final approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site
plan upon recording.
VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active recreation
area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review and approval of the
Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion of the 1.8 acres would be
allocated to which lot.
IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and
H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including but not limited to, sidewalks,
roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and
trails, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works
Department, and Community Services.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
Project Name:
Quendall Terminals
Date of Hearing
April 19, 2016
Staff Contact
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, EXHIBITS
Project Number:
LUA09-1S1 ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
Project Contact/Applicant
Campbell Mathewson,
Century Pacific, l. P., 1201
Third Ave, suite 1680,
Seattle, WA 98101
Project Location
SW J> Section 29,
Township 24 N, Range 5
E. Parcel 2924059002.
South of the Seahawks
Training Facility
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exhibit 10:
Exhibit 11:
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15:
Exhibit 16:
Exhibit 17:
Exhibit 18:
Staff report to the Hearing Examiner, which can be found at the following link:
http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=32800
Environmental Review Documents -Draft EIS, Addendum to the Draft EIS, FEIS
and Mitigation Document, which can be found at the following link:
http://rentonwa .gov Ibusi nessl defa u It .aspx ?id =3 2800
Environmental Review Committee Signature Sheets
Neighborhood Detail Map
Binding Site Plan
Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal and e-mail chains
following request.
Site Plan (black and white and color)
Parking Plan (black and white and color)
Area Outline of Spaces
Elevations
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Conceptual Storm Drainage and Grading Plan
Roadway Sections
Conceptual Utility Plan
EA Letter addressing EPA and public involvement in the process
Advisory Notes/Plan Review Comments
Concurrence Memo
Additional Lanes Required
SR CITY OF ~ ------~ enton ~
DEPARTMENT OF COMI\.~ .• ITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) AND MITIGATION
DOCUMENT
Notice is hearby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and Mitigation Document for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee on Monday, August 31, 2015, and is available for public review. Copies are
available for review at the Renton Main Library, located at 100 Mill Avenue South, and the Renton Highlands
Branch Library, located at 2902 NE 12th Street, and at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site: (www.rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L. P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The EIS evaluates potential impacts resulting
from a mixed-use development project, including four Alternatives, of which considers no action. The
Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of restaurant and
692 residential units.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Final Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the l't Floor of Renton City Hall for $35 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus
tax and postage (if mailed).
PUBLIC REVIEW: The impacts described in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are the basis for
the mitigation measures established in the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document is designated by
the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal.
EXHIBIT 3
ERe ISSUANCE & AVALABllIIY!
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AN~ ,/"TlGATION DOCUMENT
PAGE 2 012
APPEAL INFORMATION: Upon issuance of the FEIS and Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period
commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E., the adequacy of the Final EIS and the
Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific objections of fact and/or law; 2) be
submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. September 24,2015; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $250.00.
Appeals must be addressed to Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton City Hall, 1055 5 Grady
Way, Renton, WA 98055.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
n, Administrator
epartment
Community Services Department
September 4, 2015
August 31, 2015
<?J 15,l115c. ~--""'--Datr r Mark Peterson, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
8 -jf t5 ~C~£=-::--"-J=--c ......... "",,,,:-:--:-:--· __ s!",--
Date C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
'1:/?/ I,~
I J Date
DEPARTMENT OF COMM _ . .lTV
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM (EIS ADDENDUM)
Notice is hearby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum (EIS Addendum) for the proposal described below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental
Review Committee on Monday, October 15, 2012, and is available for public review and comment. Copies are
available for review at the Renton Main Library, located at 100 Mill Avenue South, and the Renton Highlands
Branch Library, located at 2902 NE 12th Street, and at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site: (www.rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L. P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The EIS Addendum to the Draft Enviornmental
Impact Satment (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Preferred
'·'\Iternative. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a mixed-use
/
'development. The Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of
restaurant and 692 residential units. For those assumptions that have been modified under the Preferred
Alternative, the updated analysis is included in the provided EIS Addendum. These elements include, Critical
Areas, Aesthetics/View, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Cultural Resources and Relatiomhip to plans
and Policies.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,VVA 98057
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus
t.ax and postage (if mailed).
ERe ISSUANCE & AVALABILlTY!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM
PAGE 2 of 2
. PUBLIC REVIEW: Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a 30-day review period ending at
':li"'}OO p.m. Monday, November 19, 2012. Written Comments should be addressed to: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior
Planner, Planning Division, 6th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Gregg Zi er. ,A ministrator
Public Works Department
Terry Higashiyama, Administrat
Community Services Departm
October 19, 2012
October is, 2012
iDlt>/1.<Jll" .• /
D~t[ Mark Peterson, Ad
Fire & Emergency Services
j{) /~/6\ C 2; \) \,~-"~_ Da~ . C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIl y
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
Notice is hearby given that the City of Renton has issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for Quendall Terminals mixed use development on December 10, 2010 pursuant to WAC 197-11-
510 and RMC 4-9-070, and is available for public review. Copies are available for review at the Renton
Main Library,the Renton Highlands Branch Library, and Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th
floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98055, and on the City of Renton website
(www.rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, SSP, SA-M, SM
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L. P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Quendall Terminals mix use development DEIS considers
potential development concepts for the redevelopment of a 21.46 acre Superfund site located along
the shoreline of Lake Washington. The DEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed
development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the DEIS: Alternative 1, which consists of
800 residential units, 245,000 square feet of office, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet
of restaurant; Alternative 2, which consist of a less dense alternative where the office component is
eliminated and residential units are reduced to 708 units; and Alternative 3, a no action alternative.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
43S0 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for purchase
from the Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus
tax and postage (if mailed).
eRe iSSUANCE & AVAl.AB1Un/
DR,,'\FT ENVtRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PAGE 2. cf2
, PUBLIC REVIEW: Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a 30-day review period ending at
',,'j):00 p.m. Monday, January 10, 2011. Written Comments should be addressed to: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior
';/Planner, Planning Division, 5th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. A public
hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 4, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 7th floor Renton
City Ha", 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WAc
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
&r~/t~~~~---·
Public wo~rs Department
.Terry Higashiyama, Administrator ;:~
,_~:t!Jnommunjty Services Department
E~C Sigf1tlt;,;'e Silt i~Zlliln(;€ of DE:S.ioc
December 10, 2010
December 5, 2010
--, M-?1;kZ;P~ I
A
15i
d
!_m
Date ar eterson, mlnlstrator
12.ll" ! va
Date
Fire & Emergency Services
~-
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
tv(uk-
Date
LAKE WASHINGTON
N
+
iC):.!O&"'"" :;"""",'
\~'
IPROJECT SITE I
20.3 AC 1--.jRIPLEY LN NI
11-4051
11-4051 ,
"
IBARBEE MILL ENTRANCE ~ ~N43RDSTI
[N 42ND PLI ,
r. ,
•
~
£'
",<if~LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NI
l
''I ,l
i"' GRAPHIC SCALE:
v Pi .400ft
EXHIBIT 4
NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP
QUENDALL TERMINALS
DESCRPTK»I:
lWIT _TK»I IF ~T LOT 5 IN SEC1IaI 29, TO'tINSHP :l4 _lIi, RANilE 5
EAST, WJoI., o\HD 5lltIRD.ANJ AIUlNNe L'IING 'llESlEM.T OF 11-£ NORlHERN PIoCFIC
RAIlROAD _T-IF-WAT AtIl SI:I./lI£M.T IF A UNE, IN IQI+G COJN'IT, WASttNGTCIN, """"" .. ~
EEGINMIHG AT 1HE QUARTER CORNER CIN It£ SOUlH UI[ 0' SAIl SfC1IDN 21;
1HlItCE NORTH 88'lIo8'M' IllEST ALONG TlIE SCIJ1II [Hi: IF SoIIIl LOT &, 1,113.01
FEET 10 1HE ~Y UNE (IF SAIl NCRTHERII P...aFIC IlAUIOAO _-IF-WA~
ltOCE NORTH 28'4,n4" EAST _,62 FEET AI.l»IC:; SAD RIGHT-oF-WAY I..tIE TO A
f'()IHT HEREIIUofltR REf(lIRED TIl Mj P<*T A;
ltOCE CON1NMIG NORTH 28 "44'54' EAST 2IXl.01 fEET TO 1HE lRUE POINT OF
BEGHIHC Of lHE LINE HEREIN D£SCRalI;
THENCE SOUTH !Ie 'vlw WEST 2U.J:l FEET 10 A POINT \HOt SEARS NOR1H
58":U'!i8" 'III[ST 100.01 F'E£T fRQY SAID !'aNT A;
'nOa: HORTH 58"2.4'56" '/lEST TO THE INNEII IIARBOR lH: ot.ND 11£ EHO IJf SAIO
"" """"""'" MSO THAT POR1lOH or SAIl ~ LDT 5 L'lIIIG sa.JTHEAS'JtRLyor lAKE
WASttttGlOH BOUI..E'JAAD. 'llES1ERU (IF !ECCNlMY Slol.lE IGfWAT MII&R ZA AHIl
_lH'IIE51ERLY Of lIE RIGHT-OF-WAY (F PUBUC STA1E _Y N.AIBER I AS
ESTAilJS£Il BY DEED RECORDm oWtUAR'I' ,s, '11M LINtI(R REIXRDIfG 110. !lM74011;
AtIl EXCEPT lIiAT PCRllCIN THEREOf CON\E'IED TO a1'l' OF RDlTOM, A IlUllClPAL
CORPORAlIOII BY DEED ~ oUIE It, 2CQIIlNJ(R R£COI1IIlINQ NO.
2OOfI0811i1OO1,'78.
1IR£ REPCRT REfERDICE:
tHIS !Ul1/E'I' WAS aHlUCTED ~ TO 1HE DESCRIP1ION ~ ~
BY FI!ST AWERICAN lITLE R5UR.t.HCE COW'ANY. 00IiUI1WEHT MO. NCS-3II07'IG-WAI,
'MRD REPCRT, Do\lUI [£CEYIER 14, 2OIIIl. 1\0£ EASEWEN1S 5ttO'/ItI 011 HOlED
IERECIN RELAlE 10 THIS COIoII!II~.
NOTE: EASEWEN1lil alEATED OR RESCHJm N'1Ut TIIS DAlE AIlE NOT SHOWN OR "' .........
1I11..E REPCRT satEIIU.£ B EXCU'1KHS:
rTDIS ~ AIlE SHO\IIN a.I W ......
.l. ~T OF ALL EJGSlI'IG AltO fUlURE RIGHTS TIl UGIfT, '«W AtIl ,.., 1OIll:1HEII _ THE ROns or ACCESS TIl AHO fRCIW TItE STAlE _Y
cafSllIIJCTED ON lANDS CI:HoE'IUI BY DOCIJW(HT IN FAIo(JR or TItE STAlE Of
WASIINQTON:
RECORDED: 0C1DIIER IS, 1&51
RECCIIlD'IG MO.: -4178247
@ EASEMENT, 1M~ 1£RWS IHJ PRCMSIOIfS CONTAII£D THER£Jt
flElXIOHG tRRYA_ WNtai 20, 111$3 lNlER REOJIIDINO NO. .!!o!III_
It! FAYlII Dr: PUGET ro.H) POIIIER AND IJQHT CXM>NtY, A
CIlJI'CIUIllCtI, ITS suca:ssoR5 AHIl ASSIGNS
All!: PI:MIDl I..INE
AFFECTSI It£ ~Y PORlICIN OF 1HE PftOPER1'I'
HEREIN ~ 1Il$f£J!LY 0' RAIIJ!Q,O,[)
RKlHT-oF-WAY
@ EASaENT, INCWOINO TERIoIS AHIl 1'RO'omCIN5 CClfTAKD THEII£IH::
IIEOClADING ~AlION: NO'oaft]II 20, II11S4 UNDER RECCR*G ItO. M14.UO
IN fAYOR Ofl WlNCI' ..... 1'I' 0' IIE1JI(P(IJTAN :sv.~ ITS
~ ........
fOR: V1IJ1'I' EASOoIDIT
AffEcts. 1HE NORlHEo\SlDIl T POII1IC1M IF 1HE PRCI'EIt1Y
HEREJN DESCRIBED 'llE5lERlY IJf AHISICIAD
RIGHT-oF-WAT
7. 0D'.9IANTS. 1XNlI11CINS. 1tESlRIClICICS IHJ/OR ~
REC:OImED; .&LY IB, 11175
REOORDI«I; NIl.: 7507IeoMII
@ ~T, tIO.1IE*G 1ERYS IHJ I'ItOWIONS CONTAINED 1HEREIIt
IIECIKIING INFORIiIA1ION: .M.Y 7, lilIO UNDER ~ NO. IiIIOO70704OIiI
IN FAYOR Of: a1'l' Of REMTOH, A IilUHlClPAl COIFORA11CN
FOR: PlDJC UruTIES ~ WATER I«:J SE\EII)
MFECTs. PCflT1CIN a: 11£ ~ _ DESI:RIIEIl
WESlERlY AHIl ADoIo'rCD4T TIl IlMltCIo\.O
AIOIIT-oF-WAY
a. SlJ8.I:CT 10 THE 1tRMS Of THE .uHT \UI'IU'E ~ IIE1'IIEDt PU!ET
1IWfER ~ANl' AltO AlllNO PROPERlO INC., Do\ltD .... I" 111m,
~T It£REIO DAltD SfJ'18IIIlR ,2,. IIl8O, IIOlH N'PEN!INCilINJ(R
IIEIXIIIJDIG NO. 810211OMI, REOlIIDED f'EBAtJARY It, 1m. AOC()IUNO TIl
REaTAL ON ~ UM:£R ItECOIII:*IG NO. 1MI021&0889, RECOIIOEO FOIRIJAR'I'
,,, 1l1li6; ,J.M. IIAlfTER .., 00., ~A I.M1ED PARTNERStF ~ TO
HA'>£ SIJCCEEllO) PUGET l..::R ~, A .£INT '-UI1U1tER ALL MIOIIlIiENTS
TO SAIl JOINT \lfNlUIiE AGREEIoENT YJST 131[ ~ f"IIlCIiI TO a..mING TO
D£1ERIIIoIE THE CI.IIRHT SIONA1tIRIES.
@EASDIEMT. INCI.LIIIIIIG 1tRMS AtIl ~s CClNTMoED 1HEIIOt
A£CORDIN(IINF'ORllA1ION: FUMJARY I" 1511111 UMDER 1tECOftDINO NO. NOZIliOMt
IN FAIOt 0', 8ARIiIEE I&L co., INC., A WASItMCl1IlN 00Rf'0RA'IKtt
/1M) .l.H. BAXTDI: .., co., 01. CAI..I'aIIIIA LAIlEII ,-
FOR: ROJDWAY IoNO UruTIES
AFFE1'S: 1HE EAST 110 FEET AI)"WDIT TIl 'EST _ Of
RAII.ROAD RIQIfT-oF-WAY
11. It£ lUiWS AND ~ CClfTAKD N 1t£ DOCUWDIT EltlinED -.........0
CCIRt«R ~ II£CQRDm WAY 211, lIW1 AS RECORI:ING NO. t7062IOIJI Of """" .. ~
12.~~NO~~3r~~=~~
2OODOZOII1IOODM, RECORDm IN 'IOLLIIiIE 13:1 Of SlJIt\£VS, AT pAGE(s) 1115, IN
I(1tIG C!l.III1'I', WASIIHGTCIN.
AUDITOR OR RECORDER'S C£RTIFiCAlE
F,led for record this day of ,20 at ...
in Book of Sur~ot page---ot the request of
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS. INC, ---
COUNTY AUDITOR OR DIVISION OF RECORDS & ELECTIONS
County Auditor or Superintendent of Records
sw 174 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
@EASEIENT, II+W.IIlHi TERW5 AltO I'ftO'otSIOHS CONTAINED ll£IU't: MIlRESS£So
I!EIXAIlIHG INfCAWATIOH: S£JITEWII(JI 2,. 20DII UNIlOI ~ == PII(FEII(lU INC. AND JJot.
1M FAIlOR Cf':
MO. zooeoeo2OO11711 BAXTER fI: co.
CITY OF RENTON. A YNOPAl CCIIIPa'tATICtI, ITS ATIM: ROBERT (1QNI
St.ICCESSORS AND ASSICICS IlOO S. MIlD SJREET
FOIt SANlTAR'I' SEtIER \I1IJ1IES NIl) V1IJ1'I' I'I'EU£S REHTCH, WA INI057
N'1'ECl5: AS IlESCIIIIIEIl THEREIN
@PllYAlE..a:::£SS TO!I,I,/O PREMISES IS ACROSS A RAILROAD IIIIlIfT-Of-WAY. 1HI5
aa.AHY 1IIJ. IIEtlUIIE THAT THE 'PRiYA1E ROJDWAY /1M) aIOSSItIG
ACAEEWENr, ANI) ",",'I' ASSKMIENTS al 1II(glCA.1DCS 1HEREDI' 'MtaI 'f£RE
I55UED f1'( lHE RAIUIOAD COWPANl', IE !UIIIInm RR ~1'ICIN. THE
~~~~":i~~~ACIBS
PIICMSIONS AS CONT.....m lHEREJN. 11' NO "AGR£DSfI" £lGSlS, 1t£
fOR1lfIXNNG PO.iCI'{IES) 'MLL CONTAIN 1t£ f'OI.J.1IWIG EXCEP1IOIt:
THE LAQ{ Cf' _ a: AIXESS TO »II fRCIW D£ I.AII) ACROSS A IIAI.ROAD
Rt<:tIT-IJf-WAY.
HI. ANY QUESIlCIN t.$ TIl THE 1RUE LDCAlICIN Of 11£ LATERAL BOUNOARES Of THE
SAIl :iN) a.AS5 5MCIItElANDS.
IG. ROIT a: THE STAlE OF ~ II AND TO THAT POA1lON, F ANY. (F Tl£
PIHFER1'I' HER£JN IlESCIIIIEtI -.at LIES IELDIII 1t£ I..NE Of ORDIIARY IIIGH
WA1&I Of lAICE W'-SJIItGlIlN.
17, ROITS (F It£ ~ PI.aJC ro THE UNfIES1lIC1ED lISE OF AU. 11£ WAltRS
0' A MAWIoIaE IIIXIT Of WoI.1£R NOT CN.Y FOR THE PRIWARY PURPOSE OF
NA'IMlA1ICIM" all .....so fOR c:aRa.l..ARY I'lIRI"OSEl!; INlUIDI'«l: (BUT NOT UII1lED
TIl) fISIMQ, BDIInNIl,. BATHIG, S'MIiAIHl. WATER SIQIIO AHIl OlKR RElAltD
REatEATDUoL P\MF'CI5IES, AS THOSE .... lERS WAY NfECT THE 1lIlEL/INOS.
SKlIiEl.N«l5 OR ~ I.A./IIIO$ AND Mt£THER 1HE tnU. OF DE WAlER
HAS ElEEN RAISED NA1UIIAlLT OR MllI'KVU.Y TIl A IlAttTAIIEIl Oft fllICT1lAllNG
I.E'o£L, ALL AS F\.IR'lltER DEFINED BY 1HE DEa5ICINIIL LAW IJf TlI5 STAlE.
(MFECTS ALL 0' It£ PREMI5ES 5I.8.ECT TIl SIJCJt 9JIIWERQEMCE)
18. lERIoIS, CCNPTIOM$, f'RI:MSIoCINS AND SlI'll.Al1OMS OF THE JOINT YENMI£
AClREEWENT 0' Q.UI)AU. ~ A WA5IING1IlN JIINT WHnJ1tE. A OOP'I' (F
THE CURRENT AQREDIEMT NO Nf'( ~ YJST 131[ SUlllTIm ~
CLOSItG. ANY CON'oE'I'JrHCE OR EMI1.NIIIIANCt Of 1t£ JIINT WH1UIi£ PRaii!R'I"I'
iAlSrlliE EXECtJ1ED BY ALL OF 11-£ .DIT \lfNMIO!.
19. 'Il1lE TO ~ IN AN IItC(IIIINJ O'MD WiOSE NoW[ 15 NOT DI5a.DSED. SlIOl MAllIE wtIST lIE RJRNISHED TO us so lWIT A _ SEIIICfI WAY BE IWIE.
zo. THE lDIUS AtIl IWM5IOMS CCNTAINEZl IN 1HE DOC:IAIENT DfTl1I.Bl "0RlIIIIANCE
NO. MB3" REC:CRIEl) AUCIltST 10. ::tOOII AS 2IlOII08100C11i184 Of 0I'FlCIAL ......
ZI, UNREOJfIlED lDSEJ1CUlS, ~ ANY, -.rs 0' 'o9DOR5 ANI) SEClAIITY
AGRIENENT 01 PERSCW.L I'IIOF'EI'm' »II AICIITS 0' TENANlS. ANI SECIJREI)
PARTIES 10 IIEMO',I[ 1IWlE FIXJlIES AT 1HE EXP*I\1ICII 0' 1HE 1ERIol
AREA TA8L[
,ARea AREA
ARE~ Of TOTAL PARCEl. 1,375.155 SQ, FT.
PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR 31.5694 ~C.
LOT 1 50,823 sa. FT.
OR 1.1667 ~C.
LOT 2 75,548 SQ. FT.
OR 1.7343 AC.
LOT 3 aJ,819 so. FT.
OR 1,9242 AC.
LOT 4 146.774 SO. FT.
OR 3.3818 AC,
LOT 5
218.794 SO. FT.
CR 5.0228 AC
LOT 6 109,485 SQ. H.
OR 2.5134 ~C.
LOTT 50.725 SQ. FT.
OR 1.1645 AC.
PRIVATE ST. 0 15,529 so. FT.
OR 0.3442 AC.
PRIVATE ST. E 12.636 SQ. H.
OR 0.2901 AC.
PUBUC S1REETS 161,243 SQ, FT.
A,BANDe OR 3.7016 AC.
PORTION Of TOTAL 4--49,789 SQ. FT.
PARCEL L 'fING WITHIN OR 10.3257 AC,
LAKE WASHINGTON --
NOTES:
-LOTS 1 AND 6 ARE 80UNDED ON THE WEST BY
THE SHORE OF LAKE WASHINGTON, SHOWN I>S
THE 'OHv.t.I" (ORDINARY HIGH WATER ~ARK)
-43.833 so H OF LOT 1 LIES WITHIN THE IDa'
SHOREUNE SETBACK.
-106,703 SO FT OF LOT 6 LIES ..... THIN THE 100'
SHORELINE SElEACK.
~,
~ PACFIC, LP.
Ami: CIIY'Wl.L YATHEWSaI
1201 JRD A'\DOE, 51J11E 11\llD
SEATlLE. WA mOl
""""' ............. IIUSH, ROm AND lImtINO&. INC.
ATlN: 0AdI A. lIEU.
::tOOII ...:II A-.E EAST
SEAT1LE. WA N'lOZ .......
IG'fI' alHSJLlIIIG ENQMEERS
ATlN: ltII .oe
lBOl FI'1If A'oEM£, stilE 1600
SEAT1LE. WA N'l0l
"" """"" 43:10 LAICE WAIHNCmlN BOUILYAIID ... moo, .........
TAlI AIXXlJNT NO.: 28.Z __ IIDOt-<ll
HORIZQtT ..... DA'I1.M
!WI 1U/t1; arr Cf' RENTllN
IIONUWENTS SHO'IIN HEREON WERE
'otSI1ED IN 0C1tI8ER 1M USIIID A -.J)
WlODIlU fl£C11!(NC 1HEOOEIJ1E, SERIAL
IUI1ER J,31111D.
lONt«t NIP SE1BfoCI(5;
lONt«t: COWWERaAlja'FlCE/llET .....
SElIIACKS: D£IEIUNED '!HOI.IQl SI1E
tIE\EI.CAIDIT PlAN R£'IIEW. PER a1'l'
Of ROt1llll ............... IXIlE 4-2-IZQB.
IlFt::I ARA TJa-J."
IOtOW ALL PEOPLE BY lltE5l: PIIOOITS THAT 'lIE. 11£ IHlERSIQMED 0W€JiS 0' 1NlEIIEST M It£
LANO ItER£IN D£SCRIIIEl) MAKE A IIHl1MO SI1E I'I..Nt P\JIISIJIINT TO otAPTER SfL17 R.c.w. AND
DEa..\IIE lHE MUIG SITE PlAN 10 IE A GRAPHIC ItEPRESENTAlICIN (F 1HE SN.IE IHJ lHAT SAIl
e.tDNl: SI1E PlNt IS WADE MTH fR[[ OON5EIIT IHJ IN AIXXIIIlANC;E M1HlEH \lESlIE Of THE
""""'" IN 'MTNESS YttiEREot WE SET HANDS AND SEALS;
CDIlI.ftY PAaflC;, I..P.
~
'''' AppROyA! S;
(lTY or RDHOO ADYINISTRATOR Of PLANNING I BUILDING I PUBUC WORI(S
~ ANlI AI'PIIOIim PER RCW 68.17.'80 (1) 1HIS -----»AY 0' ___ _ ,,-
~ltlR.arrlJfl!EJfltl!'l
KING COUNTY OEPARTUENT OF ASS£SS/oIENTS
~ MIll Af'PRO'oa) 1HIS -DAY 0' 20_
ION(l; ctUm' ASSESSOR: 0EPU1'I' KINO ctUm' ASSESSOR
KING COUNTY FINANce DIVISION CERTIFICATION
I ~ COIJIF'I' THAT ALL f'ROI'R1'I' TAXES ARE PAIl. ltIAT 1HERE ARE NO 0EJ.I0I0JfHT SftIlAL
ASSESSMENTS CERTFED 10 1MS OffICE fat ca.L.ECTION MIll THAT ALL SP£CIAL ~ COIlFIED
TO lIIS fH1CE fOR cru.£CTIOM 01 ANY Of lHE ~ HEl'IEIN Q;lHTAINEII DEDICATED A5 5l1lE£TS,
AL1£'I'S OR NfY 0lHER PUIIUC USE. ARE PAIl IN ftI.L
THS -DAY Cf' ZO_
Clll:EC'riM. ION(l; ctUm' fH1CE Of FINAHCE 0EPU1'I' INRECTtIIl, ICING CWN1'I' fH1CE Cf' ffiAHC(
110m A'II£ $E
~,
WASliINCHlN
~w
'(~~
..........
I. IECCIRIl Of SUII1/E'I' REOCRIIED
UNDER AEC(RDING HIM8DI
z00002OtQODOOS,. RECORDS u: KING
COJN'IT, STA1E u: WASHlNGlOH.
CONTROL DIAGRAM
1"=1000'
(1/4SE:C.28
FD 3/W' BRONZE f'UJG
NO pUNCH II CONC.
POST. ON. a.lf N CASE
AT INT. Cf' SE 1ZNO ST.
.., IIBlH oI.Y£. SE.
SW 1/1, SECTION 29.
T2~,i5E
coVT. LOT 5
NII8'4a'5I5" .. 1{T219!1.~2·
1i11.7i'
NW I/i SEClION :s2.
12iN.45E
001/'T, LOT I
r..~!il
E_'30&t04.3807
SE 1/. SECTION 19.
T2~.i5E
SE CCR. SE:C. 211
~I g •
:~~~bSCt:
POST, OM. I.!i' IN CAS£.'1
AT CClNSlRUC1UI a.. CIP.!!
!,~~J1' " .• ~".'" ~
C.'r~V11
E-1;so&311O.~ I
........... ~88'4706"w 261J.21'
ftl !/8" 8RCHZE PI.IJG. AND I'tINaI 1M CONe. POST.
DN. o.!i' IN CloSE. SE CORNER oov'T. LOT !i
t~144.3ZJII
E_I3037.7.~
SUR'£YOR'S CERTIACATE ~ BINDING SllE PLAN -QUENDALL lERMINALS
1!!5 CENTURY PACIFIC. L.P. This mop correctly represents 0 sur~ey mGde by me or
under my direction in CO/'lformo""e with the requirements
of the Survey Recording Act ot the requea\ of
CENlURY PACIAC. LP. .... 20
Certiflcote No. " ...
... CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
BUSH. Rom & HITCHINGS. INC.
OViL ENGINEERS &: LAND SURVEYORS DRAWN BY LMK/TRS DATE: 01/11/16 JOB 12009050,04
BIT 5
2009 loWIIOI< ~'OfNl.t: EAST
~Tll.E.~lCl<
1III1D2-~U
li~m:~
f""f (201\) J73-113:i CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: NA SHEET 1 OF 5
~
~
r i i
( IIIl'DTj
I iDob _ lOCI n..
sw '/~ S£CTlON 29.
TNN.~5E
t
TMC ACCT. NO.
2V24Ml1OO2Ol
sw 174-SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
---------------------------
GOYT lOT 5
GOYT LOT -4 ----------------------------
~,-
"" ~ ~ "" " "-'-4'-41'04"-, .... ~
U IUI\!I'4&~ ~7.7T " LJ NM'4ne"W ,..,. ~
L-4 NM'~"w ,~'" ~
LS NIIIr~"W ~., " ~ HJ8'D4',o"E IUS " L7 Nlii'GY44"W 31.05' a
U! NIml:I'o7"E ".,. "
~,-
~
~ ...
M.oo'
M.oo'
M.oo'
,.".
~.oo'
~.oo'
~.oo'
~"
2-4~W _',t"
",n,'
2721'28"
ln1'~
84"02'G7"
108'24'4(1'
!i~1'~
~. •. ".
1G.1G'
"'" 214"
.~'
7J.33"
H.t" ,.'
I
I
I
I
@ OjH PO""~UNE E"",,(NT "AlONG
E-'STERLY IojAAQN ()f" PROPERTY",
REC NO 5M;28S6
flO' RO.4[)'I'j.loY.5I; unll'Y l.lo~lNI.
REC. NO. Q502150611!1
/'~.
I ... /'#~ ~ /
l' / ~ v....j / 1/ '/'" /' ~
R 4C !."'I '" I 0/,il ,!,,' /' -
T!t.><I:"~1 ~ /
',e.. ". '" ' / I / " . --.fC"s:.tt: ... ~~:_ujn .. "':"~ {",. ~''I; '§f--( _,,v' 'I / NOTE =~~~i°;'~~'gN~~~I"G
TAlI ~CCT. NO. -' 1 _ lW ....... ~ '; ~ PRIVAT£DRlvt~·~·CS' ~ !'O<,>...... ( L-__ ~~~ lilli§
li
l
l
!i1 I:i: l:t 10 0'" .~~56'" 101$.38' -----,...-~ .. n~l-.. _._-E... .... __ , ...... ("s~ 'i .... ) , (SE 80Tli ST) r _;~-T1~ :~ : :§ iil~1811:~:;~:!~i~~i~~:~~:.1W~:r'~~I'g 1."1, I. "g' ,j / ":;,,,;~, -.*. u ------~t.Cl7~~~~7
t '" ""' . ..0:--1 1~.I~II!.,~II<i ::~ :,~ :,~ I.~I"~I,~ I ~"~~' g~I"~: 88ig§ i8!IC~I;:i,"~ I {tfl I ,,, . ., . .,." I ~,""1:":l"''' ~,,-,.--------L. --~~_J It!J..>'.!l"-'J#.!!ffil'-'-""~li~liL1':'Hj~.:,[i'."~I'!I:~I:~d:'~:<*:'~:"'1/ "" I ""., , ___ 2:: !:.~!::~!::.<u~JgJ?!~.1~.JJl~2Ig2i// ( j
N. 42ND PLACE BOUNDARY INFORMATION
C.O.R ,,843
-¥
NOlI 1(4 SEcnOtl 32.
T24N,-45E:
GOV'T LOT 1 PlAT Ill-8ARBt.£ 1ooII11.
YIlL 241!, PG5. 25-39,
R£C. NO.
200S021l8OOO'82 ~ BINDING SITE PLAN -QUENDALL TERMINALS
CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P.
... CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE Of WASHINGTON
BUSH. ROED &: HITCHINGS. INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS &: lAND SURVEYORS
2009 w'NOR ",>,£wU£ EAST
S£A TTU". WASHNG1(.fl
8810:1-.)1>13
1:20S) 32:1--41+4
l-1l<lO-9l5-0506
F~" (:lQO!) J1~-71::1:1
DRAWN BY LMK/lRS DATe: 01/11/16 JOB # 20090:]0.04
CHECKeD BY DAB SCAlf:l" 100'lsHEET 2 or 5
. "~--\-
,,, 111
-v.,?li\
SW 174 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
LEGEt:lQ ~ n.EC'IIIICAl. VALLT " " """"""-.......... OJ\l Elf -""" "" ~ ~~ Jf
atIIfIIDf'FYALIJE ~ flU«) IROII ft(O .UCI CJP ---.0
"N
_ ........ ~ """ ...
¢ "'" "" ""-~
G./oSVN..VE. ~ 1E11DI (1f atAHHEL -~
, ,~ ""
W ""'~ [JJ -~ .... ru, .....
m ~~ • .. ..un fiLV"lIIIN
" <i= f!~~\. \"'&. -~*--.-:;;.-:1.../ " II ~i%'b
, ~! .{\, _,,1L \Wi--1 ! <icc
~)
~)
"'" " .... ® ..
.... @
~~
-~-"'"' "" PO'IIER POl£ W! UGHT
PAIIlED U11UTY 1..DCA1IQN
Nf('.(WIDLI1I.JlYl..DCAlIIIN
SAIflNrf SEWER CLEANOOT
SANITARY ~
SANITARY !£VIER KNflOlE , ... -
--~
~ m -~ • In.EPHOIE SENtRy _
N 'IEUPHONE VNoLl -""'""" ......... " Ttf' El£VIollOM
~ .""'~ WAltIIlIAIIHCl.E
• .m ""
w WAlER VAULT SHEET' SHEET • OHms
WAlER V ..... VE.
DAlE ~ Tt»'OGIIAPtIC IIW'PMG
FBmIIOAK: ..lJHE, 200I;I SH"
'1'~"')
~~ .. ,< ,!~ .. ~
1!1 ' , T INLET
T£~25.81a
t" ~ _ < < rf<~' ".",.) r-;:",'f} <~ ~---)« .,,,<,,, -
J _ _ _ _ __, < < .<'b
1. \ I 12" OJ' w(P} I~r -~~ ~ ~ 1--~--- -~ "q,!~ \: " • :" ,~ if, : :.,'~ ,,' '
", '!t~'tJ. r;:,~ ",.f} ''t>
1.1> ... <\ -" ,
r-i;.. " <~ ~ --.c < , .,
",' ,'" ". ,.,"
." I ,,," " ~] i\~~
f"''G-e, __ ~~"t A 12"SS{R)
I \
~
£
...
-1 , , ,
---I ,
,
\ iL ' \ ~ I
\ I~ <,: \\ I
: \\ I , , , , ,
I
&
INIt RIGHT IF WAY
,,~~)
<t\ ,~
\ ' ~~\---~ ~~~~T~'-~~· <'<~~"",,, - - -__ - -__ - -___ 1 __ _ ~--~ . ---,".--< --M"MElRO
S£~R)
,«« , <-~'~<"" to"~ • O/lf T
·o/t.J"/:,tT j~"W "" "CiP""\ii:,ti) _< < __ _
~L,.".,_,,_,._ _ _~ .. _ .~a.w. '" --;~fH (iT _< _ _ LNCE WIS
\" ,
\
~---;-<-X\\-\\. ~-Ii ."_'~_~ __
~~l
"
Ofll~T
---~ -i"!"-----_ ___ ~ \'
~ ""'< ------"~, ""', -'----~\. ',.,,,, \~ ~ ..... 1;. 'n;:.21l.79 'f6..'-t-;,'"
~
\~-.
• ~ ID. CI •
.. _ .. I I I I
(III na)
1 ..... _ III! It. /
--
&l
BUSH'-, 'R"'O"'EnD"CI!c;;-iH"IT"C'i:H"'IN"C"'S"', 'IN=C.
CIVIL ENGINEERS ok LAND SURVEYORS
200'1 "IHOR A..e.U£ EAST su.TlLE.. ..... so--tCION
DB1D2-~U
(:IOIt) J:l3-~t ....
1~1IOO'-93!>-0008
H.le, (2<l6) J23-713:i
\ -"
¢ "G(P) •
EXISTING UTILITIES
BINDING SlIT PLAN -QUENDAll TERMINALS
CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P.
CITY Of RENTON. KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
DRAWN BY LWK/lRsl DATE: 01/11/16 I JOB 12009050.04
CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" 20' I SHEET .3 OF 5
~
!!!
6
'"
SW 174 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
___ ----,L-I) l--,-------I ___ _
T , -"
>
£
0," ,
m(?)
INlET
1£-26.61.1:1
• ~ ~%\}.~ \..<:~";o.'&
"t~,>.
~~
~1'!1
ElECTRIC
P~NfL
"'"
W~T<R
SPI(:()T
12"SS(R)
" "
&
BIftiC RtGHT rE WAY
m{"
tZ'S$(R)
"
ro
'" l\J(P}
$
,
~
!!!
6
'"
-- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ------,.-.. -.. -.-, ,..,.." .. :-
, ___ L __ . _____ _
,
, .t" .. Pi1'l1 O,lIp 'II; (l(P) 0," \ ,
"'\ § 6" OtP v(R) ~
O,'H £.I:i INLET ]'[~R26 LNCE WAStINOTON a.\O. ~.
_ ___ _ _ ___ _ ___ (FULL Of" OIIH) --.. ---------------- ----------------------------
->
G(P)
1:1 illt..!:r Jr: (IQ·~i'J;12.~
k OJ
• ""
INLET ]'[-39.,13
(IO"VERTICAJ. IP) 1:1
/
~·~ii i r -
(DfJlZl'J
ltaah_ZO ft.
0/ll [o!:~
"" "" ,
SHEEll SHEET" SHEET 5
SHEET LAYOUT
EXISTING UnLiTlES .c:a: BINDING SITE PLAN -QUENDALL TERMINALS
E: CENTURY PACIFIC, L.P.
... CIT'( OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS DRAWN BY Lf.lK/TRS OATE: 01/11/16 JOB fI 2009050,0-1
zOO5l .....oR A_lIE: EASI
SE~ rTI.!. WASHNCION
1I8102-.JI>lJ
1~~m:~
fAX, (ZOtI) J2J-7)J:j CHECKED BY DAB SCALE: 1" 20' I SHEET 4 OF ::.
~
~
~
•
I
~
SNIt RIGHT OF WAY
rIO wo\RKD'I'V'
"""
sw 1/4-S-ECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.
ii
Ii
''"' '!'~ w(P)_
~'" ;:; <'ii..i.o~\;
Q,~¥~ ;,
jJ'S> L
~"~'
1< ,oJ!
"' ., 00\0 0
~~ DO 01
""EEl, SHEET 4 SHEET 5
SHEET LAYOUT
lZ·SS(R)
'il F;o WARI(.ER ",0[.\ ~ r;"i •. ~'t. \. \'. .., 84 .... ET1W Q, ~ 't. ----1ii i1 S(lI(R(R) -------. ----~-··---·~-f~'o--·~:-·· -:-;.._-~'--"L-~~----__ ... ---
o ___ , • @iPl.. aD -~ ~T' 0/11 T ~ _ .'JIJ_ _ _ "''' ..~" '''' ' . . ~ ... . ,!ii""
... .-_ .. >IL ~ • ~" ~~. ____ ..:'!_. _______ ~ ___________ • ___________ _
-----------.--------------
~"
0/11 E<leT
E-\""",,;.L
/
• D.o... .. .. ____ 1 ~ I J
(IJI" par)
llaab_lOft.
,?lH"f~!.
-''-.
-{
I 1-
~
,'" ,
EXISTlNG unLiTlES
~ BINDING SITE PLAN -QUENDALL TERMINALS
II!!::ii CENTURY PACIFIC. L.P.
..... CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
BUSH, ROm & HITCHINGS, INC.
CML ENGINEERS 41: LAND SURVEYORS DRAWN BY LMK/TRS DATE: 01/11/16 JOB I 2009050.04
1!g>-m:-~
F/OJ/.I (XIII) l2J-11:J.5
200SI _011: AYDfUE EAST
~Jr!.2~NGTIIN SCALE: 1" 20' I SHEET 5 OF 5 CHECKED BY DAB
HILLIS CLARK MARTfN & PETERSD'" P.S.
1221 Second A venue. Suite 500
Seattle. W A 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623-7789
Attorneys ti,r Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
In re:
QUENDALL TER..1I.1INALS FEIS AND
MITlGA TION DOCUMENT. SEPA APPEAL
Project No. LUA09-151
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
I. STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto that the above-
entitled cause. having been fully settled and compromised, may be dismissed with prejudice
through entry of the subjoined Order of Dismissal. with each party to bear its own costs.
DATED this .J.S'!d'a y of February, 2016.
HILLIS C ARK MARTIN & p,ETERSON P.S.
By t -rtf., L-
Ami! D. Ranade, WS #34878
Ann M. Gygi, WSBA # 19912
Attorneys tor Applicant
Century Pacific, L.L.L.P.
~OU~ DGIVESBACK
y~.-..="'~
tSPrcsr~
n. ORDER OF mSMISSAL
THIS MATTER came before the Renton Hearing Examiner on the toregoing
Stipulation of the parties. Based on the foregoing Stipulation, the Renton Hearing Examiner
JOINT STIPULATION .4ND PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING
APPEAL WITH PR£JUDICE - /
HILUS CURl( MARTIN & PHERSON P.S.
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle. WA 98101·2925
Telephone. (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623·7789
EXHIBIT 6
hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGc;:" and DECREES that the appeal ofQuenuali Terminals Project
LUA09-151 and all claims alleged by the parties are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, and each party Iwill bear its own costs.
DATED this )2~~ of 7~,
Presented by:
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
By /ht'h fl{ . ~ '.
Amit D. Ranade, WSA#34878
Ann M. Gygi, WSBA #19912
Attorneys for Applicant
CenturY Pacific, L.L.L.P.
SOUTH END GIVES BACK
~
~
ND: 1995&.0034&53·2560'7726,,1
JOINTS11PUlATlON AND PROPOSED ORDER DlSMfSSlNG
APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE -:;
,2016.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & i'ETERSO:,> P.S.
1221 Second Allen"e. Suite 500
SoatIIe. WA 98101-2925
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Fax: (206) 623·7789
Vanessa Dolbee
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Staff,
Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Monday, February 22, 20169:59 PM
brad nicholson
ann.gygi@hcmp.com; cmathewson@centurypadficlp.com; Jason Seth; Vanessa Dolbee;
Cynthia Moya; larry Warren
Re: Renton -Quendall Homes (lUA-09-1S1)
Follow up
Flagged
This will be the last addition to the email string regarding the FEIS appeal. As requested before, please have
five copies ready for the hearing should anyone need to see these emails when I disclose these ex parte contacts
with Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. Nicholson,
I would normally not further complicate the record of this case by further communications with you, but it
appears that there is some major misunderstanding or miscommunication going on and I want to take one last
attempt at rectifying it. I wish I could just talk to you about this. but as the decision maker my ability to
communicate with you is very limited due to the reasons identified in my first email to you. Ultimately,
however, this will have to be our last communication regarding your appeal unless you plan on making some
motion that you entered into the stipulated dismissal order due to some form of fraud or misrepresentation. Any
other further inf(mnation you w<mt me to consider should be sent exclusively to the planning staff as comment
on the application.
As I identified in my tirst email to you, I don't become involved in an appeal until it's time to consider whether a
prehearing conference or email exchange is in order. This usually occurs four to six weeks prior to the
scheduled appeal date. In this case you would likely have received an email from me to all appeal parties
inquiring whether the parties wanted to resolve some prehearing procedural issues or otherwise desired a
prehearing order outlining hearing procedures. A request for such a prehearing order is usually initiated by one
of the appeal parties, but 1 will often initiate that inquiry on my own if no one beats me to it.
I will also address any proposed orders or prehearing motions when they come in. Beyond this, planning and
city clerk staff are responsible for processing un appeal. The role of City staff and myself does not change
because you've persuaded staff to send me your notice of appeal earlier than the completion of the staff
report. I'm not sure what type of response you were looking for from your appeal statement. If you just wanted
an acknowledgement that your appeal had been filed, then staff would be responsible for that. If they don't
issue some sort of acknowledgment as a matter of course. I'm sure they would provide you with something upon
request. If you had any questions about how the appeal would be processed or scheduled, all you had to do was
ask staff. If you disagreed with how staff was handling some prehenring procedural issue regarding your
appeal, you were free to either file a motion with myself ahead of time or to raise the issue at the hearing. If you
had made a legally compelling argument that consolidation should not have occured during your appeal hearing,
I would not have had any problem segregating out your appeallalthough for future reference, the SEPA rules
requiring consolidation are fairly clear and I've yet to come across any argument to the contrary).
If you are upset because I didn't read your appeal months prior to the appeal hearing, there is no reason to
be. There's nothing I could have done with any knowledge I would have gained from reading your appeal
months in advance. Reading appeal statements too far in advance (especially those exceeding the more typical
10 pages and under) can be a tremendous waste of time since the appeal can easily be narrowed or even
withdrawn over time and also because I will have to re-read everything once the hearing date is
close. Excluding any prehearing motions or orders that may be presented to me, I only need to know about the
details of your appeal in time for the hearing on your appeal. For the stipulated motion to dismiss, I just needed
documentation establishing what hearing parties should be included in the order, and I got that information
when you pointed out that your notice of appeal had bcen em ailed to me months earlier. If you had not agreed
to have your appeal dismissed, I would have read your entire notice of appeal prior to the hearing and 1 would
have gone through it with a fine toothed comb after the hearing as I prepared my decision. It's entirely possible
that you would not have liked the result of my decision on your appeal, but I can assure you that you would not
have been able to sincerely assert that your issues had not been thoroughly reviewed and addressed.
Once the hearing on Quendall is over and the appeal period has expired I will be happy to discuss this with you
further (assuming the discussion doesn't relate to some other pending appeal or application). Also, if it wasn't
clear to staff before, it is appropriate for staff to recommcnd to the parties of an appeal that they request some
sort of prehearing conference or email exchange from me if the appeal parties have procedural questions about
the conduct of a hearing. For appeal parties represented by attorneys (which has usually been the case), there
isn't much confusion about how to participate. For unrepresented citizens, however, I'm sure there's room for
improvement as to how to make hearing participants comfortable with the process. Land use appeals in Renton
are rare, especially when they involve unrepresented parties.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at I :48 PM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com> wrote:
your Honor,
Well I want to apologize but well it took 5 months to get a response? the appeal notice i.e "The facts are
dispositive" while it took 24 hours to respond to the PRP's
I am just wondering do you need to have the EPA sign off on the case too? It could be Cami Grandinetti.
Respectfull y
Brad Nicholson
From: LWarren@Rentonwa.gov
To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com; brad827@hotmail.com; CMoya@Rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov;
JSeth@Rcntonwa.gov; cmathcwson@centurypacific.lp.com; ann. gygi@hcn:lQ,,<;om
Subject: RE: Renton -Quendail Homes (LUA-09-151)
Date: Moo, 22 Feb 2016 16: 38:55 +O()OO
Mr. Olbrechts, the city has no objection to the stipulated order. If you have any questions, please let me know.
From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw(fugmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:44 AM
To: brad nicholson; Cynthia Moya; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren; Jason Seth; cmathewson(dicenturypacificlo.com;
2
ann.gygi(Qihcmp.com
Subject: Re: Renton· Quendall Homes (LUA-09-151)
All Appellants,
The proposed stipulated order is missing one of the parties to the appeal. As outlined in RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(7),
the City is a party to the appeal. I will sign the stipulated order if I get email confirmation from the City that it
has no objection to the stipulated order.
Please note Mr. Nicholson has sent me another email, included in this email string, that was not cc'd to the other
parties to the appeal. As before, I request that staff include this updated email string as one of their hearing
exhibits. They should also have five copies of this email string available at the hearing so that I can disclose the
ex parte communications with Mr. Nicholson and give the opportunity for the public to review and respond to
those communications. In response to Mr. Nicholson's second email. as noted in my last email to him. I
received a copy of his notice of appeal (all 200+ pages) as an email attachment from the City Clerk's Office last
September. Other than a response from slaff as to whether they have an objection to the stipulated order, I ask
that I receive no further communications from the parties on the appeal regarding the appeal. For the reasons
outlined in my last email toMr. Nichols, it is important that pre-hearing ex parte communications be limited as
much as possible.
On SUll, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 PM, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com>wrote:
Your Honor.
I can recall with crystal clarity. 5 weeks after filing the appeal, I called the City Clerk and requested information
about why I received no acknowledgemcnt of its receipt or corrcspondence whatsoever. It would appear that I
have heen involved in as many appeals in Renton as YOll have and in the past. the normal process has been to
give a ShOll explanation of what is going on. At first the Clerk told me that he had posted it 011 the web and that
[would need to talk to Staff about iL I had complained to him that I had spent considerable lime and had
addressed the appeal to you and not to staff. "'1y comment lceter was addressed to staff hut my appeal notice
along with $2S0.00 was addressed to you according to staff instructions. The Clerk then assured me in no
uncertain terms that the appeal document went directly [0 you and that you had a copy of it in your possession. I
complained to him that I paid the fee for the appeal to go to you and not to staff. Thus I am surprised lhat you
would indicate that you have no documents. I am also surprised that you did not get it and it was never in your
possession. I umjust saying that I had also been quite disturbed that staff had been the ones to decide on the
appeal consolidation even though I think you are correct in presuming that it may have been generally known to
be the case. But I had not understood that they had jurisdiction to decide issues of Law in a pending appeal.
Respectfully
3
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 06:07 :51 -0800
Subject: Re: Renton -Quendal1 Homes (LUA-09-151)
From: olbrechtslaw@gmuil.com
To: brad827@hotmail.com; CMoya@rentonwa.gov; VDolbee@rentonwa.gov; LWarren@rentonwa.gov;
JSeth@rentonwa.gov; cmathewson@centurvpacificlp.com; ann. gygi@hcmp.com
Staff,
Please include this email string in the exhibits to the staff report on the Quendall Homes application.
Mr. Nicholson,
Thank you for the clarification of Quendall Homes. I willlikeJy send out a signed order tomorrow once I've
had an opportunity to review the filed notice of appeal.
From your assertions that I may have "forgotten" information that you apparently believe I at one point knew or
should have known about your project, it appears you might have some misunderstanding about my level of
involvement in yuur case prior to hearing. By a combination of law and necessity, I'm essentially required to
know as little about your project as possihle until staff has completed its staff report and list of proposed hearing
exhibits. By state statute and numerous court opinions I am not allowed to engage in conversations with staff,
the applicant or any hearing party about the substantive merits of your casc outside the hearing
process. Because of these legal requirements, you can be assured that all of my knowledge about your case is
strictly I imited to the testimony presented during the project hearing and the exhibits admitted into
evidence. This puts you on equal footing with all other hearing participants and ensures that you have the
opportunity to address any evidence presented to me that you may believe to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Up until today my knowledge of your case had been limited [0 knowing it's big, controversial and involves a
superfund site. The only reason I knew this much is because every few weeks I ask the planning manager if
anything big is coming up, so that I may plan my schedule and workload in advance. Land use appeals (as
opposed to applications) sometimes involve a little more advance information due to the necessity to sometimes
hold prehearing conferences. Prehearing conferences arc prchcaring meetings or email exchanges with appeal
hearing participants designed to address procedural issues in advance in order to provide for a more efficient
appeal hearing. Issues usually held at prehearing conferences typically include setting limits on the time for
testimony, requiring the parties to identify witnesses and exhibits, and setting deadlines for prebearing motions
and briefing. If no party has specifically requested a prehcaring conference, I will typically ask for a copy of
4
the notice of appeal fOUf to six weeks in advance of a scheduied o.ppeal hearing to determine whether a
prehearing conference would be useful.
As best as I can recall, Renton has only had a couple land use appeal hearings in the last tive years that I've
worked with the city. Renton is unique amongst my thirteen hearing examiner clients in that it apparently
regularly sends me a copy of the appeal statement before I ask for it and before the staff report is
complete. There's nothing wrong with that practice, since it's fairly clear that the appeal statement will be
included in the staffs exhibit list once the staff report is completed. However, it's not going to attract my notice
until I get close to the appeal hearing and start considering the merits of a pre hearing conference. From your
email response yesterday I was able to find an email from the City Clerk's office from last September that
contained an attachment of your appeal statement. That should give me the information I need to ensure that
the stipulated order includes all necessary parties.
Your email also asserts thatI've forgotten about a consolidation order. It's fairly undisputed that state law
requires an appeal of PElS adequu<:y to be consolidated with the hearing on its underlying permit application. I
would be surprised if staff found it necessary to ask me about consolidation. Also, as previollsly discussed, the
circumstances under which staff can talk to me about a case are very limited outside the hearing process. I don't
recall making any comments to staff regarding consolidation but if I did you are correct that I have forgotten
about it.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:30 AL'v1, brad nicholson <brad827@hotmail.com>wrote:
Your Honor,
You may be looking for "Quendall Homes" according the previous email. The documents concern "Quendall
Terminals" EIS decision which you decided to consolidmc with the Master plan hearing around 5 months ago.
Vanessa Dolbec informed me that is was because of "State Law" You may have forgotten about it hut the
appeal documents were sent directly to you from the clerk Jason Seth. You may have also forgotten it was an
appeal that was 288 pages against the adequacy of review where you be approving the Master Plan for around
700 houses next to the Seahawks training facility on the superfund site that will undergo cleanup after you take
your actions'?
Respectfully,
Brad Nicholson
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:32:57 -0800
Subject: Rc: Renton -Quendall Homes (LUA-09-lSI )
From: olbrechtslaw@gmail.cOIll
5
To: CMova@rentol1wa,goY
CC: VDolhec@rentonwa,gov; LWarrcn@rcntol1wa,gov; JSelh@rcntonwa.gov;
cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com; hrad827@hotmaiLcom; ann,£!vgi@hemp.com
Please confirm that all parties to the SEPA appeal have signed the stipulated order to dismiss, I have no
documentation on the appeal, so 1 have no knowledge of what parties are involved.
On Thu, Feb 18,2016 at 4:34 PM, Cynthia Moya <CMoya@rentonwagov> wrote:
Mr. Olbrechts,
We have just received a Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal in the Qnendall Terminals FEIS
& Mitigation Document, SEP A Appeal (File #LU A·09·1SI). The parties have asked that you sign the attached
document as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Vanessa at 425·430·7314.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records ylanagcmcnt Speciali,!
City of Renton· AdministrJtive Services/City Clerk Divisioll
cII1oya@rentonw".gov
425-430-6513
~ .
.-.<"1} •.• ,.'" '" -------. .~ :'_ '_~.!l :ul.,i. .
6
~
I
d
"-;':
'M·
//////'
APPlIOXIIMTELY 1.&.o.cIIE OF INOOOIIIL'IDjOR
OUTDOOR IoAEA fOR 4Cnn RECllEATION SHo\LJ.
BE D .... ElOP£OtJII THE ~I.Al.OIP"lJO 00::115
DUR~G FINAL DESIGN DEVELDPMENT
//////
/////'
/ ...
(9~
~(>
.~
SIT. P10 '0< OPEN su.··.OI: e'Rl<"C
5W LIIWEA PARKlNG l£VEl._ U6,1800/
'<W LOllln PARMI~G uva. -~t,aoo.r
5E I.OW£A PAIIKlNG L£YEl. _ iiA.17QoI
~E LOWER P.4RIII~& LEIIEL _ 75.41K1a1
._._. _¥ ...... AA~INIl. ,Ml AA£A$MaS1._
TOTAl. ENCLOSED A.REA -1.123,365s1
8THUCfIjllAJ. RtliiDElln .... COORn'''RDS ~ 117._
SlRUCTURlil OPEN PARKING OECIIS ~ IIoI.DOOot
TOTAL AREA -1,324,9656f
LAND AREAS
O~SlTEAREII_II2fi,371101
NATURIILPlBLJC OP"E~ Sl'M;I3,
MTUIIAJ. "HEllS folONIl. SHOIIEU~E TH"" _140.33801'
SHORWNE FIRE WE/PEDESTRIAN TRAil 19,91001
sua TOTAl. _1IIG.3OIIoI
DTHEHMEIIS
SlREET LEVEl • 1.22.7720/ (EltCWIlES SlD£WA,KS" LANDSCAPE]
1.AN00000ED COURTYARDS _ll7.r.oo./
... ~L • ~ OJ.,
"" ". '" ~ ~
l.4KEWA-
-..JN1NG'rOJ\f
"l Jy
",,1I.~NO'CIlt/
10 fl.EL
9s,
\.
'?: )
!
:e ~XI5n'
'0 ~ '?t!. ~ '0
"(. ~ ~.~ ?:. 9,~~~ ~~
I , ' I ' I, i ! ,
-i'l I."",
~ ~ '?o-
) 0 /
rl,
I 5~
~ ..
;-'''!~
ii
, ,
5IDS~~~IN~UDUCR.O.W.~JO!._ E",sr'NG_~ .·"'~EL.AI<£ ~ \.
SIOEWI\I.K5>WTINfUBU~H.O.W."24.OOOIT I ...-NEW S' "'DEWAu( ~ ~
PAV£DPMI(JNG.MEAS: I...Akt"' ~-
DECl( PARMI~G MEII_IIoI.DOOoI (I~UDES SIDEWIILIIS '" LANDSCAPE) C. W...,
~~~
~~~~<
POST DEVELOPMENT ACREAGES
BUILT AREA (IMPERVIOUS AREA)
BU(LD(NG AREAS -
BUtLDIf'lG AREAS -187,35/lQ
PARKING DECK AREAS -58,00051
PARKING DECK LANDSCAPE AREAS -25,000sf
COURTYARD PlAZAS -117.60(bf
COURTVARD MISC. DECKS -4,02651
TOTAL BUILDING AREAS -392,97661
PAYED AREAS (R.O.W .• ROADS, PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATHS)-
SfflEET'A', '8' 41 'C' AREAS ~ 99,26051
STREETS '0'" 'E' AREAS -23,!>22sf
SIDEWALK AREA -60,800s1
TOTAL PAVED AREAS -183,57251
SURFACE PARKING AREAS -8.9,000sf
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS -66S,S4&f
PERVIOUS AREA
DES(GNATED NA1\JRAl./OPEN SPACE AREA -:140,33&1
UNPAVED FIRE: LAN~PED£STRIAN TRA(L -19,970sf
SlREET LEVEL LANDSCAPED AREAS -1S.<l00sf
OTlIER lANDSCAPED AREAS -l<I,495s1
LOT 7 SATELLITE PROPERlY -50,725:01
TOTAL PERVIOUS AREAS -259,828sf
UNIT SUMMARY
SW RESlDENTlAL TOTAl UNm> -2ti7
NW RESlDENTlAL TOTAL Ul'IITS -127
SE RE5(DENTlAL TOTAL UNITS-154
HE RESIDENTIAl. TOTAL UNITS -1.64
TOTAl. UNrTS" 692
~ DUMPSTER I RECYCLE BIN
~ unUTY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
~ EXfTSfAJR
~ LOBBY A.REA.
,"",~~'AA~·".~ LEGEND ~SL'" C ., .. ,,~." '/ (
1.AN=7!=·DECKS-4,D21101 111/vG IO 'j" 00' T
STAE[Tl£'IElWDSeIJIf-1UOOoI OHWM N E3L \1.0 SG'l.£,'· -SO" 01l1l:HlAIIDSCA,PE~AEIIS-33.49501 I5O'wntANOSUBACil _/~--.... .....
I.lITT!l.\"£lUT£PROPem-5(l7~J;ot ~.... \'C' ?:.
SUB TOTAL AREA -7380265' 100' OHWN SUBACM -............... (9
BUILDING GROUND COy'ER -187 3505f WE"T1..ANDEDGE ~
--~-~"'~---
r~()p[nv
TOTAL AREA -S25,376sf '?o-
/
QUENDALL TERMINALS -PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
EXHIBIT?
Ul
-.l
<{
Z
~ z, LO ~ r ~ G::: 0 _
zu w= C
!--:Q ¥
"'~ -.l -r
--.J 6 ~ <t f-f'-Z Z o ~ t3
Z
W
=:l a
po.o
LEGEND
OHWM " "-"
50' WETLAND SETOACK
100' OHWN SETBACK
WETLAND EDGE
"''''<tv. ~Sh'fNG'iO'"
:'. . -':'.. •• , ~' .. '....J "3 ' . ..: ....... ' .... '00.::...\".."". ,._.'1"f' ." ~.",,~.,.il .. ~ '7 ~. "'~ , III .... ""
-c=0 ."":!t-*. ~.---
;:,
1j
~y
'::
-----~--..
UNIT SUMMARY
SW RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS -257
NW RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 1Ji'jlfS -127
Sf j;!ESIDtNTIAl TOTAL UNITS ~ 154
NE RESIDENTIAL TOTAL UNITS ~ 154
TOTAlUNITl)w 692
DECK PARKING:
Sf QUADRANT ~ 130 DECK PARKING STALLS
NE QUADRANT w 39 DEt>I PARKING STALLS
TOTAL DECK PARI\ING ~ 169 STALLS
LEGEND
DUMPSTER / RECYCLE BIN
~ UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
1>"1 EXIT STAIR
~ lOaaVAREA
f'"
"
,. ".'--~" -'-,~'-'
~ " '\ . '
QUENDALL TERMINALS PREFERRED'AL TERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
~ « z
:2: c:: w
I-
...J
...J «
C z w
:::>
0'
<
:1:
(l-;
~ ~
i'c po.c
,,';
LEGEND
OHWM
50' WE-rLANO SETBACK
100' OHWN SHUACK
WETLAND EDGE
i. ~
'0-
?
i. 'L ~
'" '" ?<
91%
..
.'
'",
"-%
,
..
c,
,
:
'-1K,f tv4S11
I'J1;GrO,v
';'Y'''''' ,:
~ \
.t:. tt
.~. _ ... t .. ..
9: \
-
",
..
o
.:~. / ..
'-'-
. "-.
('
"?oS:> ~ ~.
;~
..,,, ..,<;:,
<;il~.0""
0..,.1'4:. ~
:
~ <;ill-\">l~ ~\">l ~ '6
,
,.
;'
/ , ,
i. ~ .~
0-
/
PARKING SUMM.~A=R~Y __
P.1 COVERED GARAGE PARKING;
SW QUADRANT ~ 347 PARKING STALL'>
NW QUADRANT ~ 95 PARKING STALLS
5E QUADRANT. 318 PARKING STALLS
IIIE QUADRAf\jT ~ 206 PARt(ING STALLS
TOTAL P-i PARKING ~ 966 STALLS
SURFACE PARKING'
SW QUADRANT· 151 SURFACE PARKIi'iG STALLS
SE QUADRANT m 42 SURFIlCE PARKING STALLS
NW QUADRANT m 38 SURFACE PARKING STALLS
TQT,\l SURFACE PARKI'IIG ~ 231 STALLS
if)
-.l
0<1'.
/""
[j:-
U.J
DECK s':~~~I~~~~~~J~ ~~C~Hp~ERTI\;NOGO~rllll" ; I «
NE QUA.I)RANl ~ 39 (l[CK PARKING SfAlLS
toTAL DlCK PARKING -169 STALLS
RESTAURAf\jT ,9,000 sf, REQUIRED PARKI~G c 36
flETAllI20,225 ~II REQUIRED PARKING ~ 81
692 R(SIO(NTlA~ I"N115 R[QlIIR[D PARfllNG ~ 1,211
TOTAL PMKING RfQUlflfD ~ 1.328 STALLS
TOTAL PARKING SHOWN ~ 1,366 STALLS
LEGEND
DUMPSTER:' RECYCLE BIN
UTILITY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
EXIT STAIR
LOBBY AREA
(~-=-1
~
Ll -,
C)
; ~
'. '
'0 "
QUENDALL TERMINALS-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP EXHIBIT 8 P1.0
LEGEND
OHWM
5O'WETLAIllDSETBACK ~-~ ~
100'OHWNSETSACK -~-~
WETLANO EDGE
t t ~ "A ~?: .~
C; ?"
<4K£I«
"lrh'II\IGrOI\l
;"''' \~
~ '~. '\ I Y
E"ST.
9s,
\
'3 "9'",-~_ .~ ~
"" ~o ~~.~ ~ ~c9~ ~r'!
(\) o;;'IL ~ ~ ~ "0-J " /
'i: ) --
8'., LANE
roR>.I'H'"St:/oU
60' ? i~'
~~ ,'_6Q' /
.,;"
120'
,
I
PARKING SUMMARY
P-i COVERED GARAGE PARKING:
SW QUADRANT _ 347 PARKING STALLS
NW QUADRANT" 95 PARKING STAllS
S[ QUADRANT .. 318 PARKING STAllS
NE QUADRANT .. 206 PARKING STALLS
TOTAL P-:!. PARMING" 966STAllS
SURFACE PARKING:
SW QI.IAllftANT .. 15:1 SURFACE PARKING STALLS
SE QUADRANT-42 SURFACE PARKING STALLS
NW QUADRANT-385URFACE PARKING STALLS
TOTAL SURFACE PARKINC" 2U STALLS
DECK PARKING SHOWN ON SHEET PO.O:
SE QUADRANJ" 130 DECK PARKING STALLS
NE QUADRANT" 39 DECK PARKING STALLS
TOTAL IlECII PARKING" 169 STALLS
I!E$TAURANT{9,OOO sf) REQUIRED PARKING" 36
RETAIL (20,22650 R£QUIRED PARKING .. 81
692 RESlDENTlAl UNITS REQUIRED PARKING -1,.:I1i
TOTAL PARKING REQlmED -1.328 STALLS
TOTAL PARKING SH()'W1Ij -1,366 STAllS
LEGEND
lEi DUMPSTER I RECYCLE BIN
(ii1] unLnY AND ELECTRICAL SPACE
rn,n EXJTSTAlR
l§I LOBSY AREA
~~-, ~-,,~~
~-
QUENDALL TERMINALS -PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP
(f)
--.J
<C
Z -~ 2 Z ~ o ~
~ ~ 0:: 0 _
WZ<;'
I ~ f-----if) u '" " "'a.
--.J z r
--.J 0 '" <C ~ => Z ~
U Z o IX t3
Z
W
~
0
----
-----
8'..ILDI\G COY::R TOTAL AREA ~ 187,J50s1
COURTYI\'ID TOTAL AREA ~ 111,6005'
SURFAC~ rKG AREA -89,000$1
ON DrO: PKG ARFA = 59,DOOsi
ON DECK LS AREA = 25,00081
STREFTS ,:,,', 'R' ,.,. 'C' AREA = 19,250,'
SIDEWALK TOTAL AREA = 60,800s/
NATURAL LANDSCAPE AREA = 140,338s1
LOT 7 SATi:Ll'TE PROPERTY = 50.725s1
UNPAVED f-IR~ LANE & PFIl, WAI K ARFA _ 19,970s1
STREETS '0' & 'E' AREA = 23,52281
STREET LEVEL LANDSCAPE AREA = 15,300~f
OrHER LANDSCAPE ARFA = 33,49531
TOTAl SITE AREA TO HIGH WATER UNE 925,J76sf
--··l
"" ! ~ I i ! ~ • ,
i i i i i ~ ~ ! , ~ I , I ! §
ST'tr~TS 'S' & 'c'
~
"
!
i
----
!
'.:>IRld 'A' AREA
EXHIBIT 9
, , ,
i
~
I
~O,OO::Js'
i
1
j
!
i
! ~
~ •
i
I
'00' G<"" '[Til"'"
!
-
/~
l
QUENDALL TERrv1lNALS -PREFERRED ALTERNATE
E)(ttJrior O(tSifjtl Goals:
p,.-,,", . ,-',.1>. ...' h",h-t' "",' .• 1,
'-""";
!:lul:.D!NG \j\'\' 2
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LP
Rot",1 and R,,~'au'""1 SP"~ F""lu'C~
.\ .' ,. ,>,"'" , __ ., ,.; ,,', ,",~"" I
!,)(,",
,~~ '"
~J" ) "~,, .. 'I
" '-~.-.1',~" ,II,,,,,,· ",,'1
'-"Il"1 .;\;rp
-'-'I
'",-),
-"j
be ",.-' -'x ,," ",' :,_ "'~ ,,'
·,tu ",,~,.
,'" ",'J;.,"~ "',h'
BUILDING NW 1
;/,'c" '
. -"''''',
"", V,,·'
""
PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON
r------~-~~~~~~~~------------~-----~--~--~-~~-~~~~~·-~~~~ : : , , , , . .'-~ , . : .
, : , , ~ _________________ ~ ___ ~_~ .. _ .... w~~._
BlJ!: ... D!NG ~,\,v 2 8UILOj~~G NW 1
'" P-'I"W b'">~""~
,-".
BUILDING SW 1 BUILDING SW 2
OVERALL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON
1<~~"I~,,"aj ~I"~'~ I ,.!"'~.
1','»',1" '1 •. 1., -"",-, .. ,
',.,', ".I h"",,,,_.
,'j",'
,l,.,',-' U~' ,-,., :,'-~,I!
_~",;. ;·x
A';·"'''I'~~. , .• ,:,), .~,,,>, r. ,,_, J
",-,(.'1""; (~I""
• !'~,~." ,'I', ,,"',"'" " ',,,' "~~"<,\.;"" vi <'
Bl.ojl<.hngs. ,,',,-,-, .. ,.,.,
",\"
E~te'ior Fin,~h'
[;~,-!""o.,,' """.".I,f-~,.~
.-.,"'.,
"'".,.
,''.1'', • ,) , ."[;
c, I""'
-···.r·;'"
""
,.f' "
BU1Dl!\G SW 3 BUI'-.DING SiN·1
EXHIBIT 10
~ « z
::;E a::
UJ ....
...J
...J « o z
UJ :::>
0'
P3,O
QUENDALL TERMINALS PREFERRED ALTERNATE
E~tcrior 00:'>'(1" GOill~
B'~ILD NG r~w 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LP
f<c!"'I"'",r,.··,t"",""IS""".how""
',_",,' c·h"
"",.
'.": '.1;'
"
'",I
"'''' ~",'
PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION
"1' . .;11',· '-!,,;:,V.~·IC" ~-------------------------------------------------------~
AA e, ,tA J:) ,r'
i I
~---~---------------------------------------------------~ 8"ILO+IG fNi I eUILDING ~,E 1
SOUTH ELEVATION
j
R~"'~~M".I Flo~" F,'lI .. 'o,
J'""~",,i,'_ ,.
1-",(
"'-"
"'
';'"
BUlldln~S.: ,
"''1'"
_'C',,>'-<
M~'N",ll''''''h
,'."
'I"J
.. h' ,,' ; .. "
,1,(
r,',,, "j" " .. : . (\
'i'.,
',', , , ,,,,,.
;cA '
" ", .'
'<>'.
[,:r:;::c
"'-, ..... "r;'. '~~~~~~
"
~
<l: z
2:
0:
I.IJ
f-
-' -' <l:
CI
Z
I.IJ ::>
0'
P3.1
@g ~;~';~~.~;,~:;' .:,y'ON~~;;:,r;:;, ';'.~';'~~. Ceo" .. L<,,,,.'-P.OOkeO" ",~.,.,", 1 ~~I""
~~~l.'l;/"""'Mf"rAt,,"puA
"""", '"0'"''' "01", lO''''''', '-'r. m,",m."., ,""""
GROUNOCO'J(P "'",'''00'''' R,.", ~ ,~O, ... ,. \"0",,""', 50001 m,o,~"m , ''''''''''
AlK, lAH'
CQ,KEP7UAL
LANJSC",PE PLAN
QUENDALL TERMINALS-PREFERRED Al
RENTON, WASHINGTON
CENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP EXHIBIT 11
I ,
1
I
!
l'_~TlI.lil~m .... AIC) "'""'1CM(If 1H,~, fill
El c(wOI)o:;JW '"'0'1 10 IDIi'J"'UH H """:f<O£I<'Al
F'PO"'rJ(lN '1;U<C'f :EP'II\ ~ LU<llOOlC' " .. "'-% RI'.n.o.ro. A." .. no.<1CfI ,c,ll(fj, 'H(>< ARf 1) EI' 'f'Rf'IlVl)
IT"tEo.nt;!I.1lE'U1I1.S.'1:UHDIllSl.O'lRrull.
f\UW ,TUll C(Hlt<;n:;IIS ~""-El ,>lIl1'l'Tll't> ,_T.I1m
EI'J~t...s A~ u~ClI.'O sm AA[).; TO WNWI'"H' m,.; (If
D ..... (;E m uTII.JlCS n 10 ~":liEHTII.l S1TT.lIOT
EXHIBIT 12
NOT r
LAND USE, SHORELINE & WASTER PLAN PERWIT APPUCA
CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN
i
i
I
!
I
j
~
_[MfJ<[OLREIIID.O]I(W .... "JlI(:Io,,>t"'""'Pl1(PIJI11'Ml.1l(
.x..tIUCTrO POOR m 0C\n::nEN1 11£ EI<~.O<I/l I'!!01[C~
'rno:r(lJ'~lIS ".,l~.:vr;r'(I1AU.~1(ROI:(lI,Jl(>tMll
1II!l:;,\1I(Ij"'lQtSlIiMJili/£roIl(P!IIf~El~IJtI[~
"""'~I.LI~fE'-'«I'~
JtI[ PRO.£CI ~1E 'lCu.OES 1f<'IIO:<liI~"I1II,1!J FllT (J' 9<tmJN::
I.U,>t(;LiI'.l:"'~HGT",_,·t:(>-'OO1~II<F:I'ARI,,"SEJB>(>C
(~!!a!I fRa.I 11£ <llOIWIY >IQl .\0 1ImC) MIl rllOlI.W.S
,"""",T1<,_'9<JIfiJ<[RES1(J!J,1O)I1'lRI~BIilMG
OC'iCIEOJK)l.'F1IOI(lll.lllrnEniHC~
1 £l:ISIINC.rlIJI<DS MIl C\lNC!PJU/l 'fI[]lJ,M) CR[J,'IalftiESJORi\1Iaj
'-"I:'5_~~\l:rt:Jl"lW1([1"'I.L<P'Il<~"""""""L
_1aIIJ.. 00llJI1G ROCI"~II< ,000rt:CTJCIIS !.NlI'J'Oj, ~~1111: -R"lU U RI11' ","""DOlI, '"'<.ou BE usrn ammo STRtJc:JIM!l
EkJ~AAOUNSTRtJc:T.eJI!<1[>!lUS11)~"'lE1I£1r.l<(f
0'-'<"'-TO un.lIES 1M 11) ~'I.L ~T.
LEGEND:
1-' E»SJtlGiEIlNtl
"",,"ru.oL .nm) tRUN'<M'SKl(OIKf<
:5Il:rt:J1El) , .'
NO·
LAND USE, SHOREUNE &: WASTER PLAN PERIIIIT APPU:
CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING Pi),
• !
I
!
1 ,
I
I
I
i
" ;;
62' 'I r -1 ; " " ROW 112' LANE ,,-lif
~ED~ : "'''''I '"' ,-t. ~, Sit'EWALK/ ,
LmDSCIJ'E - -~I-LAADSCAP£ I
I I·a /-. S· ClMl (m') 1 v~ES
~A1OiEX~
." ".;c/,. '-/ ':,..'
STREET A -TYP!t\. R?ADWAY SECTION CD
-~
j' 10 11·0'1/ I '1' 10' 15' I
."n~rAPF P_,~r. 1_ I lIE PAIlI(INr. ['JI1 ~'\rWH <.IN'WAl~AI,N=J.PF, ". "SitfwAlJ(ft,.AN6scAPE
,
SiO[wlLK/ §
~
~ !;> • ~
1-2%
STREET 8 -TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
SCIJ.f: " ~ 4'
~
--------------" I: ____ '.U·9E:o'~ ___ , ,,,,. ,,'
PAAtlINC "" i..NIE ~ ,
B
1-1%
~~I!m EXiEI<DS TO ROMlWAY
£DC( WOERE NO CtHlREEl
P.oIll\iNG, SEE PlAN (T'lP)
of
I
~
,-4-6-1lJRIl (TlPI ~
I
--------------1 i r ,.:.," l "-~.,,,-. ;
0: llX !_~1 ~ ]-2% '=11 " ~~--y-
~SHWAjJ( EXTENDS TO RO/.DWAY
Ul!;l 'MfJ-l NU ~_Slllf(f
STREET C TYP~~~. ,Rl?ADWAY SECTION ® PAIIj(JNG.~lPlJl1(IYP)
EXHIBIT 13
kpff ""''''''''"'''= ""'"",w.",'" -.. --
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LAND USE, SHORELINE & ~ASTER PLAN PER~IT APPLICATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS
C302
i
i
1
I
I
!
!
• ,
; , " " " "'~
RE~SED PEl! WITIG~U()j R!:OJIRE~Nrs
" 1<0 APPR. REVlSlON
: T • I ""~ 'I ~, ! -.!, I ,~., I I"""~ l /"""""" I ~~s 2': 2X 2:11 . / .0. 'J', .. OO{l '}=< .
M~lCH EX
STREET D -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION D
~~ I" ~ 4'
•
__ V/oSI£S 37.6' 41.2' r _ }
fi' 10' II' II' VAllE'S 5.6'-9.2" I
, /' Si[J[WAIJ(I [M( ~ LINE LJ.NOSCN'E I
;;:: L.OOSC.tJ'E I I
~; / ,"",,'WI I I
IE 2:11 2': 2:1: ~m[s
STREET E -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION E
'''" I· ~ 4'
NOT ,OR CONSTRUCTION
cllA",Tay OCSUHDBY
CHE~Br' ~ (Jj[ 00 1ll1~
, ~~ iFlIf TOO II>
WTJ D"~ 1.~H\\5
NOV 16, 2009
SCALE'
JOB No. 1500050 AS NOTED
l<:pff '.'''''-"'-'~ _.W","'I'" -----,
QUENDAlL TER~INAI.S
.wo lAKE WA9ING1'ON BOU1£.VAIID. ROO<*, WAStINGTON
LAND USE, SHORELINE It MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS
SII[U
C303
,
!
I
1
!
!
I
i
;
"
\
\
I
\ ,
! PRO"£RJ'r' LINt lTI'P)
"\
t
) ,
BAABE<: MU £HTRY ~'M F ..... 'p.""""·»U<t.''"''~. ~ ',' II \" "_ 11>--~ctlEr-;--.-,.-.~-_. . ---.-" --$IiW' ---
'¥. c:1\.; fUI .~ ""~'! ------;t ~---" , ttl" 7_~ __ _
-----------------~::
"
~PIIER NOTES:
All I<[W AlII! ~11(lCn:n Imf lliOlAl<T5 SlllIll
BE PER ell'! SlmDI.RIl FUN 8102
Ml P~OPIJS!.D WA!Ul ~AIII5 Nr'£ LOC~lED 'IIITHIN
lHE 3~O PRf~ 7m
i\.()lBLE UTILITY CCl'<~ECno~$ SHIJ..L BE US£(>
OCI'illiN Sll/lJCl1J~ED IJJILDlHGS ~c
!!NS1~UC1UIIfU ~f[ /J/(AS TO ,WINIOII/E lHE RI~
<:i D1.iI1.GE 10 UllIJTIE'S DUE 10 [MFFERENlllIL
SETi1..EME~'
LEGEND:
IlECllAHlCALS£RV\C[ROOIoI: rnm . VOI.I PR\I, t.!E][R ~ND RPBA
~ ·AREOOCVA
•
"
• ACQSS 0000 FRIJ.I OOTSlD( • roc (JI IJJilDIHG f'1.CE
nRE HrDRMH ,.,
fllmi)<ISE U1lJrr OOCT BANI(
(CIlIIII, 11\.\ PO~R)
!i!=JI5l nNI;J,;:Q Floc.< El..E"A~
DRA~ BY ,.0
QlEl)(fO BY
""
OCSiIlfll BY .,"
M'PROIfll or
'" "IT NOV 16. 2009 I~
"IT "' CliO APPR
R[~SED FU W~RUlEIHS
R[VISION J 0 8 No. '1500050
CAll 110 IWn
ll!HrIllYOO~
1-IIHU-5l55
SCALE:
AS NOTED
kpff ",''''''''''''0,,,"'''''''' ",,,,,,,,,,10101 ---
EXHIBIT 14
'I'
~--:-r:::;::::::: , ----- ---
RESIDENTIAL
IfT_45.5!
QUENDALl TERWINALS
-4350 LAKE WASHIHGT<»4 BOUI.[VARD, lIfNTotI, WASHINGTDN
/" Ellsr, .. '
~ERCER ,"-
~ElRO SEw['
~RGlHI/' ~ASOO
AHEnC Ci'.NTF.< /
SF;~CE DR ~
/ .r'4'
10 ~ a.;
"= ,_.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHEET
LAND USE, SHORELINE &: MASTER PLAN PER~IT APPLICATION
CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN
C400
{ ,
1
I
J
I
~
I
1
• , ,
~c,~
~ IlONIJ!'jIll(;l1W~ • _ ;. -ElEV_iE-S7 _ ill "~. -(CJiWl:-\
'~
I
I
f;:" .' u.. '. UK[ WASHINGTON . \ """"~-"", . ,,~~;rn",\ 'v'~",
,;,;", }~~\'-'\ ··~'C. 'C:::r.~
'",--~1\I.ro1-~,
" -..-:--.' -" .
-, '. -.~_--C
~:-' •. '> ',. 'c' ~( ""\,
~ ~.~
" "
I
I
1
"-v~ y/
.\
\\'--'." '\
//
//
\-y/
\
\\~-
---------~
WATER NOTES:
~.
-+-
-i
f .~
/IU N:W 1</10 Rt.UJC/I1Ul fl!£ H~J.Hrs ~All
1£ pm CCfl STOO.oJilJ f'lNj BI02.
IlL PRO'C&O WATER WI.I'IS I.RE LOC.\1IJ) IIITHN
lH[ Jm f'R[SSURE Z(ll(
J. flI.I'8..E UTlJ1Y CONNECTII)IS 9:i1.l.J. OC IJSE[l
IU'I(IN SIRUCIIJRED EULDIIIGS AN(l
U~1RUCIU<ED SITE AA[AS TO IINIIIIl£ lHE ~
~ DAW~GE TO unullES DUE IQ W'FEREHlW.
"""""
LEGEND:
~E[;IWIC.lL S£JMC[ ROOII"
~ .IJ()IPfWIETrnNlClRf'llA
~ oFft OOCVA
• Ai:fES 00ffi FAI).I OOTSD[ • me 00 IlUlLQkNG fAct
.. FlREHlDA~T ,..
flil.NOtJSE UTlJrr DUCT 8.11<K
(C\1IIII.~PO\l:R)
11'F~32.51 FlIISHED FLOOR flHAfi(Ji
kpff ;:O':'~.':,;':;,~,"""""'"
...... .-......
WI
---->. ~-""'-lC---j-
'.1 .'
~~-
,I ,)
"I
ij
,~ _____ III ,_~_L,'-jJ...J.........
/
• •
1 nell. 'OIL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
."""""
LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICA liON
CONCEPTUAl UTILITY PLAN
C401
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBe
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707
SeaWe, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 452-5350
Fax: (206) 443-7646
www.eaest.com
January 12, 2016
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
City of Renton Department of Community
& Economic Development, Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
RE: Quendall Terminal EIS Appeal
Dear Vanessa:
Per your request, EA has prepared the following summary of the opportunities that the City of
Renton provided for involvement by the general public and U.S. EPA in the SEPA process for the
Quendall Terminals project, The attached table summarizes the public's and EPA's involvement
in the SEPA process, including the following information:
• Step in SEPA Process: e.g., DEIS, EIS Addendum, FEIS and EIS Appeal;
• Required: whether or not the step is required by SEPA;
• Provided: whether or not the step was provided for the Quendall Terminals EIS;
• Date(s): the dates on which the step was accomplished for the Quendall Terminals EIS;
• Duration: the duration of the step for the Quendall Terminals EIS, including whether it
was extended beyond the duration required by SEPA; and
• Comments: comments on public/EPA involvement (e.g., the number of comment letters
and emails received on the QuendaliTerminals EISScoping, DE IS and EIS Addendum,
and the way in which EPA's comments were incorporated into the EIS).
As shown by the attached table, the City went above and beyond the SEPA requirements to
involve the public in the Quendall Terminals EIS process, including: extending the EIS Public
Scoping period (from the required 21 days to 70 days); holding a Public Scoping meeting to
provide additional opportunity for public comment (which is not required); extending the DE IS
public scoping period (from the required 30 days to 60 days); holding a DEIS public hearing to
provide additional opportunity for public comment (which is not required); and taking and
responding to public comments on the EIS Addendum (which is not required).
The attached table also demonstrates that the City provided expanded opportunities for
participation by EPA in the Quendall Terminals SEPA process and incorporated their input into
the EIS, including: attending three meetings with EPA and the applicant to define the baseline
assumptions for site cleanup/remediation that were used in the Draft EIS; and responding to
EXHIBIT 15
1
comments in two letters from EPA on the DEIS that ultimately resulted in new baseline
cleanup/remediation assumptions that were used in the EIS Addendum (e.g., a new Preferred
Alternative with an expanded setback from the Lake Washington shoreline was developed and
analyzed in the Addendum).
Please let me know if you have any questions on this summary.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Brunner, Senior Planner
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. PBC
2
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Step in SEPA Process
DEIS
• EIS Public Scoping Period
• Public Scoping Meeting
• DEIS Public Comment Period
• DEIS Public Hearing
EIS Addendum
• EIS Addendum Public Comment Period
FEIS
• FEIS
QUENDALL TERMINALS EIS
PUBLIC & U.S. EPA INVOLVEMENT
Required Provided Date(s)
Yes (21 days') Yes 2119110-4130110
No Yes 4127110
Yes (30 days') Yes 12110110 -2109111
No Yes 1104111
No Yes 10119112 -11119112
Yes Yes 8131115
Duration
70 days (extended)
1 day
60 days (extended)
1 day
30 days
NIA
Comments
5 letterslemails
4 commentators
75 letters/emails
8 commentators
12 letters
• Responded to
comments on DEIS and on
EIS Addendum'
EIS Appeal
• EIS Public Appeal Period Yes (20 days4) Yes
U.S. EPA INVOLVEMENT
Step in SEPA Process Required Provided
DEIS
• Pre·EIS Mtgs. Re Baseline Assumptions No Yes
• Comment Letters on DEIS No Yes
'PerWAC '97-"-408(2)(i)
, Per WAC 197-11-455(6)
3 Taking and responding to comments on an EIS Addendum is not required by SEPA.
4 Per RMC 4-8-110E.1.b
8/31115 -9/24115 20 days
Date(s) Duration
311110, 4122110, 5112110 1 day each
1113111,3112112 NIA
1 appellant
Comments
-Baseline assumptions
used in DEIS were based
on input from EPA at Pre-
EIS meetings
-Baseline assumptions
used in EIS Addendum
were modified based on
comments on DEIS in
EPA's 3/12112 letter'
5 1n their 3/12112 letter, U.S. EPA indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions represented in the DE IS are reasonable given the expected general
outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), with an increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake (Lake Washington) edge. The Preferred A1temative analyzed in the
EIS Addendum incorporated EPA's recommended shoreline setback.
3
ADVISORY NOTES TO APP
LUA09-151
Application Date: November 18, 2009
Name: Quendali Terminals
ANT
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use
Site Address: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments ...•.. Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-7298 I mair@rentonwa.gov
Recommendations: I have completed a preliminary review for the above referenced master site plan for the mixed use development
which includes 692 residential units, 20,025 square feet of retail, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The following comments are
based on the application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant.
General utility comments
1. All buried utilities, public roads, and infrastructure serving the site development shall be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities
in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert and adjacent to the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to
prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the
road or utility lines. (Mitigation Measure C29). This mitigation measure is applicable for both public and private utility lines.
2. The required horizontal and vertical separations as per City of Renton standards should be provided between the utility lines.
3. If the required minimum separation between utility lines need wider pavement width, then the street width should be changed
accordingly.
4. Any existing utilities under the proposed buildings will be required to be abandoned and removed, and the easements will be
required to be relinquished or amended.
5. All mitigation measures of the Quendall Tenninals Mitigation Document shall be applicable on the project and should be provided by
the project.
6. An agreement with King county for access and frontage improvements over King County owned railroad right of way should be
provided to the City prior to site plan review application and construction permit application.
Water
The water utility main lines for this project will be public water lines. Minimum 15 feet wide easement should be provide to the City of
Renton for the public water main located in private streets.
There is an existing 10 inch diameter water main on the King County parcel fronting the site and an 8 inch water main extending into the
Quendall Terminals site.
1. The conceptual utility civil plans submitted should be revised to include the following:
o Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12 inch water main along the property frontage to be within the new access road referred to as
Street A. The existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the new road. Please see the
attached water sketch.
o Relocate the new 12 inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the paved 20 foot fire access road. The water main
must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area. To comply with these
conditions, the buildings will need to be moved back further to the east to allow for the construction of the water main with the paved fire
access road.
r::J Complete the water main loop within the fire access road along the west side of the project from Street B to Street E.
,:] Minimum 15 feet wide easement is required for water main.
2. All water mains and related appurtenances installed within the site shall be in accordance with the requirements of the EPA's
approved plan for installation, operations, maintenance and monitoring plan of utillties.
3. Water mains shall be placed in clean fill materials, in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert of the water
line, along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the ctean fill material, in order to protect the water mains from
contamination and to allow future maintenance of the water mains by the City.
4. A utility easement and maintenance agreement with the city of Renton will be required for the maintenance and future repair of the
water lines within the site. The property owners will be responsible for all costs related to the excavation, removal, and disposal of
EXHIBIT 16
Ran: April 12,2016 Pagelof8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICAN
LUA09-151
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use
materials and for final restoration associated with the City's operation, maintenance and repair of the water lines within the site.
5. Civil plans for the water main improvements that are submitted with the utility construction permit should be prepared by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Washington. Please refer to City of Renton General Design and Construction Standards
for Water Main Extensions as shown in Appendix J of the City's 2012 Water System Plan.
6. Payment of system development charge fee and pennit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction pennit.
Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project.
Sanitary Sewer
The sewer utility main lines for this project will be public sewer lines. Minimum 15 feet wide easement should be provide to the City of
Renton for the public sewer main located in private streets.
There is a 12 inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the Quendall Terminals parcel.
1. The sewer report mentions that the sewer system was designed to convey the peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location
at a new manhole installed on an existing 12~ diameter City of Renton sewer pipe.
2. Along with the utility construction permit plans, the developer is required to submit a revised sewer report that will reevaluate the
existing Baxter lift station. The lift station capacity will need to be increased to serve the needs of the Qusndall Terminals project. The
sewer report submitted with the land use application showed an allowance of 1,100 gallons lacre/day for infiltration and inflow. The .
allowance number should be increased to 1,500 gallons! acre/day.
3. Sewer manhole should be located outside of the landscaped center island on Street B.
4. Any use in the buildings (kitchen, restaurant, etc. ) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease
interceptor.
5. If the project proposes an Indoor pool; the pool will need to be oonnected to the sanitary sewer system.
6. Storm drainage system within the indoor parking area shall be connected to an oil water separator and directed to the sewer system.
7. All buildings should be served by individual side sewers at a minimum.
8. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit
Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project.
9. The Baxter lift station sewer Special Assessment District (SAD) fee will be applicable on the project. The base rate of this SAD fee is
$166,421 with an interest of 5.3%. The rate as March 22, 2016 is $225,408.35 and will increase daily. This SOA fee rate will max out in
July 2019. The rate that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. The payment
will be due at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit
Storm water
There is an existing 12 inch diameter stormwater line on North 42nd Place that ends near the west property line of the Quendall Terminals
parcel.
Since the internal streets of the development are private, the storm water system for the development will be private. A stormwater
covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the
property owners will need to be recorded. The developerl property ownersl HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of all stormwater
systems constructed by the project.
1. A drainage plan and drainage report (TIR) based on the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual
should be submitted with the utility oonstruction permit. The site is located in the Flow control Duration standard forested site conditions.
The applicant is proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project Water quality treatment is proposed for the project and
should follow the requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual. Storm water flow
control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report and the mitigation measures included in the final
mitigation document should be followed in the design and construction of the project.
2. City of Renton has the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit. Per the requirements of the Phase II permit, all
projects that have been approved prior to January 1 2017 and have not started construction by January 1, 2022 shall follow the new
Surface Water Drainage Manual. Therefore, if the project has not started construction by January 1, 2022, the requirements of the
Stormwater Manual that is current at that time will be applicable on the project.
3. The stormwater requirements (1 to10) induded in the memorandum dated September 14, 2009 from Ronald Straka, Surface Water
utility Supervisor, included below along with the additional information (a) and (b) are applicable on this project. The memorandum is
Ran: ADnl 12. 2016
Version 1 I
Page 20f8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPANT
LUA09-151 ---~¢Renton
PLAN· Planning Review· Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: ROOini Nair I 425-430-7298 I mair@rentonwa.gov
also included as an attachment.
a. Projects approved prior to January 1, 2017 and have not started construction by January 1 2022, shall be subject to the requirements
of the new Stormwater Manual that will be current at that time.
b. Projects that comply with the exceptions included in Section 1.2.8 of the 2009 Surface Water Manual may provide basic water quality
treatment instead of enhanced basic water quality treatment.
4. Payment of system development charge fee and permit fee will be required at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit.
Fees that are current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project.
Transportation
1. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, shall be provided along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane
N (Seahawks Way) along the site. These sidewalks shall connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian
facilities in the area. (Mitigation Measure G3.)
2. A crosswalk including pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the crosswalk shall be provided across Lake
Washington Boulevard in order to connect the proposed development to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. The
crosswalk shall be controlled by Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, if the City determines that such lighting is warranted. (Mitigation
Measure Gg.)
3. A traffic mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance
and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways. (Mitigation
Measure H1.)
4. TOM measures shall be implemented to reduce the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and
queuing impacts at study intersections. (Mitigation Measure H2.)
5. Infrastructure improvements within the site shall include full curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscape strips (where applicable) as
well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape strips, bike lanes, pavement width, and utilities) along the west side of
Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future
transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available. (Mitigation Measure H3.)
6. If approved by EPA and any NRD settlement, a pedestrian trail shall be provided onsite through the minimum 100 foot shoreline
setback area that shall be accessible to the public and shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk
system. If EPA's ROD or any NRo settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings
onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; this trail shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site
sidewalk system. (Mitigation Measure H4.)
7. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant shall install traffic
calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the
I 405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could
include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but not limited to chicanes,
serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and/or speed humps. Final design of traffic calming elements
shall be approved by the City. (Mitigation Measure HS.)
8. The parking supply under the Preferred Alternative shall meet the minimum off street parking requirements of the City of Renton.
(Mitigation Measure HS.)
9. Shared parking agreements between on site uses and implementation of TOM measures for proposed residential uses shall be
implemented to reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply. (Mitigation Measure H7.)
10. A fire access road shall be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide,
and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass crete to support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency
vehicle access. If located in the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement, the
road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If EPA's ROD or any NRo settlement prohibit the fire access road within the minimum 100 foot
shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the
trail. (Mitigation Measure HS.)
11. In order to promote a multi modal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site shall inctude site amenities
(I.e., planting strips, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1405/NE 44th Street
interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity
could include Bus Rapid Transit on 1405 planned by Sound Transit and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSoOT) with a
fiyer stop at the 1405/NE 44th Street interchange). (Mitigation Measure H9.)
12. Staff recommends that a paved bicycle lane shall be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way)/Lake
Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way)/Lake
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 3 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICAN
LUA09-151 ----,.,.",..,,-P''1{en to n ®
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I
'. . ..... • .................. , ·.' .. ·T ..... i
.. .' Contact:. Rohinl. Nair 1 42!>43()" 72981 mair@rentonwa;gov
Washington Boulevard (Mitigation Measure H10.)
13. The developer should coordinate with WSDOT, King County. and the City of Renton to finalize the required lane, signal, and frontage
improvements on Lake Washington Blvd, Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and Barbee Mill access. This co ordination and finalization of the
street improvements and ROW requirements should take place before the site plan and the building/utility permit application is submitted
to the City of Renton. All the street improvements included in the EIS, EIS Addendum, FEIS, and the mitigation document, to address the
impacts of the project should be provided. Please see the figure titled 'Additional lanes required to be provided to mitigate project
Impacts' for information regarding the additional tum lanes and additional through motor vehicular traffic lanes on Lake Washington Blvd.
Street improvements should be constructed by the developer. The required ROW dedications should be provided and or obtained by the
developer.
14. Private access at the Barbee Mill Access Frontage improvements including landscaped planter and sidewalk matching the existing
improvements on the west side of the access is required to be provided on the east side of the access.
15. Private access at the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) 8 feet wide landscaped planter and 5 feet wide sidewalk is required to be
provided on either side of the access.
16. Forthe scenario with I 405 Improvements :
a. Lake Washington Blvd bin Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and Ripley Lane N (Seahawks Way). The eastbound and westbound
thru lanes planned by WSDOT shall be extended beyond and thru the Barbee Mill access intersection. This shall result in 2 thru lanes in
each direction on Lake Washington Blvd from the 1405 interchange past the Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street).
b. Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street)J Lake Washington Blvd. Traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection. At the Barbee Mill
Access (N 43rd Street) ILake Washington Blvd inters.ction, the EB approach shall be widened to include a separate LEFT TURN only
lane.
17. For the scenario without I 405 Improvements:
a. Traffic Signals. Traffic signals shall be installed at the intersections of the I 405 northbound and southbound ramp intersections, as
well as at the intersection of Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)JLake Washington Boulevard. The City will consider moving the location of
this signal to the intersection at Ripley LanelLake Washington Boulevard as part of a future WSDOT improvement project to the NE 44th
Street interchange. Relocating the traffic signal to Ripley lanellake Washington Boulevard could reduceJeliminate potential longer range
impacts of traffic queues on N 43rd Street between Lake Washington Boulevard and Road A, and with the existing rail crossing (should it
be re activated for rail service or converted to a trail corridor). An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the
determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either N 43rd Street or Ripley Lane. (Mitigation Measure H 13.)
b. Intersection #1 I 405 Northbound Ramps/NE 44th Street. The southbound and northbound approaches shall be widened so that a
separate left tum lane and shared thru right tum lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of .the intersection
with the additional widening improvements shall be coordinated with WSDOT. (Mitigation Measure H14.)
c. Mitigation measure H15 should be corrected to mention the widening on the eastbound approach on the Barbee Mill access instead
of the previous typo that mentioned the westbound approach. [H15. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd
Street) and I 405 Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill access and the I 405 southbound
ramps shall be constructed. Additional eastbound and westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created
by the traffic signals required at the southbound ramp and Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the
Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)JLake Washington Boulevard intersection the eastbound approach on the Barbee Mill Access shall be
widened to include a separate left tum only lane and the northbound approach on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include
a separate left tum only lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing
coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange deSign, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right of way), and adjacent private
development.]
d. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and 1405 Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization
improvements between the Barbee Mill access and the I 405 southbound ramps shall be constructed. Additional eastbound and
westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the southbound ramp
and Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)JLake Washington
Boulevard intersection the westbound approach on the Barbee Mill Access shall be widened to include a separate left turn only lane and
the northbound approach on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include a separate left tum only lane. Ultimately, the City of
Renton shall detennine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange
design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right of way), and adjacent private development. (Mitigation Measure H15.)
1 B. All the mitigation measures of the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document shall be applicable on the project and should be provided
by the developer prior to temporary occupancy certificate is given for the first building in the site.
19. All the internal streets of Quendall Terminals site shall be private streets.
20. The proposed cross section of the internal streets should be revised as per the attached drawings and as per the description
Ran: A ri112. 2016 Pa e4of8
I
I
ANT ADVISORY NOTES TO APP
LUA09-151 ----........--*Renton
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair I 425-430-7298 I mair@renlonwa.gov
included below. If the street pavement width is not sufficient to accommodate the utility lines with the required separation as par the City of
Renton standards, then the street widths will have to be increased accordingly.
a. Street A can have two cross sections depending on the use of the building on the side of the street. The cross section elements
include
i. Parking garage (residential use) near the street
C 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building
G 12 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
o 0.5 feet wide curb
n 6 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
o 20 feet wide paved travel way (210 feet wide lanes)
o 0.5 feet wide curb
o 10 feet wide landscaping
ii. No parking garage (retail use) near the street
o 6 feet wide landscaping near the retail building
o 12 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate ( 4'x8')
'J 0.5 feet wide curb
:J 6 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
~ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
:J 0.5 feet wide curb
:::J 10 feet wide landscaping
An on site circulation study is required to be provided with the site plan to determine if the proposed 12 feet wide center tum lane is
required. If the center tum lane is required, then the street width will have to changed accordingly. The width of landscaping near the
property line is also subject to change based on the site circulation study and/or the proposed use of the building adjacent to Street A.
b. Street B can have three cross sections depending on the use of the building on the side of the street. The cross section elements
include
i. No parking garage on either side of street B (retail use on both sides)
o 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
o 0.5 feet wide curb
o 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
[J 24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes)
C 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
I::: 0.5 feet wide curb
C 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
ii. Parking garage (residential use) on one side of Street B
C 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building
C 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
C 0.5 feet wide curb
Q 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
u 24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes)
o 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
o 0.5 feet wide curb
lJ 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
iii. Parking garage (residential use) on both sides of Street B
u 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building
o 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
o 0.5 feet wide curb
n 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
o 24 feet wide paved travel way (2 12 feet wide lanes)
o 8 feet wide on street parking on one side of the street
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 5 of B
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANe
LUA09-151
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use
--------.. Renton ®
Version 1 I
" ,,: : ::,' ' __ c
Engineering: Review Ccimments : ,: :.',: ", ,.,.: i, :"." .. "Contac:t:Rohlni Naln42543()..729ar.h~ir@~~ion\\<a.!I(j'"
o 0.5 feet wide curb
D 15 feet wide sidewalk with tree grate (4'x8')
o 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage building
C. Street C can have three cross sections depending on the use of the building on either sides of the street. The cross section
elements include:
i Parking garage (residential use) on both sides of Street C
o 1 Q feet wide landscaping near the parking garage
o 6 feet wide sidewalk
D 0.5 feet wide curb
o 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
o 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
o 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
IJ 0.5 feet wide curb
~ 6 feet wide sidewalk
J 10 feet wide landscaping near the parking garage
ii Parking garage (residential use) on one side of Street C
o 10 feet wide landscaping near the garage
o 6 feet wide sidewalk on the side near the garage
o 0.5 feet wide curb
o 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
[ 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
o 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
o 0.5 feet wide curb
o 12 feet wide sidewalk on the side away from garage
o 4 feet wide landscaping back of sidewalk on the side away from garage
iii No parking garage on any side of the street (retail use on both sides)
n 4 feet wide landscaping near the building
'~ 12 f •• t wide sidewalk
:::J 0.5 feet wide curb
~ 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
o 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
n 6 feet wide on street parking lane on one side
o 0.5 feet wide curb
o 12 feet wide sidewalk
o 4 feet wide landscaping back of sidewalk
d. Street D cross section elements include:
o 10 feet wide landscape setback
o 0.5 feet wide curb
o 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
n 0.5 feet wide curb
o 6 feet wide sidewalk
o 5 feet wide landscaping between back of sidewalk and parking lot
e. Street E cross section elements include:
.J 10 feet wide landscaping on the side near the parking garage
o 6 feet wide sidewalk
J 0.5 feet wide curb
:::J 20 feet wide paved travel way (2 10 feet wide lanes)
u 0.5 feet wide curb on the side near the property line
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page6of8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APP . ~ANT
LUA09-151
PLAN -Planning Review· Land Use Version 1 I
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair 1425-430-72981 mair@rentonwa.gov
o 5 feet landscape setback from property line
If portions of Street E will have parking on both sides, then alternate street cross sections will be required for those portions of Street E.
21. If the required minimum separation between utility lines need wider pavement width, then the street width should be changed
accordingly.
22. Street lighting is required to be provided on all streets. The street lighting can follow the City of Renton's residential street lighting
requirements, Since the streets are private. the street lighting shall be privately owned and maintained by the developerl property ownerl
HOA.
23. Parking garage entrances should be designed with consideration of sight distance.
24. The proposed project has passed the City of Renton's traffic concurrency test. A traffic concurrency report has been provided for the
project.
25. An easement with King county for access, and an agreement with King County for construction of frontage improvements over King
County owned railroad right of way should be provided to the City prior to site plan review application and construction permit application.
General Comments
1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans
shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. When utility plans are complete, please submit four (4) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit
application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor.
3. All electrical, phone, and cable services and lines serving the proposed development must be underground. The construction of
these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton inspector prior to temporarv certificate of occupanCY.
Community Services Review Comments
. . . . ... . . .. . . . . . ; ~ . : ...
Contact, Leslie Betlach 1425-430-6619 IlBetlach@rentonwa.gov ..
Recommendations: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMENTS (from Community Services)
1. As per the Final EIS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect the crosswalk across
Lake Washington BlVd. as per Mitigation G 9 Condition.
2. As per the final EIS (Aug. 2015) and the Mitigation Document (Aug. 2015), the revised plan sheets do not reflect the Trail connection
within the 100' shoreline setback south to the Barbe Mill Development as per G 11 Mitigation Condition .
. .
Planning Review Comments • • Contact: Vanessa Dolbee 1425-430-73141 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless
otherwise approved by the Development Services Division.
2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between
seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between
nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays.
3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any
portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days.
Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management
Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The
Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared.
5. This permit is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) and lor your U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit.
Building Review -Planning Comments Contact: Craig Burnell 1 425-430-72901 cbumell@rentonwa.gov
Recommendations: follow recommendalions of the soils report
Ran: April 12. 2016 Page 7 of 8
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICAN
LUA09-151 ---------... Renton ®
PLAN· Planning Review· Land Use Version 1 ,
Tachnh:al SarvlC8sCornments> , • .' ...• ......•• ' ••..•••• ·T··.·. "T •••• ·Corltact:.I\nlandaASkrlln 1425-430-7369 [aaSkren@itJ~t(,rlYr.l.g(,v
Recommendations: For the preliminary binding site plan review:
Updated title report not provided. Submitted title report for May 2009.
The dedication of land for street purposes on binding site plans requires approval by the City Council. Said dedication is achieved via a
recorded City of Renton Dedication Deed document (form is provided by the city). If the dedication is to be recorded with the binding site
plan. the dedication process needs to be timed in such a way that Council approval and all other matters pertaining to the dedication have
been addressed and resolved, and said document is ready to record. The Deed of Dedication document includes both a legal description
exhibit and a map exhibit. The legal description exhibit should be prepared, stamped, dated and signed by the applicant's surveyor. The
surveyor should also prepare the map exhibit. The dedication process requires an updated title report, to be dated within the 45 days prior
to Council action on said dedication. Talk to the Project Manager if there are questions or further information is needed.
Ran: April 12, 2016 Page 8 of 8
,
!
f
I
1
I
I
I
I
! ,
\ \: \. /
\
r
I.
\
t
I
!
WATER NOTES,
\ .,
BARBEE ~ILl ENlR~
I.ll NEW AND .,ELOCAlTIl FIRE HYDRANTS SHI.LL
BE: PEl< coo S!ANO~RO PLAIl B102.
ALL P'ROPOSID WAIEll ~~INS lOR( LOCI.TID IIImN
THE 32(l PFlESSOOE lONE
Fl£XlBLE UTIUlY C~NEC~S SHALL BE USED
BETVHN STRUClU~ID BIJIW'H;S AhD
LIlSTRUCTURW SHE AkEAS 10 ~INIMllL Ilic RISK
(f' D .... ACE TO UflunES DUE TO [IIFfERENflAL
SETnnlENT.
-.-
LEGEND,
T. i'l
i ~
WECIWIK:ll S[RI'I(:[ Il00II:
~ .00000PIW.WElERmIlFlffM
~ .flR<OOCV~
,I.CCESS OOCtl fill),! OOT90[ ,me ~ BLlLDlNG FAC£
... IIIll Il'rURAHl
.. ~ALI'E
fRANCHISE UTIliTY ~ucr BAAK
(Ctl~M. GAS, POi!fRj
Irra 3? 51 flNlSHED Fl()()R UIVA~
IUR~WH BY ,"
i()l[1)(fll BY
""
'-~~-;,~~~~-;~~~~;~-;.~-~C~;~[~~-;;~~--;;;:~~~~~~-;;~~;;,:;;~~~ r,; mE n~';':::I1\U.Kt(D (;r'~:[::;::;;--··
A"r'r~()¥l:J PlH, r0fl ~'S~f._l_~Tl"h ~),,<.flI\TlCNS. MA.lNI-':N.~N';:: A,.C; M6NITO,"NG PI./\_" 0" um'TI~~
W"WH t.4AiOlS. (,HAiL OjC 1"1 ... efr, IN Clem LU_ M"'lUll"I,~ :N A TflEUCfl WflH ~lIn IC~~'l 'N',,--II ,,'II) ;ll:YI;, (]f-3 -ID'( f~[' BelOVl],;1 m\i~1il GI '.IiIO.WAr~H liM=.' ",,-ONG WIiH.'."1 A<:<:d'lAfili ~ArI'\l811:) H;~~~m I1~C0"!!\M'NA liON {.Ie IHE CL~N'I h'-.L ·MI!:J~IAl iN 0fl:J~'-\ 10 ;-110 kC~ 'H~
WMe.K r.4i\,~b ,-110M CCNr~MI~i~110N lIN::) 10 AL~OW F(J'I1JP£ )<AiNH,NANCE 0,-r"f WArEf< M!'I"$ SV 'IlIE :;:n'Y.
f'l.; UlilIfI' l A~lEMP'';1 Arlo} ~.lAIr-; II;NAW:f_ AC,oE"'!.lfi'H W,H, ,He Cl:~ 01-HH~:Olj WI' l l1l' RECl!HED f-'(,f] Th~ MAl" r~I4AI,'~~ !'rJ') fUTURe: "~"AI~ (1-
HiE WAER LINES W,TIOI'iT>'E "ITE THE Pi,OPEFHY D'l'it,ERS WI. 8£ RE~"ONblBLE F0R Al~ C()Sg "HATEO TO ~HS u..C\YA"fH.JN REMOVAL "-'1[,
DiSf'OS;\L OF ";.o.TEflIAL,,, "'-"D cO? F'IU,L AESTGA.'.TI()N ASSOCIA""ED WIT,., ruE CiTY:; OPfR~,rOlt MAItoiTHIA'JC£ ANt; R(I'A'fj f~) "1IK w.~rl"n i IN.-';
WII"li'Illil ~,!H
--------------------------------------------
f'~'Wi,""",.,,"",,",W~.
""""-" ~U",)= ~"o-41n"n'1
"'rr~. ""''''"''t< ~ .. ,g .. UTIL<TY " ... "''':~
n: ~,l<:n,~ ,
-----------
100l ~'" ."'"", luo, 1600
.... " •• W ... '01
QUENDAll TER~INALS
-U5O I..AKE: WASHlItCTOM BOUlEVAItO. RENTON, W.lSHINGTOH
r-
ep)
-~
( :1~ ;(I ...............
1 ~"" ~ ;(I
NOT FOR CI
1 ... ,Fr I J. ~In. II(,C" (,U"r:lC"IIUC" L ~11(,Trr:l r:ll 1~1 r:lC"[UIIT .r:lllll ..... 'TI"~1
i
I
.. , ,
:",
,
i ,
i
,
. , ,
\
v
:1
\
1111· lilli' 0 I' 1111 · I. II r r.7) .. ' ··1 u jllll, IIIL// ,
c, ,."
6'IIIII'OI 1 l!J9\
'\ :~; 0
~
\ 0
~
r
0 z
I
~i
!! ~~
:;;!§
!I , , .. -~ ,
~ ~
,
' .
~ • ~ • ! ~: 3e h ~~ ,,-~ "'.§~ " '. ~;;:~;;. ~ "" ~ O. 8
i~~~~ ~ ~~ • ~
"I • • ~
• /1 • • • § ",
0 ~ , i"F . ~~ , ~~i~ ~" ~; , Bi~"':=!
~w ni~ ~~ '~ <. ~ . h." • 0
~~ ". "., tji "§ ~~ ~i~:=!
S :>"';::!~:;
Z ~~ " . i1~~~~ 5 •• •• ~~~~\!>!
~ " 0
t,.,,'/II-m;;,-m\"'\ox>\r_J ~J~I\OOI«I>I-I~I\-l -_.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: September 14, 2009 SfP 18 2009
TO: Arneta Henninger, Plan Reviewer
FROM: i~ ~ Ronald J. Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor
QUENDALL TERMINALS STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT:
Please see my comments below regarding the drainage report and plans, dated August
27, 2009, for Quendall Terminals.
1. The project shall be required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM) standards as a condition of SEPA.
2. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil
engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2009
King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to
satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2009
KCSWDM.
3. The proposed projects must submit an offsite analysis report that assesses
potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with
development ofthe project site and proposes appropriate mitigation of those
impacts.
4. The report must include a KCRTS printout of all land use input values for pre-and
post-developed impervious and pervious areas. The report should also include a
basin summary table for the existing condition and developed condition land
use. The basin summary table should identify the wetlands.
5. The wetland area needs to be included in the pre-and post-developed time
series analysis.
6. Since the project will result in more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious
surface, the project must comply with section l.2.3 of the 2009 KCSWDM Flow
Control. The direct discharge exemption may apply to the project if it meets all
of the following criteria:
a. The flowpath from the project site discharge point to the edge of the
100-year floodplain of the major receiving water will be no longer than a
quarter mile.
b. The conveyance system between the project site and the major receiving
water will extend to the ordinary high water mark, and will be comprised
Henninger!Quendall Terminal Stormwater Requirements
Page 2 of 2
September 14, 2009
of manmade conveyance elements (pipes, ditches, etc,) and will be within
public right-of-way or a public or private drainage easement
c. The conveyance system will have adequate capacity per Core
Requirement #4, Conveyance System, for the entire contributing
drainage area, assuming build-out conditions to current zoning for the
equivalent area portion and existing conditions for the remaining area
d. The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion,
assuming the same basin conditions as assumed in Criteria (c) above,
NOTE: The major receiving waters do not include wetlands,
7. The engineer proposes to discharge runoff from the north and west portions of
the site into the wetlands located at the north and west corners of the site. The
engineer needs to conduct an analysis of the wetland to determine the existing
hydrology, including the hydroperiod, and base the recharge on that analysis.
Typically, the wetland report would include a recommendation from the
biologist as to the proper recharge rate.
8. The proposed roadway improvements shall be taken into consideration when
calculating the post development site condition and sizing the water quality and
flow control facilities, if required.
9. The project will be required to provide enhanced water quality treatment per
section 1.2.8.1. Application of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu may be
waived for treatment of any runoff that is discharged entirely by pipe all the way
to the ordinary high water mark to the major receiving waters, listed on pages 1-
37 ofthe 2009 KCSWDM. Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment is required
for any discharges to the existing wetlands on site.
10. Does the project have an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or
more vehicles per square feet of gross building area, per section 1.2.8.1 of the
2009 KCSWDM? If yes, the project must provide oil control in addition to any
other water quality facility required.
If you have any questions contact Hebe Bernardo, Surface Water Utility Engineer
(x7264).
cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
Kayren KIttrick, Development Engineering Supervisor
Chip Vincent, Planning Director
Nell Watts, Development Services Director
h:\file sys\swp ~ surface water projects\swp 27-surface water projects (plan review)\quendall terminals\first review.doc\HBaw
•
1. Introduction
Quendall Terminals is a proposed mixed-use development in Renton, Washington. The development
includes five stones of residential or office space above two levels of above-grade parking or retail and
restaurant space. The development project anticipates entitlement of the following:
Table 1·1: Proposed Development
Use I Quantity/Area
Residential 800 Units
OffIce . 245,000 Square Feet
Retail . 21,600 Square Feet
Restaurant i 9,000 Square Feet
Parking , 2,215 Spaces
Note: All areas shown are gross building areas (GBA).
The project site is located west of Interstate 405 near the northern city limits of Renton. The site is
bounded by the Seahawks Training Facility to the north, BNSF railroad tracks to the east, and the
Barbee Mill residential community to the south. Ripley Lane is located east of the BNSF railroad
tracks and Lake Washington Boulevard is located southeast of the project site. See Figure 1 in the
Appendix for the site location.
This report is intended to support City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan Approval.
The scope of this report is to address the sanitary sewer system for the proposed development.
. Design criteria will be outlined and a sewerage approach will be evaluated.
2. Predeveloped Site Conditions
The existing site is vacant and is the former location of a log sorting and storage yard. The main site is
approximately 20.30 acres in size, and the parcel east of the main project site across Ripley Lane
North is approximately 1.15 acres in size. An existing 12-inch sanitary sewer main runs from south to
north along the east side of the site within a 60-foot roadway and utility easement. The invert
elevation of the existing sewer pipe is generally 10 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. The
existing Baxter Lift Station serves Quendall Terminals as well as the Seahawks Training Facility to the
north and Barbee Mill to the South. There are no other sewers located on the project site. An 84-inch ~ Metro sewer main is located approximately 100 feet east of the site's east property line. See Figure 2
In the Appendix for existing site conditions.
-~1 v [~A-~', A //tG~~~1 ~*;.t (jJr~
:?';.:[lk6itLt OF ~ 0'
CenturyPacffic, LP
Quendall Terminals
.
CenturyPaelflc, LP
Quendall Terminals
=p==
3. Developed Site Conditions
The proposed site improvements include a mixed-use development consisting of residential, office,
retail, and restaurant uses, as well as new public and private streets and parking. Sewer mains will be
constructed within the proposed public streets. Sewage from the buildings will discharge to the new
sewer mains via side sewers. The new sewer mains will discharge to the existing 12-lnch sewer main
at the east side of the project site at a new manhole constructed over the exlstng main. No
improvements are planned for the 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley Lane. See Figures 3 and 4 in the
Appendix for proposed site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively.
4. Basis of Design
An on-site sanitary sewer system will collect and convey flows from Quendall Terminals. Adjacent sites
are already developed and served by separate sanitary sewer systems. This report has utilized
programmed project areas and Department of Ecology (DOE) criteria to establish projected sewer flows
without provisions for future growth or connections. See Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for proposed
site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively.
Gross building areas have been used for this report
An allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day (gpad) has been made for infiltration and inflow since the
proposed sanitary sewer system is expected to be below seasonal high groundwater elevations.
The 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley lane has not been Incl~ded in the Infiltration calculation.
- A peaking factor of 4.0 was included in the design flows. This factor should account for the dally and
seasonal fluctuations in waste generation. This factor should also mitigate the impact of the varYing
flow generations for the different uses proposed with this project
The sanitary sewer system was designed to convey the estimated peak flows by grav~y to the project
discharge location at a new manhole Installed on an existing City of Renton sanitary sewer pipe. The
sewer capacities were established using Manning's Equation, with an On" factor of 0.013. Sewer lines
have been designed using the minimum slope requirements of the Washington State DOE. The pipe
slopes used in the final design and future construction documents may be greater than the minimum
slope to accommodate potential settlement, depending on the recommendation of the geotechnical
engineer. W LwtC-~ ~~J&-~7 ? P. ~~~{T ~w-u p.. ~'f~~~..,--r; Z, 'O~
2
I
CenturyPaclflc, LP
$, ." I 't'
~llJ1!flI !
, .. :fI'-If ~ ! j <I'
EXISTING BAXTER LIFT STATION
The Baxter Lift Station is an existing sewer lift station located at the northeast comer of the project site
within a sanitary sewer easement. The lift station was designed in 2006 and was constructed in
2009. The lift station was designed for an overall peak flow of 594 gpm for the Seahawks Training
Facility. Barbee Mill community, and the Quendall Terminals site. The lift station was designed and
constructed with the following assumptions for future development of the Quendall TerminalS site:
Table 5-3" LIft station Design Assumptions for Quendall Terminals (per Figure 6) "
Developable Acres 5 Tributary Area 5.0 Acres
Flow Rate 2,800 gpad
Number af Units .75 Tributary Area 3.0 Acres
Persons/Unit 2.4
Flow Rate lOOgpad
Average Sewerage Flow 22.2 gpm Design 1/1 Rate 1,500 gpad
Peaklng Factor 4
Design Sewage Flow 88.9gpm Design 1/1 Flow 8.3 gpm
Total Design Flow 97.2 gpm Total Design Flow Q peak hourly
The sewer 11ft station was designed for a fiow of 97.2 gpm from the Quendall project site. The
antiCipated flow from the Quendall project site is 614 gpm. The sewer lift station capacity will need to
be increased by approximately 517 gpm to 1,111 gpm to accomm~daie cfeveiop"n1en'tof the Qu,mdall
. ·Terminals site. Per discussion with the City of Renton Public Works, the existing I.ift station has the
ability to be modified to increase capacity by changing pump impellers and increasing the wet well
capacity. -$ee Figure 6 in the Appendix for Baxter Lift Station design details and Figure 7 for a record
of discus.¢on with the City.
! L!-b~~&-\~'1~~l~(u. ~.u/~IZ.-
~~~~ ~·1o f%r"--A6b t:U~t2'e.p~
OV-r~\v.f'7 ~f7 AW~~~, ~ 1TttJ:i'\;;J\~ \~ ~ i..Ai.4?---bA ~l-vAAMPl5
~.--ro~~.~ h~·M~~. ~q1. LC\'~ 6~-w Ar=I~ ~tJ..J iJ;vJ (~ W~~~ ~ .~ W1~ ~~1.-t /('"'~ VVvLM-~~--r~~ uJ,\A...-~
~J'P~ ~Acv /~~ ~~ '~flEJJ 10
Quendall Terminals 4
="-''==---
• Other available options are installing larger pumps but Dave did not believe that would be necessary
as the existing pumps were specifically chosen to allow impeller modifications as they anticipated the
need for additional capacity in the future.
Fees:
• Quendall has recenUy been assessed a capacity charge of $166k for their "fair share" of the Baxter
Pump StaUon. This assessment was based on 111gpm of capacity. I asked Dave if future
assessments would be required If the ftaws exceeded the 111 gpm. Dave indicated there would be.t:!.Q
additional capacity charge assessments for the QuendaJl site only mechanical pump station upgrades
to increase the pump station f8pacity to, ~eet 04r proposed s~e demand. '~ -5i-~
~p~~lJ)cLv-~~ Ufb#-
9o.~t~6~cp ----
KPFF Consulting Engineers
---_._---_ .. --
Pags2 Telephone Record November 17, 2009
Figure 7
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Bu/LDING USE AND DISCHARGE POINT PER TRIBUTARY AREA
Trib. Area ID Resid. Offi", Retail Rast. DiSCharge To
[UNITS] (SF] (SF] (SF]
NE Trib. Area f--0 117500 4800 0 Reach 3
SE Trib. Area 175 107500 4500 0 Reach 2
$W Trib. Area 1 300 0 0 0 Readl2
SWTrib. Area 2 90 10000 6300 4500 Reach 4
NW Trlb. Area 1 c---------! 00 0 0 0 Reach 3 ,----"
NW Trib. Area 2 75 10000 6000 4500 Reach 4
--~ -
Total 800 245000 21600 9000 Reach 1
Bu/LDING USE PER REACH
Re.achID Reald. Office Retail Resl Rest
(UNITS) (SF] (SF] (SF! [SEATS~l
Reach 1 800 245000 21600 9000 '90
Reach 2 535 107500 4500 0 0
Reach 3 100 117500 4800 0 0
Reach 4 165 20000 12300 9000 396
UNIT FLOW AND PEAK FACTOR PER Bu/LDING USE
Use UnM: FJow1 {GPO] Peak: Factor
Residential 175 [perunit.z] 4
Ofllca 0.2 [per ",ft] 4
RetaJl 0,3 ~rsqft] 4
Restauranh 50 [per seat] 4
In, (,Hoo [Per acre] 1 /~CJ
NOTES
11 Unit flows Include normal infiltrat)Oll
Assumes 1.75 residents per unit
ReslaurantconYersion: 1 seat =0 2'2,,7 square feet of restaurant
Infiltration-due 1(1 high groundwater
FLOW PER REACH
Reach 10 Resid. Offi", Retail Rest. '" [GPM} (GPM) (GPM) [GPM) [GPM]
Roach 1 3B9 136 1B 55 16
Total
[GPM!
614
November, 2009
15i"ro4677~
"':,:':-:~~~r::'in'=:"~':;:"'''TJ ( "_w''''''u' I
Reach 2 2<io 60 4 0 4 32B
Reach :3 49 65 4 0 4 122
Reach 4 80 11 10 55 4 161
PIPE CALCULATIONS
ReadllD Upstrm. MH Dovmstrm. MH Length Inner Dia Upslrm. IE DOwnstrm. IE Slope n Q ... Q", Odea/g'!' % Cap. V" Origin of Flow
(FT] JIN) (FT] (FT] (FTIFT] (CFS] (GPM] (GPM] [FPS]
REACH 1 R~CH 2, REACH 3, REACH 4
SSMH #2 SSMH#1 335 12 19.23 18.49 0.0022 0.013 1.66 754 614 81% 2,14
.---
REACH 2 SE Trib. Area, SW TrIb. Area 1
SSMH #38-2 SSMH #3S-1 278 8 21.88 20.77 0.0040 0.013 o,n 344 328 95% 2.19
SSMH#3S-1 SSMH#2 278 -"----20.67 19.56 0.0040 0.013 o,n 344 328 95% 2.19
~--~~-"-'-.
=~EACH3 ,--~, -,-NE Trib. AfI~a. NW Trib. Area 1 --_ ... -
SSMH#3N ~H#2 340 8 20.9-;2 19.56 0.0040 0.013 OR 34' 122 35% r-3:20 _ ----_ .. _ .. --=-------,'--
-
REACH 4 c--::-:: SW Trtb. Area 2, NW Trib. Area 2
SSMH#3W'-1 ..... SSMH #2_ 271 8 20.64 19.56 0.00410 I~ 0.76 .34~ 1£1 47% 2.19
Quendall Terminals Sewer Report Figure 5: Calculations
":'----'-''--=-:0: ...... ~,,""=':~'" ~-=-..=-'" _--"-~ :.~.-=-; ---=----'-"===_'-----.. _--'---
• !
f
!
1
I
I
I
1
l
~ ,
NlFJi'llM, R(1;,;~lt<,>
\~
"-
!WIIH 1.iM" \N'HY
Ii
I i--'I d ___ ~ ____ _
:.~ ! ,-' ~
t.~rJJl S ' l' y.--'<;' I ',.1---".., PRIVATE \. : /, '<G' I'lUVA'j
-;'./~. _p.u~r;LG:,_ -:,J!;4'a'RIVl\:!n:-,\f;.'ii!;~ .. - _ 4-~-'--_STA£(fjl_ _ c ~---C~T' ; ..LL,""':.~.""--"'"'.-",,:'tL,-......... "....,'S"l,"".,., ••• J ....... -;-' -._L ............ ""', ,Y I" __ _
~
r~R8IiI£T-,j
AT ~aw ~()~1S (rrP)
'-P~:::--' ___ ~~ -. --~-'----~===-----------~, WASHINGrON B' ~ . '.'
-:----' -: ~ . ~
. '-
NOTES:
I. I!;Wt(lIMNlIJ. Rf),liC",'IICtI _I./() ~,'IP·ll::f' (If ;t{ pq,lI'[lI;Y "'-L
DE C<~lJUCTE~ PllP"Jl JJ G(,tJ]-'l,lU1l 11Il U1\IIl:J<lllNII.i.
PR<:ll[[U~ ';(;EI!CY I[P~) IS ~"l!: l[;>D ~~cr flJ;! ~LL SIT£
R£t.lIDATI:tl <NCo M'TI~HON i.C!\OII' \\H.(:If AR( TJ BE PE!iF(lf!I,I([l
~T lIiE OOENom rERl.I:N\lS 'A1E "'~[I(~ :>JPOlflJNI)
-.....,-~-~~ " RI~EY~
i~
1d1Ol·ltfi".l 1lU~,"~~ fti)Of O"~lt. CCWHffilf'.s -<M Hl~G ~~llf
Rf[)lORm
J flEWl Illmt ~\J.~flTI{jN5 SHAll BE V'..ED ~n";:1; ~l~i!t1Jil.fll
Sl~:llI<GS ~ UN,;];.\lClU111 $I:, A'<f:l$ I(i \O~IUI~'! :111-: R!S!< ~
ImlI,OX Til 'JllJUS DU£ 10 DlfT;:R[~I'1.i. ;[lr..DI[~1
--. /F/ ';
;(i": ~
, .... ~ +lll
ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED AS MITIGATION MEASURES iN THE QUENDALL TERMINALS
MITIGATION DOCUMENT ARE APPLICABLE AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
l~ '.""""'."'-;\r.,tJ.I..L ~,,"'" ...... .."" ......... u -..... -LAND USE. SHORELINE I< ~ASTER PLAN PER~IT APPUCATION
CONCEPTUAl STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN
C300
!
1
i
I
I
I
I , ,
~":.~ ..
. '~'" LAKE WASHINGTON
~ --. ...--~.---.
* ,,~
\~
~
'"
e , ' ~ , j-
I ::=-"
I l··· \<
\ e ,
. 'j '-,~'-:. . ',. ". -,-
:;.-• IEIlI/t'IlY HIQ! WA1EIUrAAK (Ctt\N)-'
" El.IV.IBM .• . \ ,----50' IlHW SElOloO:
1
SEENOltlU \ I ~ ...
(1'rJ' t"NlIlf 'S<ONU~\" \ / /-100' GloMI S(lBA(l( - -. -', .>\' ,~~ -'--".'.< . " -i -.' /~OOlFillIil1Trl \ ~ ;r / / W)fI.l1I11TH . - -<--~ --.--,':" .'~~"-<" t..... ST~FlLl!a~H r '&' [~E/lGl"IlISSlPA~ON \ '" . ~. . I. !. ·OJ(~~rrs!IP.Al1Ctt , •... '.. '. '.""-. .' '. PRE:SErTLffG,I,t.. >-... -' \ -" -... ';"'-', I"~ ..,. ,::"~:' .,"ry~. \. "-
_ vtun I I'" ",------::-~ ~, ..../ / 1'-------. , .... -.. ,-1 ~ I ... " __. ,-:--' '(. , : ._.w....-.-------, ..... ..t~: -" '. ~" I _~' _ _ ,...~, _(;.. " .. ;1 ! .. ./'-'/-::::"'ST(f!I,IfItl[R ',~ULT ',~-~ ~ "-
,"7. -' ,~-..... , '. -_ /. r _,I l' '... . "," "Z ~--;'1,J .. ~, ' -, .~' /' ),-PRESETJ\.IijG~.IU,T .----_~~ ._~. __ ~~~_~.'._.-~ _ .... __ --':=~-' ___ .,'b'.t, _:--............
.,----=
• __ 0
"-
' . 'I I.
i\). ,L. I~ __ '
, ~_ ':S",,;N~'I\llfJ\ -.,..:. -------
• ~ ~ ;.. ;,e,,;' 'lI:ifll'i~({f I'-~---~r-~~,'_ ' .' ~ ". ,c-...... -.-~~. t, __ j'" I· ~.'" -__ -::rr--, _. __ ~/' ~--_ ";'" I :" _.c:",-",,>~ .. ' ----...:. ___ -,-~ tt::iIIl III: B.1'P,
RESIDENTIAl.
!fF!Wl
'~
I
,Jf
, "ll
• " R£SIOCNTIAL lb
,
IfF-iS.51
'UTlNIII.L .1!!AINING WAlL / , '~--!-• ,I
"
~'.." ~
\
--------_ .• '
I~
,,~
.NOTE~~
[N..,ROtl~[Nll.l RIOllElilAlION AND WlliGAnlll1l' 1I£ PRlHRTY ~ll BE
CONOlJClID PRIOR TO 1JE\uIlPIIEI1T. THE £I1\'1R()N~EHTAL I'ftQTEC1IOtI
MUIC~ (EPA) IS lHE LHll .\GENGt FOR IJ.l SITE ~E~H)oA]ON. /JIl
YITIGUON /,cnDNS 1Ifl101 m lU ~t P£RfORurn AT THE Cl£NDAll
1ERWIN.I!.S >lTE Uf!DER S!!PERFUND.
:I THE PIlI),Ul SIll r.cLU(l(S API'R(lXl~AnIY 1."'1 fEfT OF ;HOREUN[
ALONG I~E ""A~IHGT(JI A IOO-fOOT I'IIOTH R1PNlIAN SElBl.CI(
(~E.OSlJR£D FRI),I THE ~iIi.oR~ HIGH WATER WI.R~) /.NO PARAUIlS
AlONG lI£ SIlCIIUJ~ A SfIORElJH[ ~E5TORAn()N P[).N ., ~G
IJE~(MD IJIl APPOOIffI 1Il0ER EPA lIIRECnCtl
~ EXISTING 'oIlllANJ5 AN[l CONUPTUI\l il.llAII~ ~lAI1OHjflt~lC.lAlltll
AREAS SilOIlN HA\I£ NOT ~C[jl'£l) fIIl.l EPA OESIGN I.PPROVI.L
IllDillONl.L BUILDING ROCf DRAIN CONNECTIONS AJ;O P1PIIIG YAY OC
~lQl.llHtO
5 flD)Bt.E unurr CCttNECTIOOS SIIAU BE USED B£1\\IIN STRIXIlJR[Q
BUILDlIIGS -'HD UNSlRUClIJI[D SHE AREAS lD IIIHJjllE l)jE filS!( Cf
OAIII.GE 10 UTIUT1(S [)l{ TO [lIFHlllHnl.l '.<.ITU~(NI
,-CHD I APf'R
~..,~ PlR ),lITIGATION REQJlil£I,jE.~TS
REIliSION
DRA\III'I BY
'" Cl£Cl<ED BY
"Co
LEGEND:
_I
_J
OC;lGfl([) 01
"" o\PPRO\£D 8yI
"" DATE
'>JOY 16, 2009
JOB No .. 1500Q50
EXlSnNG IfI£lillNl
(SEE NOTE 3)
~mT~
'""""
CCtlCEPlU.oJ.. I'IEllANO Clit:An~jRESTffiATION
(TI NOn:~)
00 110 IISI(l\
MHIOII roo IG
1.12HIll
seA l [
AS NOTED
kpff -.-......
• I 111'1
I
I,
~,/
Ie «I IjIJ
1
Inc.'_ .aft.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
QUEHDALl TERI.lINAlS 5flEET
4J5O WE WAS!IINGTOtI BOULEVARD, RENTON, W.uHINGTOH
LAND USE, SHORELINE &: ~ASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION
CONCEPTUAL STOR~ DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN
C301
~ ,
i
t
1
!
!
!
1
• ,
;'f,) I,
'H:O,HU) I~
f;,
~ • ~
. ~ i-iJ,-.';':i./""-r
c~NIJSC-\Pf I
"";F ::'--hC ;·8 Si rV>N'; l ""nn:; " '.;1) 'N iT;-, h ()'~
s: i\t:t:: 1 II W;L~. ':f;1~\' ~\::':'~d,E'lr~G:)N Ii t: :.J3;:" Of"
>1 j;li;ir~G:~ ;)t~ 1+'-S:Lr-CF THF ~_; Pr-F ? if-IhE
Ct:J~ ;'LR Tl;HN L:;~.E is R[C)UIRE::!
-;f:' \A"_~~;CAf' ,'-' ;:,
311.)l.:.'Nt·.Lr:N,~'T: " jS
" ':.I[EWiJ.¥/
lioHlBeJl{
! ;~:::;: GH.'1
a .--sic(ii:':i)iM~~iirf:
iii
f
'-~:c ;;HCJ:-~~; Sf,;: ,;:;'1 E.L0,;\:ii::::-J'i':-' ,\NC, \\'I')T dS C~
:;;':'f~;:'F_T [', 'Ni! i -./,\F\Y Di':f IJ~:'!f-.;;; <iN II-E ')Sl: e'F
8Li:" >NL,S ~,)\ t:':',·"r:f:-:.R SIC+, OF THE '3TRETT
'.i'PH ,;~b-;~H';' ;f-_
':11
"
1:.'.1
,]"'(,'I:r :,~,,;1f1E' I 8., ie.,:,;:; <~" Cr,E ,~,0~,
.~, r",;"~LLA'~l
14"
,1/'.riOf\SIU0Y i
~P.2WAY U:+'
c.:;X.OITI<)N
,)f'Slli;"l.Ml
.~. ,,,WUlt,,!·
< o
········,:.···--i
• W< ;r'i,;"k! '-1
". j
_,_ R(ivi-lt~" ~,~
1----~----~
/".-G"0Jtlfl(r.J»
" 1(1'
'-i>~";
, I .
_~ J ._i~_
STREET A TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION rA\
'. '~
I:'
""
sOil,!" oj-V
"I !i<J~ l " W<
~
11 3"
P/IR~IIiG 'ciR"Siijt';;;iC;:"
<!:!!!i:S
i.AN[l'il.:APt I
WAlell [\~
".
~l)[oII.IL~/'l""'nsr.m
W'TII nEe GFiA
~
~
~
Hi' cu;m (nl') 0: " ~ ~ I-~! 3!... ~~
y" .1!
STREET B -TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION f8\
SUJ.!, i" ~ .' v
~
5IDEmJ( [A:t~D~ 10 R{]ADWIoY
Ill({ ~E'l[ NO Jr.-S'Rftl
PAA:i(I%, ~.f: PlA.~ (,'rf'l
~
OS F[[T WiDE' CUPS, t.i H:'f:-' 'NIDI.' Sr;f'v~:,I" At~D
'J l"fTT WIDe t.ANCS(;APlhG NEA.!~ THf' rJUIL.DiN(; : ,I IHI
Gf{('JUNU !--I,OCH flAS PAFi:':'IN::; ,:;,;flAGL 1-\E~'I:,j[.t<1 ''c.
'3U'l.i)!NG),
I .11.: __ ~~Itl.~ 6' -II'
W
10' 'rr ti
~,
10',1' ,'" ,'5 H,LT W!Df OHlB, 12 FEET II"::D,: SIDEW/\u-(. AM, ,I 1-t_ (' r
WIUi;; I...q~JL6CflP;Nl.i Nf:AH Ihie GLIl [-'1M. TH£T~ IS \; -I I
:.,[-;::;::;6 ~r'-,c" :>; LlF-L'IL' 'H'~; M,(; \"liD]" h C)~'l
;; iH,:. ; I \_; ~',U v/,n'{ L:!:.I'U~~Hj':':~ Oi'J THE u::-f OF
t.'Lh; I~F:;t,; (;.'~, '-~iUl :~,)L 0 1 "He: ~,-I Ht::L r
,",,«:,,,
1'-10. i ;;Aft " " ~~D ~ppp.
Rt'lt>l.: F'(~ ~~~C\.!oRlIolEHh
REVls,orl
~ ~ 1-21':
t'RA1IIj Sf It')(UII cll
ro>.O
-(HcCi<11iff ." Af'P~0';[Il B¥
"" '" I)A'I[--
NO'; Ie, 20ag
J 0 8 No.; l~OOo.",;
PIJ'J\I/II;
~ ~ 4-5' CUIlB (JW) ~ ,." " " \-~ !-:v:
~-SiOC'lI-L~ [Xr,wl'; 10 RO~OfiY
tOl.f lIHfR( ~o Ilf.I-SlR£fT
P,.'Ii'lKi:-iC C/-n/<GE IN THE: GIlUV.J1.l ~JI:'Mi (hE
F;ETi':L PORTI:)N OF 1'I-<E 8UILOINGI ~
f
STREET C -TY~~~. ,Rl?ADWAY SECTION ED ~IoIlKlNG. n i'L.1.'i il)")
00 1111I00I
~HJfll lOOIlG
1·lD-m-1555
SCALE'
o>.S NlllED
kpff j.." ........... "'-'""."'" ..... -... ~~,.,
-~~ -.-.-
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
QUENOAll 1[RIOINAlS Sli[,l-1
4350 WE WAStlMGTOlt IIOUL£VARD, ADmIN. WASHINGTON
LAND USE. SHORELINE It ~ASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION C302
ROADWAY SECTIONS
, ,
~
" t
j
1
1
i
!
I
" I~~ o
1--
,,; .. )1'-",
NO, I DAI, , .. (',,1)
1.(11CH'~ /
"'0;' --Vi ':if·
1;,',1','" ";';-
(,,,',,/,! ';:1" (';11i'1(', ,-, \'! lA, elJI E~ .::. ,: ',} U ;, ,;C '!,ALe;
.: ~ 1\ l.
l '1' " 'Ace",) , "
I 10' ,'" II' 1,0 ,,. y
,i' ,~,~:~::::, ~ 'j' n~' nrrc;'=~=:"'o'.;I_-i.AADSCfU'[
STREET D -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION 0
"CI.l.E. " :.'
1)',IT,'W',;l.CV<: "-
~,ji\,M ;I,,~; FfFI ~'; .;;:. S;; ;;,:'C-" ',.IA,'
i'F<~PF' 'tTl' LIN,:
,;1 fI:J!J lC 1 ,·l 1(, Lt.-1
-,vIL', 1 ;\11[>:;''':':'1'11,<;
~ " • ':.Ifc-:-.kK;' • lMOSC·¥.
~ g • !~.
'iAAl£S,~l~·_l!," ~
10 '1' -. ,
,/ ~'c\''RlI(rW)
1 ,.2' -u:
>0 ",
JoljE
;3_
" "
__ V~55' ~j
I
,OM'" ,
::~> i
STREET E -TYPICAL P,RIV,ATE DRIVE SECTIONED
~.'JJ,
ALTERNATE SECTION. SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR_ TH_E f.>0RT10N OF STREET E WITH PARKING ON 80TH SIDES.
d:.iH::l{AI.. i~()lf:: If f;-JiDiU)r~Al. f\;\/fU WiDTH IS Rf,OlJIRED TO PROVIDE THE );liWMUM SEPAflATAIQN 8ETWEEN UTILITY LINES, THE STREET WiDTH SHOULD BE (NCHE.MiED ACCOnD!i'1G:..'/,
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OO"11!j 81 !l1';UN!l1fl
~A[' \OTJ
"r5ifffmaT ;-FP~Q\fIlm _+ ~ .. ~__ WTJ )~1£ \jAY
i>fI0o>ED f'tR r.'Ill(;~","" REOO,~EJ,oEki; NO .. k 20~9
l\iOPP REIiISI()N .1 'J a n",' l~OOO',,)
ClIl ~O IJlIISI
~Ufll[ 100 II:
1-800·111-5555
s. C A ~ E-
.\$ N\HED
lqJff '"'.'''''''~''~ ~",''''-N''''",
~--, .... ~''' •. ''; ,,~ ~'1.;j~.1 ~
QUENOALl TERl.ljNAlS
4550 UK! WASHUIGTOH BOUlE't'ARO, RENTOH, WASHlHGTOH
LAND USE, SHORELINE &: MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS
~H[I
C303
,
i I
J
1
i
i
I
I
I
• ,
<, I'OLA-'--' " •
P()'CHAA. ~n~~I1~ W;';1--" >\\ ,"'\ ~~.~-S------'-"'_..lr'
"'" ",
ilAf<IIi:( WIL'. [N'lrr·
(
,"":" " . • ">--.
_~\k~,-:_:,; ~~.~"~._~_~~"_~_~~_~ __ -~; : to oJ-"'»l'0:k~ ... _-, ...... , .... ;~ __ ':.~. __ ~~J: ... _:.., .. _._:.~_:~~:,~~l:~:. "-';';O~:;6~-;'-"4.J-_ . _/:,.~ .. ~~l_. .. Kl VAT~ -<;/ ? V/ ______ '
1? --
""
rt'll\J-oJ~ IlilfJ
AT lOW;>:.li!;1S (ftP)
------1-"'4--
~~ ---~
L4K;-~ ~-=-~ ~SHING ___ ., ___ RI~EY LANE
-.TONIJ ~-. --
-------------=== ----
N~T.Es.;
O'i-tkO!llAIIIW Rf,YWIAIiCti .\IlIl ~'!IG'~:JN (If "l1E I"ill-'!RI', .... l
!Ii ,;C<.OOCTD f'fo:K., r" oc,o::clf1.iOji. I\lf £tj\1FlU<M'~l/.i.
PRorr~lIW I.CEl<Cf ([PA) r, ->l( ll;l!) MDCY f(J! !H ;;HI:
HUl!lJlI11':ll ANI) IoI;IIGATCtI 1.I;11<JH'; IlHli I.R[ W B£ i'ERfOOllffi
~r TIt; (llJ(N(J1oil TH'Ii'WU 'llE JIH~ SU~
jj~!~'l. OOIl.;')jNC 1<C<'f (liI~1Ii CQIlN;.CTIc""S ,_,~ P'f"~G IlAT i:I!c --J fU:':'Bl£ UTUT! CC,,~,HD/G ~All 81. IND tll.lWill1 ';I;j< .. I:RfRfO
!II~J)I/;(;S \NIJ U~~I",,lI~IiJP-IO 'H ~;HS m ~,~_'l ,h, flJ>.< Of
P ..... ~Gl JU UllJlh Dut: 10 OtHI'HlllAL :;cmiljENI,
---_c:..'"o . '"'~--'. ____ ,l~ ,~
,. __ F~· --. ~"
2Q oj( 6C.
, .. ~ ,
ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED AS MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE QUENOAlL TERMINALS
MITIGATION DOCUMENT ARE APPLICABLE AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
l~ ,"'''' ... ~,~ :\.}-'...... ...,,~ "'_"",, . -..... --LAND USE, SHORELINE " MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION
CONCEPTUAl STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN
C300
i
1
!
I
I
!
i
!
1
1 ,
" ,
~-~.~~
I'i(~,.~·~. ~ --------..----
--,--.--'-,
~
---..=----
'.
\
LAKE WASHINGTON
ORDitI,oRr HICH ~ATER \lAR\(
El.[\/=IS67
SIT NOlI , '" ~ -,_
(T1'I' ENTIRE 'SHOIiEUNE)
-I)IJILIll '/iIlH
tNCRGrIlIS~WION
'()1W 5[mACl(
-:~'
RESID[Nn~L
NOTES:
EN~RON~EHTI<t R€J,oECIA~ON AND ~ITIGHON Cf M PR(ffRTY MLL BE
COOJC!I1l PflIOR TO DE\{lOPW[~T lHE EliVR(tj~[I<ll<L /'il{)TECTIOO
~liNCl (EPAIIS THE LEiJl ~GfHCr ,OJ'! ALL SilE P:£!lEDUl)); '\NIl
IIITIGAUIli .COONS III1ICH AI![ TO OC PEilfOOWED Al lH (l(.IENDAl1
llRYln/.lS 51ll U~~ ~U~
1 lliE PR<)"(CT 9lE ~UDES IoPPIlDXI~AIELY ',2:) fEET Cf SH<:l'lELNE
/,lONG LAl(E WASHINGTOO. A l00-rOOT WDTH RlPAAI.IH SETDACK
[I/£AStJRED 8/(),I THE ffiDlMRr 111>1 ~'\l£R WilKi AN~ P.oR.'.lILS
/,lONG 11£ SH~NE ,\ SHORELJlE RESIORATJOO Pl.AH tS BENG
J[~11EIl /.NO !.P"IltMl) ~IlEFl [1''\ lH:CnON
J ,JJSTlHC IlEILONDS MD CONCEPTlII.I. 1IE!\..oJ'C CREAnI)N/RESTCWWION
I,IlE;,S SHOi\ll ~A\O[ NOT ~(C[MD nNI.l EPA DESOGN IWROVAL
I.DDlTIONI<I. 8lJllDI~C !;0Cf OR,oJN COHHEC~I)IS AHD Plf'jNG WAY 8€
'EC\JIRtD
5 'lD:IEli unuTY C\lNNECn~S SHm 8E lIS[j) ElEl'iIUII SlIlUCTURED
3UILOI~CS ~D UNSTRUCTlJR€D SHE >R,AS TO >IIHll.lllE 'liE RISK IJ'
JAW.lGE TO UTIUllES DUE TO OtFfrnENTIAL SETJl.IWENl
I ''1''1'' I I I NO. DA l[ BY CHO Arp~
~[\I1SEr, FiR ~ITIGl.n,~ R[QJ,Rl)jj-NfS
REVISION
LEGEND:
,)JSTIHC 'j£lU'()
is([ NOIE J) ~
~ CONCEPWAL IlEn..oND CflE.\TJOO/RESIOOAUOII
[SEE NOTE 5)
---OCSiOOB1 em I'fI) ass
kpff ::E:::~~""'-DRAI'III Br WT J ys lUll. roo f*; TAD APPf!()I£D BY OA
www,...,..-.
CHE~~ BY ~A" 1-.m-5S5J
-DATe
NOV 16, 2009 S ': 'b~E~
JOB NO,:1500C50 ASN
-"
\. '\.
'. 001\/(1'111111
'--ENERGY IlISSiPATOH
"~
41.:5.
RESIDENTIAL
ltf..h_~1
'~
I
,Jj
•
~/
" <
, "'" _ «l fL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
QUENDAll TERWINALS ~
4350 wr WASHINGTON IIOUI.£VAID, ROOON, W.+.sHINGTOH
LAND USE. SHORELINE & ~ASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION
CONCEPTUAL STOR~ DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN
C301
[
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
~ ,
'j f ,,":'-':;itT L",'~S,?,;tWt ON-:',:'}F (;IRC.;\'idION SIUUY . ,)
f-'Hr 12' CfNl'E-H <' W,W Li:'f'!
pf,f-iKlr~,,; i.,"t'A~;r
-.."1:,"£0, l N,c.:·,,( i.he .;;
OF nc·· he
~ ,
II
I
, . t--;;---
"Mi/:'w; -r" ojli.w~1
"-,)jllSCAP£ I UI~
i-"Z:':C.R";~
'.:.?.!
-,~ , • ""'
\··6" Cl'lm (1"!'1
''''_~, ?i'.i"f.:,-:;rA, ",,, "I'X-·
~
_. __ .c,l;\t-t········.··.· ~
I:;'i)!.[. -:-.".".~;".".".". ~~. , ... , .. o~
-~ ;21_
EAS£M£j'; ~ ""'ST; j
'Ii iE-(A ,'b::, '->:'(: 1 I<..lb i:-;_Fr,~Lr,< rs !\h[: W:DTHS Or,
SThFCI i.i WiU. VJ\HV LtYt· r~:H{G Of', fhi::. elSl Oi~
8LH.D:t~ '::::::, (;N lHE SieE OF ThF STR.: ET t IF TfIF
ClU i ~ H ru,;N: ;\I'j[:;;; I{lGl;IH:::':;
STREET A -TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
',/~J/'S
NO, I i)AIE
\,}.:-,[, Lfo.\!i~SCi,P" '"
. ',0 ,n,·", .. [i Ie: SlO[Wt,1 f..
'-'.\1/,11;,-,< ,
s
" ~ , ,
~
10'
~1IA1.~,'\:AIIG~IiI:·
W:iH ,,,,':.'(,.;h,,:'f.
':21
~-111
PAAI<IiC •
~
~
H·o)J!lIl(nPi (;;!
I~ -"
SCJUf-4
,.. ~I
;GI'
-l---
I
l",H"Mr::~;j" 'N'i) 1 "
" ""
"-
~
"
S;' Ci ;()I'; F} .. E.idl: NTS !i;\L") </,"C) l'r,S Of\:
3 wiLL Vi\;Y [;["h.),':!-)[mV, uN ) ,k LSL ()f
f>lJli i.!'hC,f; {y~ :7:11 NE.n SIDe OF TMi:': ::,7~Ff'.:
STREET B -TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
ar C>11) ~FFR
• • ~ "'_~!':~ty ii' 'a'
Pi.»;.IHG • ~
W
10" 1',011
'M
~-(:m:'I~
10'11' ,'" =i ~ <=', ,~~-~. OM(ru» ~
'~ '-n
rilE UiO:,,-S Sl-(, I i::;0~ i:""E:Mt':i"'-:-S ,\~D '/1jL)ThS Ot~
~-TRFFT C WiLl V';"F~"{ ~J;:;'~MilN(, (),\1 'hI:': USE: OF
BUILD:t\G~) ()t.. [ITI k:R S11X' c,: nit: T' ,~[[";
REl-hW p[, ~Oliif![Yi.N'"
Rf\ll~(!1'1
Of!l.lIIIBi
TAO
iClita<IDBY .,"
1~:'»IfIllll ." ~PPFo:(l'.{l) at
o.IAV
j),,1'[--
NO'! 16, 20G9
JG 0 No ,I~()CO~'J
ClIlOO IOOS
~~1I!1Il1OO II;
HIHI-Sl5S
SCALE:
.\$ "OTtJ)
-" "-
EAS~~.l'-1'iT ,';'II),H
STREET C -TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
kpff
st.ld' I" • ~.
"'''''"''''''",.,,,,",,'~ ...., .. "' .. .,,,
~~-....... -.
<
'" ',!-'P,ELtM+: 1;5
" ""
,
--~o~---·-i
•••• , '''''''''''''''''''''''''-1 ,
~
10' if
pm~r;·ci'i·'Sli(;Vi.Ui"·
.,.
'>O["'A1.,~CSCI.P(
wm'l TREe (il\!'-:-C
~ ;
8
'" "P~11;6
!.:It . ,
c
~~ 1-Z1i
' ..... -~ALX bTl10S 10 ROl.QltAy
~ itlEfl[ ~o ;lH-snm:r
POii!<'1!G, ~fPlm (1)1»
l
05 FEET WlDE CURB,;3 F:::ET WIDF S:CFWfll.,K. Af'iD
,\1 FEET WIDE LANDSCAPING NEAR ThE BUILDING ,:r ,H~
GROUND FLOOR HAS PARKING U,RAGE
& UUILOiNG) .
11' Sll>"WA<.'
l.~.~
-,
illS FEET WIDE CUR8, 12 FL[) WIDe -SIDEWALK .;)':,.U.I r;:c'
W"IDE LANDSCAPING NElIR THE BUILOii'.:(3 ii, THERl" b
rRKI~G .C:P:-;:~?E IN THE GFlOUNO, FLoon . NEA.H T :·IE
.~ETAIL PO~. ,,,-,,j OF THF. BUILDING,.
-9OCI'I'J,t." DIfI()S m R().<!lUY
[DCf IlI£RE ~D OO--,JR££l
PAI!I(llG. ~t f'l!.!oi (lW)
NOT fOR CONSTRUCTION
QUENOALL TER~INALS
4!50 wa: WASIII!GTOH IIOUlIYARD. RDfTQf" WASHINGTON
LAND USE. SHORELINE & ~ASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION
ROADWAY SECTIONS
~I<(,ll
C302
f
1
j
f
I
!
1
!
!
"' ~"r'R
O:,',F' ',';'PC'r>.;~
d
I I • L 10' 10 11' ~. 10' _II' __ ._
I .}M'XAP£", '" Lm! jJIE SlDE:wi.lY. 1 S"iP-A(.r; I
I : ""~",, J _ VAA>L'"'i '; ,/ l'I
/ -·-[fZ::lOulLliLtLLU,,,_:ILc, ~<;;Z62L=L",_~dJ""-=-";~-
1(,\lOi €X /
f"":H.j"~ir ',:.IL:"
STREET D -TYPIC~:-'L~R:~ATE DRIVE SECTION( D
()','-I:,
~ f·c!: I \'~i~':: fg"".kr.'
~FP/'F"\T;('~ "i;;;'3
,--') ,
-'"
~'-IH:;~ \;UfU
,~ "
,-AI\ M ;I,~~; Fn:::r W;:J : SLh' .'), f "';_'1.\
f'h')P~ ,.; r J Llht:.
\tIID~ I,Af'L,_~,CF\I'IH("
! 1-
m'
• ',II:UA..~) • lmJ>o,;Ofi
~r, !j
il • It,_
'ilJljES .J!~'-111' I
l() )I' "" ..
,/-';C\iP.!l(I'YP)
"
:"\"i;" ~~ .. ,' W [;1~"
"
"
\1' ",.
< o
~AA~S S~ "yj
'1' "'''''~ ':
... W!"
STREET E -TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
5!:AJ.L t" _.
ALTERNATE SECTION SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PORTION OF STREET E WITH pARKING ON BOTH SIDES,
OOAiIfI "1
7J>!:C
COIf.Ci<EiiB1
wr..;
1*:'~Cti!l'-B)
'" o.I'f~(Nf~ at
!.IAV
ClIlTIIJIISIifS\ QUENDALL TER~INALS
4lSO L\k£ Wo\SHlHGTOH 8OlIlfiARO. RENTOH, W~SMIH(JTOM
'".~,",' '~ ... '",
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
~t,jI:'1
[)~H
NO'I ,~. 2~O"
IIHftl!jOO~
1·800-m~15\ lqJff '"", ...... ".,.
,..m,..'~ "_._,,,,,," LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION C303
J 'J D ~o, '~;C"D:;(j
sell L [
A:> NI)lH) ROADWAY SECTIONS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
March 28, 2016
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Traffic Concurrency Test -Quendall Terminals;
File No. LUA09-151
The applicant is requesting Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and SEPA Environmental Review for a mixed-use development located at
4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 acres and is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential
(COR) and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be
divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain 6 - 7 story mixed-use buildings. Overall, the
development would consist of 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of
40.95 units/acre), 20,025 square feet of retail and 9,000 square feet of restaurant. The
applicant has proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide
access to the 7 proposed lots. Surface and structured parking would be provided for 2,171
vehicles. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear feet of
shoreline along Lake Washington.
The proposed development would generate approximately 5,656 net new average weekday
daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 435
net new trips (104 inbound and 331 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project
would generate approximately 530 net new trips (340 inbound and 190 outbound). The
proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as
follows:
EXHIBIT 17
Transportation Concurrencv ,est -Quendall Terminals
Page 2 of 3
March 30, 2016
Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria
Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan
Within allowed growth levels
Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees
Site specific street improvements to be completed by project
Traffic Concurrency Test Passes
Evaluation of Test Criteria
Pass
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: As shown on the attached citywide traffic
concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements
are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2016.
Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,
the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is
85,884 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 5,656 additional trips from
this project. A resulting 80,228 trips are remaining.
Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to
transportation impact fees at time of building permit for each new building.
Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to
complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the building prior to occupancy. Any
additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be
completed prior to final occupancy.
Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton
The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are
covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test
requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference:
D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS:
1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each
nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with
the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System
established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according
to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an
initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test.
Transportation Concurrency Test -Quendall Terminals
Page 3 of 3
March 30, 2016
2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity
permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of
the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the
decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying develapment permits
required for a develapment activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to
the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the
application and development permit.
3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project
Jails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker
with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit
application.
The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65
of the Comprehensive Plan states the following:
Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels
included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation
Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of
Renton cancurrency requirements.
BartEE Mill.AcCESS
NEW
~
NEW ~
QUENDALL
TERMINALS
~NtcW
Lake Washington Blvd
NEW_La.
t iil<~ ( ";'-:1 ()n l '-'''~' W,'I:'i'I'";I.,::;:::.', :j, 'C: ;,'\ lJ,~ ::I','\iicdl lHt'1 :~()Cld-I,,~~:i)n t'l/til \'\1::-.00"1
HipleyLn
aka
Seahavvks \~Jay
NEW
.J
~NtcW
N
!
ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICULAR LANES REQUIRED TO MITIGATE PROJECT IMPACTS
(Included in DE IS, EIS Addendum, FEIS, or Mitigation Document)
EXHIBIT 18
City of Renton Department of Communi, Economic Development
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Report 01 Hearing Date April 19, 2016
ing Examiner Recommendation
WA09-1S1
Page 450145
X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a crossing for vehicles
and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-of-way.
XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and public trail
users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls
for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying common bike rack
locations, numbers, and design.
XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures BlO, G3, G2, G10, Gll
and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager
and the Community Services Department.
XIII. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the amended street cross
sections, in Exhibit 16.
XIV. A transportation study shall be completed to analyze the need for a center turn lane in Road
A. Depending upon the outcome of this study, Road A street designs shall be amended
accordingly and reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above under XIII.
XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated conceptual utility
plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer:
a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property frontage to
be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The existing water line cannot
be accessible for repair and maintenance due to the location of the proposed new
Road A.
b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be within the
paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100 foot buffer. The water main
must be located at least 10 feet away from the building foundation and outside of the
shoreline riparian area.
c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main.
d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100 shoreline buffer.
e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton regulations.
XVI. If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access from the
project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive sign age, and
amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A public promenade along the lake side
of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public
parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant
public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
XVII. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking agreement
shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying compliance with
Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared parking agreements shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Public Works
Department, Transportation Division.
HEX REPORT 09-151.docx
REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER APRIL
11, 2017 WITH EXHIBITS 19-23
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
DATE: April 11, 2017
TO: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, LUA09-151
Following the canceled public hearing from April of 2016, the Applicants have requested
the City consider a Development Agreement. As such, this memorandum addresses the
Development Agreement and changes to the project which result from the proposed
Development Agreement. This memo is intended to supplement the staff report to the
Hearing Examiner which was issued in April of 2016, for the original scheduled hearing
date of April 19, 2016. Only those items identified below have been changed and/or are
proposed to be changed from the original staff report.
Updated Project Description:
The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-
use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is
zoned COR and located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site
would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-use buildings. The
Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential
density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant],
1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has
proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access to
the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583
linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a
Superfund deSignation from the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the
following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and
street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier
and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake
Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the
remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval term
to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development regulation
vesting would be maintained.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 2 of7
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 fol/owing FOF's are identified with letters to eliminate and
confusion with the original staff report)
a. On March 16, 2017 an Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
(Exhibit 20) was submitted to the City to consider. The Enhanced Alternative
would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of 40.95
units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to
be constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parkingfcommerciallevel. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include
the followi ng:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains,
a rtwork, 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 EI5
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 EI5 alternatives in the past SEPA review.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearino _ .. aminer
Page 3 of7
April 11, 2017
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015
FE IS 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 1S
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 SFwhich would result in a maximum of 133 stalls required forthe
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 ofthe development it is anticipated that the parking garage would
no longer be the dominate structure viewed from the Lake or shoreline
trail.
v. FOF 26, Master Site Plan Review, j. Distinctive Focal Points: The "street
activation" identified in the development agreement are anticipated to
provide distinctive focal points throughout the development. However,
the specifics have not been identified at this time. As such staff
recommends as a condition of approval that Public Art, fountains, or
other street activation features proposed to be located in the roadways
shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing 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, Storm water: The
Development Agreement would extend the project beyond January 1,
2022, as such specific requirements tying compliance with an updated
stormwater manual to this date are no longer applicable. Therefore staff
recommends that condition of approval 32 of the staff report be
removed. The project will be required to comply with all applicable
stormwater requirements at the time of building and construction.
viii. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Transportation: The
Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak
hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would
represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak
our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative.
Additionally, the center left-turn lane that was included as a part of
Street 'A' is eliminated in the Enhanced Alternative. The removal of this
turn lane was evaluated by TranspoGroup, in a memorandum dated
January 12,2017, Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit 21. The
analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the
Enhanced Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the
Street' A' intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations. As a
result condition of approval 44. XIV shOUld be amended accordingly.
Additional transportation analysis was included in the EI5 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 FE IS for the EIS alternatives. With
implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the
1-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not
anticipated
ix. FOF 28 Availability and Impact of Public Services, Parks: The Development
Agreement adds 1.3 acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours of public
use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
public park hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying
that the park is for public use and the hours of public use. The signage
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director prior to insulation. An
easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding site
plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary
Occupancy of the first building on the site.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearino _"aminer
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 B'I tl:1e l-IeariRg ~),aFAiReF fer tl:1e PAa5ter Site PlaA, see 1=01= 2e.
12. The Development Agreement as drafted in Exhibit 20 is compliant with RCW 36-70B-
170.
New Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan,
Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative
described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff
report and any new conditions or modified conditions below.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition
that if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing
Examiner will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering
the decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff
report to the Hearing Examiner.
Amended Conditions of Approval: '
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage
improvements matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped
planter and sidewalk to be provided on the ~north side. The new private
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 7
April 11, 2017
access to be located at the Ripley lane (Sea hawks Way) access shall include 8
feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide sidewalk on south side of the
access. These off-site improvements shall be designed, permitted, constructed,
and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
first building on the project site
22. ~ West elevations of the building proposed on lots 2 and 5 shall be re-
designed to reduce to the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to
ensure the structures on the lake maintain a relation to the natural characteristic
and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design features could include landscape berming
and/or architectural details. Detail design of these buildings shall be completed
at site plan review.
32. AR'I enteRsieA te tl=le J:)Fejeet appreved ee'/sAd JaRl::Iary 1, 2Q22 SF ByileliRg aRa
e8AstrwetieR raeFffiits slcIBrTlittee tRat Vt'8b1IE1 e)(teRe tAB J3'rejeet e€yQREI JaRldary
1, 2Q22 sl::lall Be sbl8jeet te tAB blpEiated sterm\\fater FRaR\:Ial, iR sUes: at tAB
time-,
41. A Jilyslie JilremeRaae 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 S. This JilremeRaee fire lane and utilitv
maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture,
public art, water features, etc. Design of the JilremeRaees fire lane and utility
maintenance access road compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at
the time of lot specific site plan review.
43.l\R eaS€FR€Rt sRall ee s€st::.lreEi tram KiRg CSl:IRt'( SF atAer fl:ltbiFe flFe,aeFty StJlReFS
af tAB rail FBaB rigRt af way t8 pre'liaeei 'J€i=liGldlar 3RS peeiestriaR aeeeS5 1:8 tl:1e
prep8seEi ee ... elerameRt aGress tl=t€ rig At af way. TAB eaSeFReAt sRall Be RateS SR
tAB fiAel BiRetiRg site flieR aRei sRalilae reeeress 68RGblrreRtly "'/itR tAB eiRdiAg site
j}Iafr. 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) aRe NRQ SettlemeRt completed by the EPA. A
copy of the final ROD aRe NRQ SettlemeRt 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 Cl0.
Phil Olbrechts, Hearino ___ aminer
Page 7 of7
April 11, 2017
44. XIV. A traRs~artatiaA stloJEiy sl:1all ee EarR~leteEi te aAalyze tAe AeeEi fer a EeAter
tloJrR laAe iA RaaEi A. De~eREiiAg loJ~aA tl:1e el,ltEarRe eftA is stI,lEi'/, Road A street
designs shall be amended to remove the center turn lane aEEerEiiAgly 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 ~loJeliE ~rarReRaEie fire lane and utility maintenance access road along the lake
side of the development of Lots 2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road
B; and 4) Public parking a new public access plan shall be submitted identifying
compliance with the significant public access standards of the Shoreline Master
Program. The new public access plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager
New Conditions of Approval: (The following numbering picks up at the end of the April
2016 staff report.)
45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and
public access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use
and the hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community Services
Administrator with the construction permit application. The park and associated
signage shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on
the project site.
44. XVIII. A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review
and Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both
the specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions
of project approval. The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
approval of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
44. XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located
in the roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and
constructed and installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure
construction.
44. XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval
of any site specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
---.... Kenton ®
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
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 Al
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR 0 NOTYET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
____ , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Pogel
EXHIBIT 20
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall
Terminals
---.... Renton ®
Entire Document
Available Upon
Request
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
EXHIBIT 21
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement
Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below was issued by the
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public
review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the
EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in
the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be
mitigated. Copies are available for review at Renton City Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, 1055
South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site (Rentonwa.gov).
APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
PROJECT PROPONENT:
P~Seattle, WA 98101
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L. P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 1680
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46
acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010; evaluates potential impacts resulting from
a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the
Preferred Alternative the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced
Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the environment are addressed
in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and
Shoreline Use, Aesthetics!Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk
and Scale.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
4350 Lake Washington Blvd
City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
EXHIBIT 22
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTaNCY ANAYSIS
PAGE 2 012
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period forthis Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
3/zdn ~---'R1CkM:Mar5hai, Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
1 "" iJ ~!c<Z.U, Sf
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
entan
OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, SSP, SA·M, SM, DA
LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA
DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010, evaluates potential impacts resulting
from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the
Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed·use development. The
Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses Iretail and
restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the
environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health,
Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural
Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under WAC 197·11·510 and RMC 4-9·070 that the Environmental Impact
Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below
was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERe) Monday, March 20, 2017,
and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are
required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no
significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Copies are available for review at Renton City
Hall, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of
Renton web site).
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency AnalysiS is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1" floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if
mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant
unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT VANESSA DOLBEE AT (425) 430-7314; OR VIA EMAIL AT
VOOlBEE@RENTONWA.GOV.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER, VANESSA DOLBEE AT
(425) 430·7314.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
APR 3, 2017 -CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING -MOTION SHEET
Agenda Agenda Section Title/Item Motion Staff Contact Interested Parties
Placement ,
5.a) PUBLIC MEETING Bradley Annexation, A-16-001 COUNCIL CONCUR Angie Mathias Chip Vincent
TO AUTHORIZE THE Judith Subia
CIRCULATION OF
AN ALTERNATIVE
PETITION TO ANNEX
AND REQUIRE
ACCEPTANCE OF
THE CITY'S ZONING
AND ASSUMPTION
OF PROPORTIONAL
SHAREOFTHE
CITY'S EXISTING
INDEBTEDNESS
8.a) CONSENT Approval of Council Meeting minutes of March 27, 2017. COUNCIL CONCUR Jason Seth Megan Gregor
AGENDA Sandi Weir
8.b) CONSENT AB -1880 Administrative Services Department REFER TO FINANCE Jan Hawn Jamie Thomas
AGENDA recommends adopting the 2017 Carry-Forward Budget COMMITTEE Hai Nguyen
ordinance amending appropriations in the amount of
$67,570,325, the total amended budget to be $543,278,619
for the 2017/2018 Biennium; and approve the resolution
amending the 2017-2018 Fee Schedule.
8.c) CONSENT AS -1881 Community & Economic Development COUNCIL CONCUR Vanessa Dolbee Chip Vincent
AGENDA Department recommends consolidating the public hearing Judith Subia
process, for the Quendall Terminals proponents, for both
the land use entitlements and the development agreement
,
I
and deferring this process to the City's Hearing Examiner. I
8.d) CONSENT AS -1879 Community Services Department requests COUNCIL CONCUR Carrie Nass Roberta Graver
AGENDA approval to waive $26,640 in fees for park & shelter rentals, TO APPROVE THE
parking garage passes, and permit fees for community CONSENT AGENDA
events happening in 2017. Council Concur. AS PRESENTED
EXHIBIT 23
OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
LOCATION:
QUENDALL TERMINALS
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
4350 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA
DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The Consistency Analysis with the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 10, 2010, evaluates potential impacts resulting
from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the
Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is intended to be a mixed-use development. The
Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and
restaurantL 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The following elements of the
environment are addressed in this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health,
Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Cultural
Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC 4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact
Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described below
was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March 20, 2017,
and is available for public review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is Consistent with
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are
required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no
significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Copies are available for review at Renton City
Hall, Customer Service Counler, 6th floor, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057, and on the City of
Renton web site).
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if
mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant
unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT VANESSA DOLBEE AT (425) 430-7314; OR VIA EMAIL AT
VDOLBEE@RENTONWA.GOV.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER, VANESSA DOLBEE AT
(425) 430-7314.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
Department of (omrr
Economic Developmem
·tyand
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A public hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in Council Chambers located
on the Seventh Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057
on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am to consider the following petitions:
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151
An application for Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The site is 21.46 ac and is zoned COR and
located within the Urban Shoreline designation. The 21.46-acre site would be
divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-use bUildings. The Enhanced
Alternative would contain 692 residential units (resulting in a net residential density of
40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be
constructed as 3 - 5 stories over one parking/commercial level. The applicant has
proposed to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-way, which would provide access
to the 7 proposed lots. The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and
1,583 linear feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The subject site has received a
Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
property owners are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The proposed
Development Agreement and associated Enhanced Alternative primarily include the
following: 1.3 acres of public park space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and
street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.), the addition of either a public dock/pier
and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access to Lake
Washington, Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all
the remaining buildings would be 6-stories, and Extension of Land Use Permit approval
term to 10-years with possible extension opportunities in which development
regulation vesting would be maintained. Detailed information can be found on the
City of Renton web site, Rentonwa.gov.
Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the City Clerk's Office, Seventh
Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public
Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing
Examiner at 425-430-6515.
Publication Date: April 07, 2016
,
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, loP.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals I LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Quend;lll Tt"Tmmills I Apphcilnt -:--Iotice of Issuance ilnd '\\-,nlabihty EIS CorlSlslenc~ Anal}sl~
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. Ifthe additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
,
.',,_/ of" ,",UI, Department of Communit
Quendall Terminals
March 16, 2017
:onomic Development En nento/ Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 012
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review, No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
ERC ISSUANCE &'AVALABILITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSI", .NCY ANAYSIS
PAGE 2 of 2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the pt Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa,gov,
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated, There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa,gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Kelly Beymer, Administrator
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
q
-----.L3-1--'iz"",ot+-JJ 1+-7 . (/;'L---
{ick M, Marshall, Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
:2-00-// C.z. U, '-S~
Date
c.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Entire OOCUnl\?nt ai<flilablE for put"cha5f: at
REnton Cit,,' Hall, Finance Departm~'nt 1~ Floor
few SlO p;;.r-hard CCIPY or can bf: downloaded for
tree on City of Renton JAre-bsitf:, Re:ntNiW.1.gov Quendall
Terminals
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 5. 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 0 NO. YET ASSIGNED
£'1";: )_CIJr. l;\.II,t; I,. ~,HrH;~
R.,-::n:17/-j',>Ir.r,-;:f:!fc;m-or':'·;:xr
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT {"Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
___ ,2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
Community & Economic
Development Department __ Ren ton 0
1055 South Grady Way
Re WA 98057-3232
Jennv MannJnR
1205 N 10th PI
Renton. WA 98057
::1-[:;I} :,; j ::: ;:::: 1'-·1 j"""j F::: ':::i i;;:i ;'-:;1 '::;;"
--~---ltenton ®
NOTICE
OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: QUENDALl TERMINALS
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09·1S1, EIS, ECF, asp, SA·M, SM, OA
LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton, WA
DESCRIPTION: The proposal is located adjacent to Lake
Washington on 21.46 acres ofCommerclal/Office!Residential (COR) zoned property. The
Consistency Analysis with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (OElS) issued December 10,
2010, evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Enhanced Alternative established through a
proposed Development Agreement. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative is
intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would contain 692 residential
units, 42,190 SQ. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurantl, 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres
of parks/open space. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this Consistency
Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, land and Shoreline
Use, Aesthetics/View5, Parks and Recreation, Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk
and Scale.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under WAC 197·11~510 and RMC 4-9·070 that the Environmental Impact
Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental Consistency Analysis) for the proposal described
below was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee on (ERC) Monday, March
20,2017, and Is available for publiC review. The ERC has determined that the proposed actions is
Consistent with the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives In the past SEPA review. No new
mitigation measures are required beyond those identified In the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Copies are
available for review at Renton City Hali, Customer Service Counter, 6th floor, lOSS South Grady Way,
Renton WA 98057, and on the City of Renton web site).
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EI5 Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from
the Finance Department on the lSI Floor of Renton City Hali for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and
postage (if mailed) or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS
and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be
mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are
no new significant unaVOidable impacts that cannot be mitigated by the e~isting environmental
documents.
if you have any questions, please contact vanessa dolbee at (425)430-7314; OR via email at
vdolbee@rentonwa.l!ov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE
PROJECT MANAGER, VANESSA OOLBEE AT (425) 430-7314,
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR
PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Ai f t I] G r ¥ J1 @±h ' hereby certify that -3-copies of the above document
were posted in~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on
"," 3 b-Q, L 17 S;""d atf-~
STATE OF ~ASHIN~TON
55
COUNTY OF KING
I certify that I know Dr have satisfactory evidence that /11 €oX Il\(),c)~" m~
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument,
Notar~;JiliJinr{i'fO/;h~ State of Washington
Notary (Print):
My a p po i ntm ent exp ires : __ -o'JL1l-'",c ~:;!.' ,-J1"".(,-,-i_--,,2_'.<,.i, --"~2,,,G,,-(-,-I _____ _
FilE COpy
Denis Law Mayor
April 11, 2017
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Parties of Record
Various
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-1S1, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report tooihe
Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available:
•
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 5 Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report
is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if
docu ments are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
v,
0>
S '" en ro 0 I·-00
run. cr>
cJ:: <{ ~~ -" S ON
o<)Z C
C '" 0
~
.c rl C
0° " _, rl '"
>, cv
m CO
0 ~-'" ~ CO
0 ~, ;', u V 'n '" " CO
8 ~) '0 S;
~ C' c· .~
C
~, ~ x ~
~
~ 0 , v. C
0 c 8 q E en .n L
0 C' U U CC
Denis Law Mayor
April 11, 2017
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent Administrator
Parties of Record
Various
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report tQ the
Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available:
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report
is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if
documents are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
1055 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
® City of Renton
Community & Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057-3232
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th PI
Renton, WA 98056
;;;:: c;, ":::: j::;: Hi;: I:::: 1"',j /'-1 I~:.r '::'ii !;';;i C;i i:";;; I::.:'
Denis Law Mayor
April 11, 2017
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Parties of Record
Various
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-1S1, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 5 Grady Way. The Staff Report t9 the
Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available:
• • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 10555 Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-1S1
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report
is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if
documents are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
® ""X ~"" ... ".~ -~:'J~' "'\, .
Cty of Rt::llc.HI
Cotr:rn~lnity & Ecor~or)"li( DC\Ic!oprncr:t
1055 Sout;"] Grady \Nay
Retlto[~, vVA 98057-3232
Kelly Smith
6811 Ripley Ln N
Renton, WA 98056
.... :~ .. ; .. ·:;::::r' .. ~:~: j. ;:'.::":::::::~ C.C!(
, Denis law Mayor
April 11, 2017
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Parties of Record
Various
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, lUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report to ~he
Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available:
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report
is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if
documents are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
® City of Renton
Community & [conomic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 9805/-3232
Roger Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC
1111 3rd Ave, #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
";:'j:i:, I:::. ::: I:: :;:::j (··fj···Jj~· '::) i;::i J.,
•
Denis Law Mayor
April 11, 2017
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Parties of Record
Various
SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner
Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Parties of Record:
A public hearing on Quendall Terminals will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report to the
Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available: -
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov)
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 10555 Grady
Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number 09-151
• Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report
is $1.95, plus a handling and postage cost of $4.00 (this cost is subject to change if
documents are added).
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 -rentonwa.gov
c
" E
Cl
0
'" > '" 0
u
f ~ ~
""' 0 CO ~
c ::;: cC
0 ,~ " u U en w C' 0 c c2l OJ
0 \J '" C " _C "" ~ S CD '-~ cc ~ 0 ,~ E co c
0 .s E ~ A "' c ~ 0 0 '" U U lL
1':'\ ...... . v
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, SSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 -rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vi ncent, Administrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, l.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, l.P.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.S-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be simijar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would S stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
(~fll oj I. _dl()l~ Department of Comm
Quendall Terminals
March 16, 2017
& Economic Development ronmental Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 of 2
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
ERe ISSUANCE" AVALABIUTY!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CO"SIST,NCY ANAYSIS
PAGE2of2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
/q---
Date
/~
1iick M. Marshall, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
I ... ~
:2-05t2-/1 CZ. U, s:~
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
£ntiriO. DOCUi~"I.:.nt <l'.'dilablf. fClt" pl;rd-ld:3f at
Rf.r,~or, Cit,,' h:i!I, Fin3r{2 Dfp3ri:I';-12nt 1l": Flx,r
fCH' $10 ~'H }'iard [C'py N can b;:: a'cwnloao'£d for
fr;;;~ (,r-· City of REnon wfbsitE. Re:ntonlwva.gu, .. Quendall
Terminals
-----.....-r'"Renton ®
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR 0 NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
___ ,2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
'j 1///// I/Iil)
:((\I,(!(i({I('
\\\\\\\'\\\\\\ !) , ) )) )) \ )}) ))
i., I ( (l (( ! (. \ (I
., 1:. \ \ I \ \
,\ ' ·.1 \\
)j.)() ... ). ).)) /.'J.)
! j ( I ( I I I.
\ \ . \ ' \\ \
I . i (. ,'" 1/( )
'.. (! ";;.. .,:.... .'. '. ..,) .. ~ I I
:, . Cf\ ('~ \ I \; .. ")').~. ~~ )\)\ \ I . (.~ )
/. Ii (~i~~ I (. (I· I i. -<J.l. ,
" \ '\. en:~ \ \ '\ \,
I'. , .. . ",
"J
'" ."
~) ,-,
I:~)
,-,
'" '"
~)
r"
t;'
uJ
l:' ..
/~
H
:~:
'''' G>
"' G>
G , _.
en -.::;:
'" ,.,
'D t:l
'" '" .;
LIJ n-: 4: ,,",
QUI~ .:
;;::::U'Itk:" I,
W~:C:I
,...
lI"I =1 Ll. ,.;
2: G>
0 0 -...... :J:~.
U
Z:;:'U! ".,
~Vl-J
,,.,
::> 0:) N
I-CI <I; "' llJ .:a:: ;z:: N _.
"' :OJ '" --
h -I/'l ::;:::-~
oS>
",
'"
\J
III
--'---,
~ .. CIWOF.RENTON.~
." DEP'ARTMEN'fioF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC[)EVELOPMENT-PLAIliNING DIVISION
AFFIDAvrToF SERVICE;BYMAllIIliG
On the 11th day of April 2017, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing HEX
Letter documents, This information was sent to:
Contacts, Applicants, Parties of Record Please see attached copies of recipients
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrument 'l~~~~I&tjijed
it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the inst .. ~~~~"'f.
.= <,~.,., 'o" '~.~
..(} ~ O'A~ ,"lSI z
Dated: tAtl D ,'( II 2.or:l ct1,. ff '" ........ ~
I I Public in and for the State of WlIsflingUJ-n' -J ~
~ ~ ('J8\.,fJ ""'" :: 7'1c'J 1-""-
Nota ry (Pr,'nt) ', _____ tlJ:ill.!4-_---.!0!:~~~ _____ ~~"~'I,'~-~2!)!9~-'~ .. ',II!-i"~~:,O.$.: '\' IIl,U\\\\"""........ .:::
My appointment expires: dq ';)..0(=1 WAS"" ,:.:~
I '. '. """,
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-1S1, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM, DA
fionald & I:anessa Brazg
1019 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Rov & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Sallv Scott
Bad Bad Address See Notes
Renton. WA 980S6
Sherry and Robert Cline
4267 Williams Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Sue & Mac iahnke
1717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton. WA 98056
Suzanne & Donald Orehek
4103 Wells Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Tom Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton. WA 98056
Victor Chiu
1128 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Yvonne & Garv C. Pipkin
1120 N 38th St
Renton. WA 98056
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Ave
Renton. WA 98056
Rvan Durkin
1221 Second Ave, SOO Galland Building
Seattle. WA 98101
Scott Greenberg
Development Services Director, City of
Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th St
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Spencer Albert
Albert International, LLP
2442 NW Market 5t, Suite #722
Seattle. WA 98107
SUSAN MILLER
806 N 30th St
Renton. WA 98056
THEO & KIM BROWNE
1409 N 37th St
Renton. WA 98056
TONY BOYDSTON
3920 NE 11th PI
Renton. WA 98056-3537
William Skilling
3814 E Lee St
Seattle. WA 98112
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
SALLY ROCHELLE
3626 Lk Wa Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056-1508
Sheng Wu
1222 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Van Til
Vulcan
505 5th Ave S, Suite 900
Seattle. WA 98104
Susan Stow
1309 N 36th St
Renton. WA 98056
Tim Rilev
3607 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Trudv Neumann
922 N 28th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Winnie & Yuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
lriillis CI?rk Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle. WA 98101
Allison Hanson
WSDOT
600 108th Ave N E, 405
Bellevue, WA 98004
AMY LIETZ ROBERTS
AlR DESIGN INC
1006 NE 34th
Renton, WA 98056-1938
Anne Woodlev
7920 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 N E 28th St
Renton. WA 98056
Bud Worlev
4100 lake Washington Blvd N, #B-205
Carol O'Connell
1241 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 980S6
Christine Breen
1021 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Clair Hong
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10
1200, ECl-122 Sixth Ave, Suite 900
Seattle. WA 98101
Dan Mitzel
111 Cleveland Ave
Mt. Vernon, WA 98040
William Popp Associates
14400 Bel Red Rd, #206
Bellevue. WA 98007
Amit Ranade
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann GVgi
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
1221 Second Ave, Ste 500
Seattle. WA 98101
Bob & Mary Becker
1007 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600
Seattle. WA 98101
Charles & Rebecca Tavlor
1252 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Christine Chen
1128 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Connie Tavlor
DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS
3605 lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056-1509
AARON BElENKY
1800 NE 40th St, H4
Renton. WA 98056
Amv & Kevin Dedrickson
1012 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
ANNE SIMPSON
3001 Mountain View Ave N
Renton. WA 98056-2516
Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back
2302 N E 28th St
Renton. WA 98056
Bruce MacCaul
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave, #1680
Seattle. WA 98101
Charlie Conner
CHG SF llC dba Conner Homes at Piper'
s Bluff llC
12600 SE 38th St, Suite 250
Bellevue. WA 98006
Chuck & Svlvia Holden
3609 Meadow Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Cyrus McNeely
3810 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
Diane Espey Jackson
2419 Talbot Crest Dr S
Renton, WA 98055
"d Goines
Seattle' Sea hawks
12 Seahawks Way
Renton. WA 98056
FAYE JANDERS
2717 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton. WA 98056
Gretchen Kaehler
Department of Archaeology & Historic
Prevention
PO Box 48343
Olvmoia. WA 98504
Inez Petersen. J.D.
Starfish Law PLLC
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 1
Renton. WA 98056-1909
Jessica Winter
7600 Samd Point Way
Seattle. WA 98115
Jim Hanken
Wolfstone. Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc.
1111 Third Ave, Sutie 1800
Seattle. WA 98101
John Hansen
4005 Park Ave N
Renton. WA 98056
KATHLEEN DOW
1210 N 42ND PL
Renton. WA 98056
Kevin Iden
5121 Ripley Ln
Renton. WA 98056
Larry & Linda Boregson
1013 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Elisabeth Durr
1206 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Fred Warnock
1246 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Gwendolyn High
155 Yakima Ave NE
Renton. WA 98059
Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford
1102 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 980S6
JH Baxter & Co.
Altino Properties, Inc. &
800 S Third St
Renton. WA 98057
Jim Roy
1111 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 980S6
John Murphy
New Home Trends/ Inc.
4314 148th St SE
Mill Creek. WA 98012
Keith Preszler
3818 Lake Washington Blvd
Renton. WA 98056
KEVIN POOLE
627 High Ave 5
Renton. WA 98057-3918
Larry Reymann
1313 N 38th 5t
Renton. WA 98056
Farrel & Jonell Wilson
4063 Williams Ave N
Renton. WA 980S6
Glen St. Amant
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn. WA
Inez Petersen
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, #1
Renton. WA 980S6
Jeffrev Coats
Hollenbeck, Lancaster, Miller &
Andrews, A.A.L.
15500 SE 30th PI, Ste 201
Bellevue. WA 98007
Jim Hanken
15543 62nd Ave
Kenmore. WA 98028
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
Jon & MarilYn Danielson
1308 34th St
Renton. WA 980S6
Kelly Smith
6811 Ripley Ln N
Renton. WA 98056
"i"
Kim Douthitt
5901143 PI 5E
Bellevue. WA 98006
Laura & James Counsell
1122 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Laurie Baker
~107Mountaill View Ave N
. Renton-. WA 98056
Len & Pat Reid
1217 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
LOUIS TIBBS
807 N 33rd St
Renton. WA 98056-1901
Michael Christ
Immersion Services LLC
1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50
Renton. WA 98056
Mike Batin
3410 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Misty Blair
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave, SE
Bellevue. WA 98008
Paul & Susan Siegmund
1006 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Ramin Pazooki
WSDOT
PO Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133
Richard & Kathleen Bergquist
7244 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Robert Wilson
LAWRENCE DIXON
DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC
Leslye Bergan
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2
Renton. WA 98056
Marcos Santos
1209 N 31st St
Renton. WA 98056
Michael Mullinaux
1415 N 24th St
Renton, WA 98056
Mike Cero
8300 Avalon Dr
Mercer Island. WA 98056
Nancy Denney
3818 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Paw Thao
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
Ricardo & Maria Antezana
1025 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Richard Ferry
7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Roger Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC
11113rd Ave, #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Lawrence Hard
4316 NE 33rd St
Seattle. WA 98105
Linda Baker
1202 N 35th St
Renton. WA 98056
Mark Hancock
PO Box 88811
Seattle. WA 98138
Mike & Sharon Glenn
8825 114th Ave SE
Newcastle. WA 98056
Mimi MacCaul
Patty Witt
1204 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
Raiendra Agrawaal
1113 N 29th St
Renton. WA 98056
Rich Wagner
2411 Garden Ct
Renton. WA 98056
Robert & 50nya Tobeck
1003 N 41st PI
Renton. WA 98056
Ronald & Sachi Nicol
1030 N 42nd PI
Renton. WA 98056
, ,
March 23, 2017
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Denis Law Mayor
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals / lUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Quendnll Terminals.l Applicant -~Olicc of [ssu~nce and A~3t1;Jbllity J-'IS CU1151S1ellcl' Ano.l)515
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Admi nistrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
\
Lil/ of '. _deth, 'Department of Communit
Que'ndall Terminals
March 16, 2017
:onomic Development En nento/ Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 of 2
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review, No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
· ,
ERC ISSUANCE'& AVALABILITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONo,o.JNCY ANAYSIS
PAGE2of2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
3/2011] ~---~ Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
n ... ~ ~-dt2'/7 CZ. U, S~
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Emir€. DOCl..ltrlE'nt available for purc:ha~ at
REnton City Hall, f:inancE: DE:Pdrtm~nt 1:t f:loor
for $10 por h"d copy or c.n be downlo.dod for
frE:E: on Cit;' of Renton website, Renwnwa.gov Quendall
Terminals
"'Renton0
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVElOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR 0 NOT YET ASSIGNED
f -1 " • .1"-'0'; -, ;'.'II,r:' ,r ~,fC~~;;; .:
Ror::~ ~I:'i ~~', "r ;;'(~ L>,;.p;r:r ",:" > :"
!LI ~lC' '.:r t '-~:e: "--~-, bo; .lc.!"J" C.j2l' ler
If," -,0 f{ -J :1;:;-:(0 ,,~b.:' P".:u -;"_,'.A
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
___ ,2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
III
.0
~::j: ,~'
Ir ..
" C
." Q • 2;
'" co ,r
~j (,: ~,
"
" ~:,
'0 z § ,'I ., 0 " .-':: 0 (,l ... ,. .0 '"
N >-co ~ ,'l 5: co
>-c·, u en
'0 0
'='0 ~ c: ~ '" c '. o.
~ .2 c '" E >
0 "' u Q
u co cr,
.
·t ±o
" -;.
0 c cr, 0 ~, 'i=: 'n
" '" 0:
-,
I \ Y"Y\
NAME
I
-rllNrv'
e. r " .. 'YY\.-P\:Jr1 vr
J~00~?d C.V(;,IN~
~?gGU tI1ltT7fr.~
Ga.-r
~<Sfh 1m
LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
April 18, 2017, 10:00 A.M.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS
(including City & Zip)
Aswu} C~~~
{l.6p<-ct Cc> ~.< IN I 1 i '"
(j'f) 130j 35"1 ~Nn>,J '1805"1-
("{.or "l~.( ~ (S"~'-K 16f?o
se .. >-j«{ o..vlr ~~IO l
Phone # with area code
(optional)
y~<;-"Ol~-YoeS
106-r J-?-8-8-'rJ
Email
(optional)
Ro.B8-n0 ~f\iU!> .. £,.,:rn ~
/12 0 AI 38;tt, 5t R enf~f) 9ft(J5--b 112..:;-17/-Jo~j Ip ~k/~ seE<..-(i?hfSI).
T o:J1 __ L 1:/6 t-t1_M'L Nc-~\.\~ '1.'bDOt../-LfLC; -~03 \ ~9.""1-
(1-0& ) 1:£/::.--3 g 12-
"2.. 0<,;;. -<::\"2. f, -OSqq
¥zr-'11?--o"L~"
u:: --""'" "'L~ '1 4 Z'; '~t.,(,-S IL P-
i I) ... ~ •
ZtJ6 _ ?'Zs -2'.\Tf
".2,57",.0,
J1.... Cj jl/fi-1.)" '" -rH -? (.. ()O
,
NAME
.~
LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET
Sediment Deposition Mitigation
LUA16-000977, ECF, SM
April 18, 2017, 12:00 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS Phone # with area code
(optionol)
1/2'>--~-{35
Email
(optional)
•
•
----
NAME
J ~~\{
CL/.I1IE
{)('4-"Le Trvu,-z.6)v-5
LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
April 18, 2017, 10:00 A.M.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS Phone # with area code
(including City & Zip) (optional)
l ' "1,-.Ji't Q.",0 ~.
/11 0 N 41.5f f t--f.,.QJTI) J.) \.U A
4&:;l5 F' AXl.J.( A~ N
'c2
/0::;:; Lw,Ji J;,.,r;.. 9 ~tv "78) 4Zq -'fdZ ?jZ-,;j
Email
(optional)
'L
t, e-V"'1\..0 t-' ~
r1''hrn~n/ Q S'~('f7/~ ""'"
u~
N-n-fU) t'rlSVv{ Denis Law Mayor
March 16,2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
--~
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for Land Use applications.
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would S-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of land Use Permit approval term to lO-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Quendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Environmental Review Committee (ERe) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-1S1) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or
vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. I Owners
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson PS, Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals "Off~Hold" Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
-:1
r
i
>, :"V)
rv ~ I S >i
:>.. !'--
""'0 LJ')
co 0 :.s~
...c <:-:(
'=:; :;:. ~ 0 c i .. ' en 0
!:] ,-~ 1_', ~
C (J)
CL
'::
,
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals I LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Qu<:ndall Terrrunals I Apphc:anl. ~olKI:' of [ssuance and Alailabiht)' EtS Consistency An~\}'lS
lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
,
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, l.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, l.P.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• BuildingSW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
(All of " ,dtUII Department of Comm ... ,,,ty & Economic Development
Quendall Terminals
March 16, 2017
_nvironmental Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 of 2
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
• ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTJNCY ANAYSIS
PAGE 2 of 2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Kelly Beymer, Administrator
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
312.0)1] /~---
r -"Rick M. Marshall, Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
I "-~
:2-00-/7 c.~. U, Sf
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
£ntirE Docum~nt alJai!~bl;;: for purc:hasf: at
Rmton City Hall, Finance: Departrn€:nt P:Floor
for SlO pH hard copy or can be downloaded for
frE'E: on Cit" of Renton website, Rentonwa _gOY Quendall
Terminals
---------.. Renton ®
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
I
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 Al
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR D NOT YET ASSIGNED
~nO
E·~ ;; )-:1.1..-. 'I ;/,1;[' 'u ).;,:r,,,;:
R<r:u :I\{ ~ll f.r;c<:" C~~!t""'-er! l" f j(!
fe:; :,1':, ;.<rf-;-c :c~. 1)( x b£ Jc~,. Cl~"'~ 'v
r"":,, :it,A:. ........ -,' .• L :i, '",:,;r,,· .• '"'
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"). is made and entered into this __ day of
____ , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries ofthe City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
Community & Economic
Development Department. R e n ton
1055 South Grady Way
~ .. ' .. V
Renton WA 98057-3232
"
i:::;,'~r(!'i. '.',J'~ :!;:-i().' F
,::j. ;!,l :;: j::. j. :', (··r j .,: t::·, .:i (;.:i i.:·.·i!;:, I::.~
,
, •
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals / lUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this ConSistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Quwdalt Termlflills I Apphcant -~otice of Issuance and Availabilit} EIS ConSIStenCy Anal}sl.i
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act {SEPAl
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
Cn; oj ' ... ,CUI, Department of Commulfity & Economic Development
Quendall Terminals
March 16, 2017
~nvironmental Review Committee Memo
lUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 of 2
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental ConSistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTJNCY ANAYSIS
PAGE 2 012
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FE IS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
3/2dna---
Rick M. Marshall, Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
~-d{)-/7 CCZ. U \ ~ '\~
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Entlr~ Documfnt alJailable. for purchasE: at
REnton Cit~ i-fdll, i=inance Departm;;:-nt lrt !="Ioor
for $olD p~J hJrd cop, or can be downloaded fOf
frE"E: (In City of F/.enton W&bsit~, R~ntonwa.gov Quendall
Terminals
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVElOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR 0 NOT YET ASSIGNED
I ----GrOnO
I o"t". )-::LI""; -~ j""II,t; '(I ~vr:i'.l)li;"
'IU':,;r. :m ~ll, Fir ;r(, [l;p;p.,.-~, t ", F :n
'cr Sj~· ji" ~ ~·o :U:)', _" ,"" I" ~"e lli<C'U
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the (ITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
____ , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-l (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendal/ Terminals Development Agreement Pagel
'" :-....... IV'
c "" 5: ~
:~ ;,
~8
~ co
V ~y,
-~''::' <:t
1
Denis Law Mayor
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
March 16,2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for land Use applications.
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Quendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Environmental Review Committee (ERe) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or
vd 0 Ibee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. I Owners
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals ··Off·Hold·· Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
r--
•••• j
i.1 ..
~.,;
if.) ~-~ ,
:!: , ;:..
,~. -r-''.-
!,!--:d .... "
,. Denis Law Mayor
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
March 16, 2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
QuendaU Terminals / LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for land Use applications.
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Quendall terminals "Off·Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Environmental Review Committee (ERe) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-151) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or
vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties/ Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals "Off·Hold" Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
" r;o ,:
C ~,
..
Denis Law Mayor
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
March 16, 2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals / lUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for Land Use applications.
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative). and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of land Use Permit approval term to 10-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Quendall terminals "'Off-Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
,
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-1Sl) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (42S) 430-7314 or
vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P,S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic
Development Department""R en ton
1055 South Grady Way
o
Renton WA 98057-3232
Bud Worley
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton. WA 98056
.'::: 1;::; n i·:: L~ j:j (~(.:.. :.:! I;:'"
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, l.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals I LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1't Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
Quendall Tennlna!:; r Applicant -;-';ollte uf hsuance and .. \;ailablhty EIS Consist('nc), AnJI~si:;
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E. "Chip"Vi ncent, Administrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. If the additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions.
(All of I .. dCUI, Department of Com
Quendall Terminals
March 16, 2017
ity & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 of 2
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the eXisting documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILlTY!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTiNCY ANAYSIS
PAGE 2 of 2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS ConSistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1 st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
q 3/1 0)17 ~ L---~ Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
~-d.O-/7 C<z. U, ' sf
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
ft'ltirf. Doc:umi2nt available for pur cha Sf: at
RB"lton Cit.,. Hall. Fjt'ldn(~ Dl2pdrtrnent 1:! !=Ioor
for $10 PH hdrd copy or can bf: downloaded for
frl?E. (In City of R€.nton lJr.re-bsitf:, P,~ntonwd_gov Quendall
Terminals
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 s. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVElOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR D NOTYET ASSIGNED
R.'::n ~ir, ~l i," -,r« );:;;;r'r "'.:": .<:'
io ~.~(, :Ff," :uj; <!',j" ::.; ;:;''1, "0.:."'((
(102 Jr, ~I!,' ,( '!<r:v 'I,';:O;~' ~;~:c~.· .• _;_'i
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
____ , 2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries ofthe City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the "Quendall Property" or "Property")).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the "Project"), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Pagel
Community & Economic
Development Department "'R" en ton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 9805l~3232
0,;
"
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th PI
Renton, WA 98056
;::j" !:::I F:;: I :::,;:;; i"".i;"""j Vo", '::;j (:;i ;::J ::::: I::
---------_.
Denis Law Mayor
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
March 16,2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for land Use applications.
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the following:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would 5-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of land Use Permit approval term to lO-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Quendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Environmental Review Committee (ERe) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-1S1) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or
vdo I bee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co. / Owners
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Amit D. Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals /tOff-Hold" Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic
Development Department --
1055 South Grady Way 7'""R en ton C1
Renton WA 98057 3232
Charles Witmann
907 N 42nd PI
Renton, WA 98056
'::·.i'::> .,::;:.:f: ,::: ~< '::;, •• -': •••• ,,~ ::_,_ ::::
'-'
,
Denis Law Mayor
Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
March 16, 2017
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Quendall Terminals I LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Mathewson:
The applicants for the subject project have requested that the City consider entering into a
Development Agreement, which would establish an Enhanced Alternative proposal, in
combination with the already applied for land Use applications,
The original Quendall Terminals proposal for a Mixed-Use Development, including the Preferred
Alternative Development Plan has completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. To
date, the City has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EIS Addendum
(establishing the Preferred Alternative), and a Final EIS and associated Mitigation Document;
however, these documents did not specifically evaluate the proposed Development Agreement
establishing an Enhanced Alternative. The proposed Development Agreement and associated
Enhanced Alternative primarily include the fOllowing:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public parking space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• The addition of either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow for public access to Lake Washington;
• Building SW4 would be 4-stories, building SW3 would S-stories, and all the remaining
buildings would be 6-stories;
• Extension of Land Use Permit approval term to lO-years with possible extension
opportunities in which development regulation vesting would be maintained.
The above-referenced changes to the Preferred Alternative and the associated Development
Agreement are required to go through SEPA Review. As such, the Development Agreement and
Enhanced Alternative is scheduled to be considered by the City's SEPA Responsible Office, the
Quendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 1
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Environmental Review Committee (ERe) for a Consistency Determination with the already issued
EIS documents on March 20, 2017.
Therefore, per the applicant's request, the Quendall Terminals project (LUA09-IS1) has been
taken Off-Hold and the City will continue review of the project.
The Development Agreement, Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Permit have
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on
April 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314 or
vdolbee@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
cc: Altino Properties, Inc. and JH Baxter & Co./ Owners
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson PS., Amit D, Ranade and Ann M. Gygi
Parties of Record
Quendall terminals "Off-Hold" Notice
Page 2
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic
Development Departmen:..It en ton ()
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057-3232
John & Diane rialne.<,
1014 N 27th PI
Renton. WA 98056
!;.;!: ;: i~~ CiHi"-i i·:·: :~:i id :...::,!:
Denis Law Mayor
March 23, 2017 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Ave., #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY -EIS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals / LUA09-1S1, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Dear Mr. Matthewson,
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review of the proposed Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative, and notice is hereby given under WAC 197-11-510 and RMC
4-9-070 that the Environmental Impact Statement Consistency Analysis (Environmental
Consistency Analysis) was issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on Monday, March 20, 2017, and is available for public review.
The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the Finance Department on
the 1" Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed) or
can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and
2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that
cannot be mitigated. There is no comment period or appeal period for this Consistency
Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated
by the existing environmental documents.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Issuance and Availability for complete details. If
you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Vanessa Dolbee
Current Planning Manager
(Juendall T~rmlnJ!5.1 Applicant -;-';l'tl~e of Issu::lnce and A>ailabthty [IS Consistency Anal;.sis
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· rentonwa.gov
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P.
Quendall Terminals
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant (Century Pacific, L.P,) is proposing mixed-use
redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and
parks/open space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores
of Lake Washington.
To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the City of Renton and authorized by the Environmental Review Committee
on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, all of which can be found on the City of Renton
website, Rentonwa.gov on the Quendall Terminals page:
• Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010);
• Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012);
• Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and
• Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015).
The applicant has requested the City consider a Development Agreement for the project, which
establishes an Enhanced Alternative. The Enhanced Alternative would be similar to the Preferred
Alternative and is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Enhanced Alternative would
contain 692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking
spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space, The Development Agreement establishes the following
components which make up the Enhanced Alternative:
• The addition of 1.3 acres of public park space;
• Additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.)
• Either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public access
to Lake Washington (which would require additional SEPA review once the scope is
identified);
• Building SW4 would be 4 stories, building SW3 would 5 stories and all the remaining buildings
would be 6 stories;
In addition to establishing the Enhanced Alternative, the Development Agreement allows for an
extended approval time frame and associated development standards vesting for the requested
Land Use applications for 10 years with possible extensions. The agreement also allows for
additional review of the transportation element of SEPA at 5 years and, if any extensions are
granted. Ifthe additional transportation review identifies new mitigation measures these could be
added at that time. All other elements of SEPA, such as; Bulk and Scale, Height, Critical Areas, etc.
would maintain vesting for the duration of the Development Agreement and any associated
extensions,
tAli of I, .dLU/, Department-oj Com", .. , ,ity & Economic Development
Quendall Terminals
March 16, 2017
Environmental Review Committee Memo
LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, SSP, SA-M, SM, DA
Page 2 of 2
Due to the number of existing environmental documents prepared for the Quendall Terminals
mixed-use development and as authorized under WAC 197-11-600, the Development Agreement
and Enhanced Alternative can be reviewed utilizing the existing documents, as identified in the
attached Environmental Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have
been addressed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental
Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation,
Cultural Resources, Transportation, Height, and Bulk and Scale. The Environmental Consistency
Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within
the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation
measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and
there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
ERC Memo
Environmental Consistency Analysis, February 2017
Draft Development Agreement
ERC ISSUANCE & AVALABILITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONSISTlNCY ANAYSIS
PAGE2of2
DOCUMENT PURCHASE INFORMATION: The EIS Consistency Analysis is available for purchase from the
Finance Department on the 1st Floor of Renton City Hall for $10 per hard copy, plus tax and postage (if mailed)
or can be downloaded for free from the City of Renton website, Rentonwa.gov.
PUBLIC REVIEW: No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015
Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no
comment period or appeal period for this Consistency Analysis and there are no new significant unavoidable
impacts that cannot be mitigated by the existing environmental documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, City of
Renton at (425)430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Community Services Department
March 24, 2017
March 20, 2017
q
3/Z0)1] ~L---
r ~ Administrator
Date Fire & Emergency Services
:2-o?fJ-/7 CZ. U \ ~ '\~
Date
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Enti r~ DOClJ m;int ~ 'If! iI dbl..;: tot' pur Chd Sf: ,?![
Rf.nton City H~!I. Financf: Df.partrnf:nt 1~ Floor
for SlO PH h:3rd copy elF can bl? dowt)!o~dl?d for
fref' on City of Rl?nton w-ebsitE', Re:ntcnwa.gov Quendall
Terminals
--------... Renton ®
Renton, Washington
February 9, 2017
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVElOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR D NOT YET ASSIGNED
t'~ ,,:,, __ ~; .. -,( l\11'it' \r :;;J'~_ .. i'
f:J :c' ~lri ~,.I. f,r;,-.,:. C;;P;;TT'" "rr ;,. f CJ::'
f,-" ~<E :..r r. 't :u:l'. ~-r:v r,f ~:"'" "';~i't r~F
Ir.;·:,r ji >I ",r:co",,-k ri "<':U,-,~ .~~
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington ("City"), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns ("Developer"), is made and entered into this __ day of
___ ,2016 (the "Effective Date") pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-l (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, LUA09-1S1, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Draft Quendall Terminals Develapment Agreement Page 1