Written by Your comments are still arriving on the Quendall Terminals proposal, and I expect to keep seeing new comments up until the deadline of 5:00 PM on February 9th. Port Quendall is a proposed large mixed-use project that would occupy the shore of Lake Washington, between the Seahawks Headquarters and the Conner Homes neighborhood.
The most effective comments are those that focus on the accuracy and thoroughness of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS), including comments related to whether the project meets the zoning, the comprehensive plan, and the Shoreline Management criteria. (Note that with this and other projects, if the developer meets all the zoning and shorelines criteria and satisfies the requirements of the EIS, then the project will generally be approved as a matter of law)
The Renton Reporter recently ran a story on this proposal with links to the details, including the official documents and where you can submit your letters and email comments. Here is the link to the Renton Reporter story.
The Reporter also links to two blogs maintained by citizens with additional information resources and opinions. These blogs are http://quendallaction.blogspot.com/ and http://www.quendall.info/.
The majority of the comments so far are related to concerns about the bulk and density of the project, including the corresponding traffic issues. In addition, the city of Mercer Island made official comment asking that Renton take positive steps to ensure that lights at Port Quendall are aimed down and not out toward the water, and that glare is minimized. All of these comments are valuable, and I would encourage anyone with concerns, ideas, or support for this project to voice it in a letter or an email prior to February 9th.
I am neutral about this project. I remember discussing the site’s COR (Commercial/Office/Residential) zoning very extensively ten years ago when Paul Allen’s Vulcan Company was considering a 60-acre urban village at this location; Paul Allen’s project would have been built on the Seahawks property, the Conner property, and the Port Quendall Property. We briefly placed a moratorium on the COR zone at that time (ten years ago) to ensure we had a transportation concept that would work.
In general, Paul Allen’s proposal seemed fairly well supported by the community at the time– however, I think it was not quite as dense as the Port Quendall proposal (it had more buildings but it covered three times the area). Paul Allen’s proposal also offered a very desirable publicly-owned lakefront trail, as well as movie theater, and restaurants that gained it support from many in the area. I believe Port Quendall should provide some public access to the waterfront, but it won’t be the same long public trail (over three property sites) we would have enjoyed with the Paul Allen proposal, and the Landing now offers restaurants and movies in the area.
While I am neutral about this specific proposal, I will add that I would like to see this site cleaned up and at least partially open to the public at some point. The property is a polluted super-fund site, and a construction plan will help the owners get financing to clean the place up. And gaining additional public access to waterfront is highly desirable (at this point, this is something I want to study more about the current proposal). And of course the region needs a return of construction to reverse unemployment and help boost the economy. Lastly, since our property taxes are limited to one-percent growth, we need either new sales tax or new property tax each year to keep up with increases in the cost of salary and health benefits for our workforce.
Keep your comments coming in. And remember the deadline is 5:00 PM February 9.
Comments can be submitted to Venessa Dolbee at:
vdolbee@rentonwa.gov
(you must include your full name and mailing address with your comments)
or get them to her before 5PM on Februuary 9th at:
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Planning Division, 6th Floor
Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
Re: Quendal proposal
There’s public access: Once you pay your $10 to hop on the Seahawk training buss, if you’re lucky you can look at the lake from the Seahawk parking lot.
Go Renton!
Re: Build it and let them whine
Personally, I support full development of the site into a commercial-residential complex on a grand scale, but I think it can be done in a much better way than the developer has proposed. One, with more of a focus on the shoreline, which will build goodwill with local residents. Two, with a more appropriate (and attractive) designs. They’re basically proposing putting slightly taller versions of the apartments at The Landing on the site, along with matching office buildings. The current proposals have the potential to create a serious eyesore that we’ll have to live with for decades. They know they can do better, and it’s up to us to force their hand. That’s just the way these things work.
I don’t live in Kennydale, but this lakefront site is a precious commodity, and we can’t just roll over and let developers do whatever they want with it, even it is privately-held property, and even if we’re still in the midst of a dismal economy and could really use the construction jobs. The City will be investing in this project, too — it will be paying for much of the traffic mitigation, as well as supporting the site and its new residents with essential services. We also have the threat of lawsuits to worry about, even from the people on Mercer Island. So, I think this environmental review process is a good way for initial issues to be worked out, hopefully resulting in a final proposal that most people can live with. That’s the approach the city is taking. If the developers are scared off by the initial reaction, so be it. Someone else will eventually come along and build on the site, as it’s far too valuable to give up on.