Document Kennewick_doc_b2ca1f547b

TASK FORCE MEETING AGENDA 18 August 2010 2:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1: Review Planned Action DEIS alternatives and impacts 2: Review Appendix A: Why use design/develop competitions 3: Review Appendix B: Why use 63:20 financing 4: Review Appendix C: Prototype housing analysis – incentive zoning 5: Review BNSF status ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan Kennewick, Washington August 2010 This document serves as the Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan for Kennewick, Washington and includes descriptions of the existing environment, alternative plan impacts, and mitigation. The Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan including plan objectives, action plan elements, and implementation program is described in a separate document. Reference copies of the proposed Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River- to-Rail Revitalization Plan are available for review at the Kennewick Library and City Hall. Prepared in compliance with: The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 Chapter 43.21C of the Revised Code of Washington as revised 1983 SEPA Guidelines, Effective 16 January 1976 as revised 4 April 1984 Chapter 197-10, Washington Administrative Code Kennewick SEPA Ordinance Number KMC Date of issue of Draft Environmental Impact Statement: ___2010 Date of issue of Final Environmental Impact Statement: 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- i Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Fact sheet i Summary of the proposal 1.1 Alternatives 1 1.2 The proposed action 1 1.2.1 Organization 1 1.2.2 Economics 2 1.2.3 Promotion 2 1.2.4 Design standards 2 1.2.5 Design/development – infrastructure 2 1.2.6 Design/development - catalytic projects 3 1.3 Elements of the environment 4 1.3.1 Physical elements 4 1.3.2 Built elements 6 Alternatives to the proposal 2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action/current plan 9 2.2 Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan 10 2.3 Alternative 3: BB/RR Revitalization Plan with high density option 13 The proposed action 3.1 BB/RR revitalization area 15 3.2 BB/RR objective 15 3.3 Actions completed to date 15 3.4 BB/RR planning process 16 3.5 BB/RR proposed actions 16 3.5.1 Organization 16 3.5.2 Economics 18 3.5.3 Promotion 20 3.5.4 Design standards 21 3.5.5 Design/development – infrastructure 21 3.5.6 Design/development – catalytic projects 24 Existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures 4.1 Scope of environmental analysis 27 4.1.1 Impacts 27 4.1.2 BB/RR Revitalization Plan – Alternative 2 27 4.1.3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 27 4.1.4 Mitigation measures 28 Elements of the physical environment 4.2 Earth 29 4.3 Air 4.4 Water 4.5 Plants and animals Elements of the human environment 4.6 Relationship to existing plans and policies 4.7 Land use 4.8 Population and housing 4.9 Transportation 4.10 Public services 4.10.1 Police 4.10.2 Fire 4.10.3 Schools 4.10.4 Water services 4.10.5 Sewer services 4.10.7 Stormwater drainage 4.10.8 Solid waste 4.10.9 Library 4.10.10 Other city services 4.10.11 Natural gas 4.10.12 Electric power 4.10.13 Telecommunications 4.11 Parks and recreation 4.12 Archaeological and historical Mailing lists 5.1 Mailing lists Appendices 1 2 Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 10 11 12 13 Graphics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- i Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Fact Sheet Proposed action Adopt and implement the Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan for Kennewick, Washington in accordance with Chapter 35.63 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the provisions of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The proposed plan will amend current Kennewick policies governing the environment, land use, economics, transportation, design resources, parks and recreation, public services, and utilities to implement the BB/RR Revitalization Plan and to conform to GMA requirements. Implementation program particulars may eventually revise zoning, shoreline, capital improvement program, and other Kennewick ordinances and regulations to comply with the BB/RR Revitalization Plan’s policies. Location of the proposal The BB/RR revitalization area is located between the Blue Bridge (US-395) and the Cable Bridge (SR-397) on the west and east, and the Columbia River and the BNSF and UP Railroads on the north and south. The BB/RR area includes approximately 400 acres and acts as a major gateway into Kennewick and its Historic Downtown. . The BB/RR revitalization area is composed of 7 distinct neighborhoods including Columbia Drive and the auto dealers and commercial services along it, Duffy's Pond and the approach to Clover Island, the mobile home parks and residential developments along the levy leading to Columbia Park and south of Columbia Drive, and the numerous salvage, warehouse, and trucking businesses along the railroad tracks. Purpose of BB/RR Revitalization Plan The purpose of the BB/RR Revitalization Plan is to anticipate and guide the long-term redevelopment of the BB/RR and its distinct and integral neighborhoods. The plan will serve as a statement of the city’s commitment and direction for these areas and as a resource for potential investors, property owners, the community, and other public agencies. Depending on the results of the process, the plan contents could include proposals for existing land use retention and enhancements as well as new or intensified commercial and industrial developments, higher density residential projects, and mixed-use developments along with shoreline adjustments, trail and park expansions, roadway reconfigurations, and other infrastructure improvements. Key objectives could include establishing new gateway entries to the BB/RR district as well as between the district and downtown and city, refurbishing signage, streetscapes, and other amenities. Action sponsor Economic Development & Community Planning Departments Kennewick City Hall 210 West Sixth Avenue, PO Box 6108 Kennewick, Washington 99336 Lead agency Economic Development & Community Planning Departments Kennewick City Hall 210 West Sixth Avenue, PO Box 6108 Kennewick, Washington 99336 Proposed date of implementation The BB/RR Revitalization Plan’s planning period extends 15 years or from 2010 to the year 2025. Implementing actions may include possible revisions to zoning, urban design guidelines, and other Kennewick ordinances and regulations. Implementation will commence beginning with the adoption of the BB/RR Revitalization Plan by the Kennewick City Council. Responsible official Jeff Kossow, Director Economic Development & Community Planning Departments ---PAGE BREAK--- ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Kennewick City Hall 210 West Sixth Avenue, PO Box 6108 Kennewick, Washington 99336 Contact person Anthony Muai, Planner Community Planning Department Kennewick City Hall 210 West Sixth Avenue, PO Box 6108 Kennewick, Washington 99336 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] E-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] Principal contributors/location of background data This document has been prepared under the direction of the Kennewick Economic Development & Community Planning Departments. Research and analysis was provided by: Primary Author - Beckwith Consulting Group PO Box 704 LaConner, Washington 98257 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] e-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] Required approvals The proposed BB/RR Revitalization Plan will be reviewed at a public hearing to be conducted by the Kennewick City Council in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 35.63 and the Washington State Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The Kennewick City Council will conduct a public hearing, consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and public, and adopt a final BB/RR Revitalization Plan. Commencing with the City Council's adoption of a final BB/RR Revitalization Plan, various Kennewick agencies will initiate the specific actions consistent with the provisions of Chapter 35.63 and 36.70A of the RCW. Depending on the implementation actions involved, such as ordinance or regulation revisions, the Kennewick Planning Commission and City Council may conduct additional public hearings before adopting revised documents in accordance with established Kennewick procedures and requirements. Cost and availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Copies of the BB/RR Revitalization Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are available for public review at:  Kennewick City Hall located at 210 West Sixth Avenue and  Kennewick Library located at 405 South Dayton Street Date of issue of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 2010 Date of issue of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 2010 Comments due on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 2010 Cost of DEIS document a copy or at the cost of reproduction should the printed supply (100 copies) be exhausted. The document may also be acquired on CD for a cost of a copy or downloaded from the Kennewick website at www.ci.kennewick.wa.us. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 1 Summary of the proposal Adopt and implement the Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan for Kennewick, Washington in accordance with Chapter 35.63 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). 1.1 Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered on a neighborhood and BB/RR area-wide basis:  Alternative 1: No-action – where the goals, objectives, concepts, policies, and regulations in the existing 2008 Comprehensive Plan and March 2010 Zoning Map and Ordinance are not changed.  Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Action Plan – the Proposed Action – where environmental, parks and open spaces, land use and zoning, population and housing, road network, railroad, non- motorized transportation or trail system, on-road bike lanes, pedestrian walkways and sidewalks, streetscapes, gateways and wayfinding, transit routes, catalytic public, catalytic private development projects, and a variety of partnership or joint ventures are potentially entered into with nonprofit and other public agencies to implement the plan under new low and moderate density mixed use zoning districts (MU-L, MU-M) allow building heights up to 5 and 8 stories over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is included.  Alternative 3: BB/RR Revitalization Action Plan – with high density mixed use (MU-H) option – where the proposals are the same as in Alternative 2 except that a high density mixed use (MU- H) district is provided that allows building heights up to 12 stories over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is included. 1.2 The proposed action Implementation of Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan – the Proposed Action will comply with GMA requirements for comprehensive plan amendments, zoning map and ordinance revisions, and a capital facilities program. In addition, the program will also develop and implement the following major BB/RR Action Plan strategies outlined in the matrix in Section 3: The Proposed Action, and determined to be important in effectively implementing the Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization. The 19 strategies are grouped according to subject matter and not necessarily priority and are listed in an analytical sequence beginning with: 1) Organization, 2) Economics, 3) Promotion, 4) Design Standards, 5) Design/Development – Infrastructure, and 6) Design/Development – Catalytic Projects. 1.2.1: Organization 1: Assign action program and project implementation responsibilities  Continue City Council’s charter,  Appoint key point persons or project facilitator,  Coordinate action plan implementation programs and projects,  Engage the public  Resolve funding strategies  Monitor implementation 2: Resolve agreements with HDKP, Port, and other participants  Resolve HDKP development/operation of the Public Market  Resolve Port of Kennewick’s Master Plan for Duffy’s Pond  Resolve RFPs for design/develop competitions ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 1.2.2: Economics 3: Recruit/retain target markets  Identify key entrepreneurial prospects  Multi-modal transportation dealers  Mixed-use project developers  Mixed income mixed-use housing occupants  Retail tenants  Artists and art galleries  Incubator and start-up businesses  Public market vendors  Excursion train operator  Compile supporting market information  Provide business planning and start-up capital assistance  Create a capital investment fund  Conduct cold call contacts  Follow-up  Debrief 4: Expand the “Main Street” program  Expand the Main Street program model and HDKP activities  Expand downtown activities and special events program  Initiate additional special events that are keyed to unique Kennewick historical occurrences  Expand the façade improvement program  Expand the source of low cost building improvement and development funds  Award capital investment funds on a competitive basis or in response to a request system 1.2.3: Promotion 5: Update and expand city/HDKP websites  Refine the brand, tagline, and logo  Expand city/HDKP marketing/tourism websites  Homepage  Attractions pages  Events pages  Visitor services pages  Business investment pages  Resident services pages  Transportation pages  Gallery pages  Design and publish coordinated print collateral materials  Correspondence  Brochures  Flyers  Advertising templates  Billboards  Trailers and information stands 6: Install historic district, gateways, and wayfinding signage  Have WSDOT install historic district signage  Install historic district directional signage  Design and install gateway or entry improvements  Install way-finder signage 1.2.4: Design standards 7: Update/refine zoning designations  Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Kennewick  Amend Chapter 18.03 of the Municipal Code to create a Mixed Use (MU) zoning district  Incorporate Incentive Zoning provisions 8: Adopt design standards for BB/RR mixed use  Adopt historical building design guidelines  Adopt new building design guidelines  Adopt signage design guidelines  Adopt landscape design guidelines 1.2.5: Design/development - infrastructure 9: Fill/soft armor select river shoreline areas for fish habitat  Inventory, design, submit, and accomplish project applications 10: Install stormwater swale/river levy enhancements  Install a vegetation mat on the inside face of the river flood levy ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Install “grasscrete” or similar structural underground material that allows grass to grow through the grid  Install native plant materials and rockery within the swale  Install grass, street trees, and furnishings on the inside swale buffer  Construct bridges and stairways across the swale and up the inside levy face  Install wayfinding and directory signs, interpretive exhibits, picnic tables, and shelters  Install an artworks gallery 11: Acquire/develop BB/RR parks  Designate a publicly accessible but potentially privately owned or dedicated park improvement on frontage property between John Day and Jean Streets  Acquire a public park property between the swale/levy and Columbia Drive at Fruitland Street  Designate a publicly accessible but potentially privately owned or dedicated park improvement on frontage property between Benton and Washington Streets  Acquire a public park property between Duffy’s Pond and Columbia Drive. 12: Reconfigure road network  Reduce and control median lane traffic turning movements on Columbia Drive  Realign Columbia Park Trail  Open, realign, and extend Bruneau/Railroad Avenues  Designate on the streets and roads map 13: Construct streetscape enhancements  Expand sidewalks  Upgrade transit furnishings  Improve pedestrian-friendly furnishings  Install landscaping  Install artworks  Where appropriate relocate and/or underground overhead power and telecommunication lines, and relocate light and signage standards 14: Construct sidewalks, curbs, and gutters  Improve existing and future roadways with basic infrastructure  Reconfigure existing roadway infrastructure to accommodate pedestrian and bikeways  Install transit improvements 15: Reconfigure transit routes  Reconfigure route 55, 120, and/or 160 to create a loop shuttle  Install transit improvements 1.2.6: Design/development – catalytic projects 16: Acquire/develop Public Market and Excursion Train  Acquire the BNSF property  Improve the site  Develop a Public Market  Recruit market tenants and activities  Artists and art galleries  Incubator and start-up businesses  Public market vendors  Public market concessions or tenants  Program continuous activities  Program special events that are keyed to unique Kennewick historical occurrences  Recruit an excursion train operator  Install angled parking on West Canal Drive 17: Acquire/issue RFP for incubator developments  Lease then acquire the property from BNSF  Brainstorm redevelopment solutions for the property  Assess the economic feasibility of the preferred concepts  Assess and mitigate environmental impacts  Conduct public hearings and approve a pre-packaged plan solution  Develop a competitive request-for-proposal (RFP) process  Conduct a town hall with potential developers  Issue the RFP and judge proposals  Award project following City Council public hearings and review procedures. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 18: Issue RFP for private property packages  Package potential development parcels  Brainstorm redevelopment solutions for the property  Assess the economic feasibility of the preferred concepts  Assess and mitigate environmental impacts  Conduct public hearings and approve a pre-packaged plan solution  Develop a competitive design/develop request-for-proposal (RFP) process  Conduct a town hall with potential developers  Issue the RFP and judge proposals  Award project following City Council public hearings and review procedures 19: Review/resolve master plan for Port of Kennewick’s Duffy’s Pond properties  Resolve environmental issues and impacts  Resolve park and trail improvements  Resolve mixed use zoning allowances  Conduct hearings and resolve master plan approval particulars by the Planning Commission and City Council 1.3: Elements of the environment - Impacts and mitigating measures In accordance with WAC 197-11-44, the Kennewick Community Planning Department has determined this proposal may have a significant adverse impact on the following topics: 1.3.1: Physical environment Earth Environmental impacts - all alternatives will clear and grade vacant and underdeveloped land in BB/RR especially including the lands located north of Columbia Drive to the Columbia River levee. Higher intensity urban development could erode soils and enter surface water runoff degrading the quality of surface water bodies if not property managed. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is included. Alternative 2 will encourage the development of recessed parking decks which will potentially excavate and remove more soil than would occur under Alternative 1: No-Action which would involve more surface parking solutions. Mitigating measures - the amount of clearing and grading of soils and earth will not be different than what is currently allowed under Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative with the Residential High Density (RH) district which is designated for the vacant and underdeveloped properties north of Columbia Drive to the stormwater swale and levee. Kennewick development codes and regulations mandate measures during construction that will control and reduce erosion and runoff during construction. Air Environmental impacts - all alternatives will develop the vacant and underdeveloped lands within BB/RR increasing associated automobile traffic and construction activities. Additional urban activities and accompanying automobile traffic will produce and increase suspended particulate (PM10), ozone (o3), and carbon monoxide (CO) content within the local area. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is included increasing the total population and associated automobile ownership and use. Mitigation measures –Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will create a mixed use community with more local retail, service, office, and other employment and recreation activities within the BB/RR reducing the amount of automobile traffic that would be associated under Alternative 1: No-Action. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will also develop more multipurpose trails, bike lanes, pedestrian sidewalks and streetscapes, and a shuttle transit loop with the historic downtown and Civic Center providing more alternative and less air impacting transportation options than under Alternative 1: No-Action. Water Environmental impacts – all alternatives will develop additional structures within the 100 year or 250 foot elevation flood zone currently protected by the Columbia River levee. All alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with structures, roadways, and other hard surfaces thereby increasing the quantity of surface water runoff within the stormwater swale and underground pipe collection system that ultimately discharges into Duffy’s Pond and the Columbia River. The amount of new hard surfaces under Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will not be different than what is currently allowed under Alternative 1: No-Action. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will elevate upper residential and office floors over parking platforms and ground floor retail uses which will be above the 100 year flood zone elevation in accordance with HUD and US Corp of Engineer flood zone construction standards. In addition, ground floor retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses may utilize flood gates or barriers that would reduce damage prospects during a possible high water or flooding event. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will utilize pervious surfaces in parking and trail surfaces, green roofs on new building developments, and increased stormwater bio-filtration systems adjacent to the stormwater swale which will not increase the amount of stormwater runoff over what the current swale collection system has been designed to collect and discharge. Kennewick development codes and regulations mandate measures during construction that will control and reduce erosion and runoff during construction. Plants & animals Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with structures, roadways, and other hard surfaces thereby reducing the amount of existing natural vegetation and open ground for wildlife habitat. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will install occasional “soft armoring” beach infill along the river shoreline of the levee to improve fish habitat, install vegetation mats on the inside of the levee and “grasscrete” on the levee access road to “green” the levee, and install native plant materials in the stormwater swale and buffer to provide bio-filtration of stormwater, improve habitat, and enhance visual impacts. Alternative 2 will install native plant materials to restore vegetation of habitat significance in streetscapes, buffers to the stormwater swale and levee vegetation, rain gardens, and other landscaping improvements. Energy and natural resources Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with residential, commercial, and other urban uses that will require energy to operate and maintain thereby increasing demands on local electrical, natural gas, and other energy and natural resource sources. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will develop more residential, retail, recreation, and other urban uses than Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative proportionately increasing the demand on energy resources. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will expand and improve bicycle, walking, and transit modal systems that require less energy to operate than a continued reliance on automobiles. Alternative 2 will also create a mixed use sustainable community able to generate more local employment options whereby BB/RR residents may work locally rather than commute to places of employment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Alternative 2 will also mandate the use of solar and green roofs on new mixed use structures that will increase the production of electricity and reduce operating and maintenance costs. 1.3.2: Built environment Environmental health - noise Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with urban structures and activities, roadways and cars, and other uses that will generate noise sources and levels. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will mandate green roofs and walls, and other vegetation covered improvements that will absorb and reduce noise levels. Alternative 2 will also locate medium density mixed use structures adjacent to US-395/Blue Bridge which will provide a noise wall for residents and outdoor activities within the BB/RR area. Land and shoreline use Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with residential, retail, and recreational structures and activities increasing the scale and intensity of building developments and the impact on ground level pedestrian views and potential activities. Alternative 1: No-Action designates most of the BB/RR for residential high density (RH) without requirements for ground floor or street level retail or other pedestrian-oriented activities. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms that provide ground floor retail and other pedestrian oriented activities at the street level not probable under Alternative 1: No-Action. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will develop more bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways and sidewalks, trails and boardwalks around the stormwater swale and levee that provide a pedestrian scale and amenity than Alternative 1: No- Action. Alternative 2 will also increase on-street parking and streetscape improvements that will appeal to increased pedestrian access and opportunities to a greater extent than Alternative 1: No-Action. Population and housing Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with more residential structures increasing population and the demand and need for more employment opportunities and housing options. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is included increasing the total population and associated employment requirements and service demands and impacts. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will develop other housing options including affordable and workforce units for single adults, adult couples, family starter, and empty nester households who are predominantly employed in the service industries that Kennewick depends on for future economic development. Alternative 2 will create more local employment opportunities implementing a sustainable community where residents may live, work, and play to a greater extent in BB/RR, the historic downtown, or Civic Center than Alternative 1: No-Action. Alternative 2 will also develop an incubator small business start-up complex on vacant land along the railroad corridor that will provide for and generate new small business enterprises with new employment opportunities. Transportation Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with more residential, retail, and recreational activities that will generate more automobile traffic if ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan the resulting population continues to commute in private vehicles to places of employment, commerce, and recreation. Increased automobile traffic generates more pollution making transit, bicycle, and pedestrian alternatives less attainable and safe. Increased automobile traffic also increases the number of potential traffic accidents, particularly along corridors that are shared with pedestrians and bicycles. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is provided generating more population and more vehicles than Alternative 1: No-Action. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will expand and enhance other transportation modes including more multipurpose trails, on-road bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways and sidewalks, and a reconfiguration of transit routes to create a shuttle loop with the historic downtown and Civic Center. Alternative 2 will create more local employment opportunities implementing a sustainable community where residents may live, work, and play to a greater extent in BB/RR, the historic downtown, or Civic Center than Alternative 1: No-Action reducing the potential demand for and reliance on private vehicles. Public services – fire, police, and utilities Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with more residential, retail, and recreational activities increasing the demand and need for more fire, police, waste disposal, sewer, water, stormwater, power, natural gas, telecommunications, and other public services and facilities. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is provided generating more population and more demand for public services and facilities than Alternative 1: No-Action. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will collect a greater volume of traffic impact fees with which to finance the proportionally greater share of public facilities and services that will be required of a larger population. Public services - schools Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with more residential structures and populations increasing the demand and need for more school services and facilities. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is provided generating more population and more demand for public school services and facilities than Alternative 1: No-Action. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will collect a greater volume of school impact fees with which to finance the share of school facilities and services that will be required of a larger population. However, Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will develop more other housing options including affordable and workforce units for single adults, adult couples, family starter, and empty nester households who will generate less school children per household than would be typical of other residential developments in the city. Public services – parks and recreation Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with more residential structures and populations increasing the demand and need for more park and recreation services and facilities. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is provided generating more population and more demand for park and recreation services and facilities than Alternative 1: No-Action. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will directly and indirectly through impact requirements of private developers, increase the supply of public and publicly-accessible trails, parks, open spaces, streetscapes, and other amenities and services more than Alternative 1: No-Action. Alternative 2 will also collect a greater volume of park impact fees with which to finance the proportionally greater share of park and recreation facilities and services that will be required of a larger population. Archaeological and historical resources Environmental impacts – all alternatives will replace existing vacant and underdeveloped land with more residential, retail, and recreational structures increasing the impact on historical and aesthetic resources. Redevelopment could also obscure aesthetic resources and potential visual imagery if not planned and constructed in accordance with urban design guidelines. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will increase development density in mixed use structures up to 5 and 8 floors over parking platforms when affordable or workforce housing is provided generating more mixed use structures with ground floor or street level improvements and amenities than Alternative 1: No-Action. Mitigation measures - Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan will directly and indirectly through impact requirements of private developers, increase the supply of public and publicly-accessible trails, parks, open spaces, streetscapes, and other amenities and services more than Alternative 1: No-Action. In addition, Alternative 2 will adopt new mixed use (MU) zoning district and design overlays specifying performance characteristics required of streetscapes, buildings, view corridors, and other aesthetic features. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 9 2 Alternatives to the proposal Kennewick City Council will select one of the following alternatives to be the Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization (Subarea) Plan in accordance with Chapter 35.63 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). 2.1: Alternative 1: No-Action The Washington Administrative Code requires a No-Action alternative be considered within the environmental review process. Under a No-Action alternative, the prevailing 2008 Kennewick Comprehensive Plan and 2010 Zoning Ordinance and Map would remain in effect and all BB/RR planning and implementation policies would continue to be coordinated with these documents. The present plan and policies or no-action would result in the following: Waterfront environment  The river shoreline - would remain as currently protected with the recently lowered Columbia River levee remaining in place along the entire shoreline of the BB/RR area.  The stormwater swale - would also remain as recently improved with the underground pipe and overflow swale collecting runoff for discharge into Duffy’s Pond, and ultimately into the Columbia River. Parks and open spaces  Parks - would remain as currently developed with Fruitland Park being the sole public park within the BB/RR area unless or until the Port improves the shoreline around Duffy’s Pond for public access and activities.  Stormwater swale - existing occasional picnic tables and vegetation would be maintained along the portions of the swale between Columbia Park and Fruitland Street. Land use and zoning  Residential zoning - would remain as designated in March of 2010 including the classification of almost all of BB/RR district as Residential High Density (RH) subject to a 45 foot height limit including the existing single family residential neighborhood located south of Columbia Drive and west of Fruitland Street, and all of Columbia Drive frontage and north to the levee.  Commercial land use and zoning - would remain Commercial Community (CC) and only include the 4 properties located on the south side of Columbia Drive that includes construction company offices.  Industrial land use and zoning - would also remain Industrial Light (IL) including most of the frontage along West Railroad and East Bruneau Avenues and fronting on the railroad spurs and mainlines. Population and housing  Housing - would evolve as designated in the March 2010 zoning map with possible redevelopment of the lands north of Columbia Drive for a mixture of apartment buildings should developers be able to organize and market existing undeveloped and underdeveloped lands .  Scattered portions of the existing single family neighborhood - located south of Columbia Drive and west of Fruitland Street could be redeveloped for apartments or other higher density products of dissimilar occupants and impacts on the area.  Columbia Drive frontage uses and some interior properties - would likely continue to house a large variety of nonconforming commercial, warehousing, distribution, and auto-related dealerships and services. Road network  Columbia Park Trail - would continue to be improved and operate under current conditions including the location of Columbia Park Trail on top of the levee between US-395/Blue Bridge and Fruitland Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Columbia Drive - would continue to operate as a 4 lane plus median roadway from US-395 to Washington Street, and a 4 lane roadway from Washington Street to SR-397/Gum Street.  The existing street grid - would not be connected or extended into Duffy’s Pond or the undeveloped properties located north of Columbia Drive. Railroad  UP and Port rail spurs – would remain along the north side of Railroad and Bruneau Avenues creating a vacant and unimproved roadway and street frontage. Non-motorized transportation or trail systems  Sacajawea Heritage Trail - would remain as is including the continued operation and maintenance top of the levee from Columbia Park east to under the SR-397/Cable Bridge.  Bike connections between BB/RR and the downtown - would continue to be in-lane and on-road on Fruitland and Washington Streets. Pedestrian walkways and sidewalks  Sidewalks - would remain located on both sides of Columbia Drive, Washington, Benton, and Fruitland Streets.  Pedestrians would continue to share access - with parked and moving cars on unimproved roadways in the single family developed areas south of Columbia Drive and west of Fruitland Street, and the industrial district along Railroad and Bruneau Avenues. Streetscapes  Streetscapes – would remain as is on Columbia Drive, Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Streets and the other defining local collector streets in the BB/RR area.  Improvements - would be limited to occasional street trees, narrow walkways, and the existing historic downtown gateway sign at Benton and the Port gateway arch and lighthouse on Washington Street onto Clover Island. Transit routes  Routes - would remain as is including a continued focus on the Dayton Street Transfer Station and the lack of a transit loop or shuttle between BB/RR and the downtown using Columbia Drive and Columbia Park Trail. Public facilities  New public or publicly accessible facilities – would not be developed within the BB/RR area unless or until the Port were to complete their proposals for a performing arts theater, IMAX, mini- golf, gondola rides, and other amusement park activities around Duffy’s Pond.  The lands between the Port, UP, and BNSF Railroad tracks - would remain vacant and unused. 2.2: Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan The proposed BB/RR Revitalization Action Plan would amend the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, 2010 Zoning Map, and 6-year Capital Facilities Program (CFP) to accomplish the following: Waterfront environment  The levee – will be “green” installing vegetation mats on the inside of the levee for visual enhancement and slope stability, “grasscreting” the levee access road for multipurpose use and visual enhancement, and planting native materials in the stormwater swale to improve bio-filtration and visual enhancement.  Occasional river fill – will be installed along the shoreline of the levee to create “soft armoring” beach for fish habitat enhancement. Depending on private development plans and requirements, the stormwater swale could be reconfigured in places to create a larger stormwater collection capacity and/or provide visual accents. Parks and open spaces  Linear parks – will be increased along the complete extent of the inside buffer and boundary with the stormwater swale including development of a boardwalk or trail fronted by mixed use buildings and activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 11  Columbia Park Trail - will be removed from the top of the levee and the levee including the “grasscreted” access road will be completely devoted to a linear park and trail.  A new public access park and river overlook landing - will be developed at the end of Fruitland Street.  Additional publicly accessible parks or activity areas - will be created by private developments on the undeveloped properties adjacent to US-395/Blue Bridge and adjacent to the swale west of Washington Street. Land use and zoning  The single family neighborhood – will be re-designated as low or medium density residential (RL or RM) to fit the current developed character of the area.  Commercial zoning (CC) - will be re-established for the frontage properties on Columbia Driver between US-395/Blue Bridge and Fruitland Street reflecting the existence of relatively new commercial and auto related businesses and improvements in that corridor.  Industrial zoning (IL) - will remain in place along Railroad and Bruneau Avenues reflecting existing developments and activities.  New mixed use (MU) zoning districts - will be adopted covering the remaining frontage on Columbia Drive and the lands north of Columbia Drive to the levee. The mixed use low (MU-L) zone will allow 4 building stories (up to 60 feet in height) over platform parking decks and ground floor retail or related pedestrian-oriented activities on the Columbia Drive frontage from Fruitland to SR- 397/Gum Street, and for most lands north of Columbia Drive to the levee.  The mixed use medium (MU-M) zone - will allow up to 6 building stories (up to 84 feet in height) over platform parking decks and ground floor retail or related pedestrian-oriented activities on the lands adjacent to the US-395/Blue Bridge.  Mixed use upper floor parking requirements – will be reduced to match the number of bedrooms provided within mixed use structures. All occupant residential or upper floor office uses will be provided within the platform parking decks.  Mixed use ground floor and pedestrian-oriented parking - will be provided in on-street angle parking in front of the building including provisions for expanded road right-of-way donations, if necessary.  Mixed use design district overlay guidelines – will be adopted as an overlay district governing the design and development of new mixed use structures within the BB/RR MU zones including particulars specifying building mass and articulations, materials and colors, ground floor retail facades, entries, awnings, window displays, and streetscape paving, furnishing, street trees, and landscaping. Population and housing  Housing choices and population – will increase within the mixed use low and medium (MU-L and MU-M) zones and include a wider variety of household types including single adults, adult couples, family starters (with young children), and empty nesters of all ages and incomes.  Incentive zoning provisions - within the mixed use districts will allow building floors within the MU-L zone to be increased by another floor (up to 5 floors over parking platform or 72 feet) and within the MU-M zone another 2 floors (up to 8 floors over parking platform or 108 feet) in exchange for including 10-15% affordable or workforce housing units. Road network  Columbia Park Trail – will be relocated off of the levee using West Klamath Avenue, North Kent Place, and a new roadway to be developed and dedicated by private development between Klamath and the Columbia Park Trail underpass of US-395/Blue Bridge.  Columbia Drive access points - will be reconfigured to simplify and reduce the number of cross traffic movements along the corridor, particularly where new mixed use developments occur between Fruitland and Washington Streets.  The Columbia Drive median - will be reduced to allow turning lanes at Kent Place, Fruitland Street, Entiat Avenue, Benton, Washington, Cedar, and Elm Streets and the median remainder improved with street trees and native plant landscaping.  Railroad Avenue – will be extended west to provide access to a proposed incubator small business complex and east to provide a continuous roadway connection through the former cannery plant with Bruneau Avenue.  The street grid - will be connected and extended into Duffy’s Pond and the undeveloped properties located north of Columbia Drive. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Railroad  UP and Port rail spurs - along the north side of Railroad and Bruneau Avenues will be discontinued and removed when current businesses no longer require active rail service and the roadways will be improved with traffic lanes, on-street parking, curbs, and sidewalks. Non-motorized transportation or trail systems  Multipurpose trails – will be developed along the inside of the stormwater swale to create a BB/RR loop with Sacajawea Heritage Trail between US-395/Blue Bridge and SR-397/Cable Bridge.  Benton Street on/off road trail – will be developed between Sacajawea Heritage Trail and the historic downtown to provide recreational as well as commuter access.  Canal Dike Trail – will be developed on the south side of the canal dike from the Civic Center west and up the hillside adjacent to Canal Drive to link the uplands residential areas with the historic downtown and BB/RR and Sacajawea Heritage Trail. On-road bicycle lanes  An extensive system of on-road bike lanes – will be installed on all collector and arterial streets within the BB/RR area except for Columbia Drive which carries too much traffic and is not wide enough to accommodate bike lanes and a widened sidewalk and streetscape improvement.  On-road bicycle lanes – will connect with the existing bike lanes and designated roadways on Columbia Park Trail, Clover Island, SR-397/Cable Bridge, and around the Civic Center to establish linkages with regional commuting and recreational bikeway travel and destinations. Pedestrian walkways and sidewalks  Sidewalks – will be installed as public works projects on both sides of the railroad corridor and crossings on Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Street to match the scale and intensity of walkways on both sides of the corridor.  Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks – will be installed as public works projects on all existing local public roadways within the BB/RR area including the single family neighborhood south of Columbia Drive and west of Fruitland Street.  Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks – will be installed by developers to public work standards on all new roadway improvements within the BB/RR area including the vacant and underdeveloped lands north of Columbia Drive to the levee. Streetscapes  Columbia Drive streetscape – will be increased in width and intensity within the existing right-of-way with paving, street trees, furnishings, bus shelters, and other amenities the complete length of the BB/RR area from US-395/Blue Bridge to SR-397/Cable Bridge.  BB/RR-Civic Center streetscape enhancements – will be installed on Fruitland, Dayton, Benton, Auburn, and Washington Street to match and connect with the existing streetscape improvements within and around the historic downtown and Civic Center.  BB/RR streetscape enhancements – will be installed as public work projects and by developers on the remaining collector streets between Fruitland and Washington Streets, Bruneau Avenue, and all streets north of Columbia Drive to the levee. Gateways and wayfinding  Gateways – will be installed on Columbia Park Trail at the US- 395/Blue Bridge undercrossing, Columbia Drive at the US-395/Blue Bridge roundabout, Fruitland Street at the BNSF railroad crossing, and Columbia Drive at the SR-397/Gum Street intersection to signify entry into BB/RR and the historic downtown district.  Wayfinding signs – incorporating elements from the city’s current logo will be installed on Columbia Drive, Fruitland, Benton, Washington, and Gum Streets, and throughout the historic downtown district to identify routes to major destinations and activities. Transit routes  BB/RR-Downtown-Civic Center shuttle loop – will be created by reconfiguring existing routes between BB/RR and the historic downtown using Fruitland, Washington and Gum Streets, and Columbia Drive, East 1st Avenue, and West 6th Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 13 Catalytic projects - public/publicly accessible facilities  Public Market – will be developed on the BNSF railroad property being acquired east of Benton and the BNSF property under city lease west of Benton to include farmers’ market and other indoor and outdoor vendors, artist galleries and workshops, fine and performing art classrooms, multipurpose meeting and special exhibition or event spaces operating on a 7 day a week basis to link BB/RR and historic downtown activities and promotional opportunities.  Excursion Train – will be recruited to operate dinner, mystery, and winery tours from the BNSF and UP tracks adjacent to the Public Market like the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train did previously.  Incubator Business Complex – will be developed on BNSF property to be leased then acquired located between the BNSF tracks and UP rail spur west of Fruitland on the extension of Railroad Avenue. The complex will provide for a variety of low rent industrial, retail, and office use business start-ups with rental spaces, common business and conference spaces, and other supporting services.  Duffy’s Pond Master Plan – proposal by the Port of Kennewick will be reviewed for conformance with shoreline management program buffer requirements, the new mixed use (MU) zone requirements, and under existing and proposed new mixed use design guidelines. Planning Commission and City Council will consider the Port’s proposals, adjacent property owner opinions and preferences, any resulting recommendations or alternations, and make a decision accordingly. Catalytic projects – private developments  Design/Develop RFP Competitions – will be conducted where the city options private property from owners who wish to participate then conducts a competitive process whereby developer teams compete on economic and design criteria for the right to purchase, including reimbursement of city costs, and develop the property in accordance with pre-approved project criteria and the winning project solution. Organization  Partnerships or joint ventures – for the implementation of portions or all of a number of the BB/RR Revitalization Action Plan projects may be considered with a variety organizations and entities including the Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (a nonprofit), Port of Kennewick, Umatilla Tribe, Housing Authority of Kennewick, and Auto Dealers Association, among others. 2.3: Alternative 3: BB/RR Revitalization Plan with high density Mixed Use (MU-H) district Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan in all respects except that Alternative 3: Land use and zoning  The mixed use high (MU-H) zone - would allow up to 9 building stories (up to 120 feet in height) over platform parking decks and ground floor retail or related pedestrian-oriented activities on the lands adjacent to the US-395/Blue Bridge. Population and housing  Incentive zoning provisions - within the MU-H high density mixed use districts (MU-H) could allow 3 more building floors (up to 12 floors over parking platform or 156 feet) in exchange for including 10-15% affordable or workforce housing units. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3 The proposed action The proposed action is to adopt and implement the Bridge-to- Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan for Kennewick, Washington. The proposed action is in accordance with Chapter 35.63 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the provisions of the adopted Growth Management Act (GMA) Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The proposed Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan will amend current Kennewick policies governing the environment, land use, economics, transportation, design resources, parks and recreation, public services, and utilities conforming to GMA provisions. Implementation actions will land use, transportation, housing, zoning, capital improvement program, and other Kennewick ordinances and regulations to comply with the Bridge-to- Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan’s policies. 3.1: Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Area The BB/RR is the area between the Blue Bridge (US-395) and the Cable Bridge (SR-397) and the Columbia River to the BNSF and UP Railroad mainline tracks. The BB/RR has been identified in Kennewick's comprehensive plan as a subarea or distinct district worthy of special planning attention. The BB/RR area is composed of 7 distinct neighborhoods including Columbia Drive and the auto dealers and commercial services along it, Duffy's Pond and the approach to Clover Island, the mobile home parks and residential developments along the levy leading to Columbia Park and south of Columbia Drive, and the numerous salvage, warehouse, and trucking businesses along the railroad tracks. 3.2: BB/RR objective The purpose of the Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan is to create a short and long-term strategy for the BB/RR area and its 7 distinct neighborhoods for the next 1-20 years. The plan will serve as a statement of the city's commitment and direction for these areas and as a resource for property owners, businesses, and residents. 3.3: Actions completed to date Recent development within the BB/RR area include the:  Completion of the series of roundabouts - between SR-240 and SR-395 that define a new western gateway to the district and city;  The Port of Kennewick's acquisition of the properties surrounding Duffy's Pond - and the potential this provides for the ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Port to develop a new eastern gateway to the district and city; and  The Port's acquisition of some frontage commercial properties between Duffy's Pond and Columbia Drive - and the potential this provides for the development of new mixed uses that will connect the riverfront with the downtown. These developments provide the momentum and opportunity to create and implement a revitalization strategy for the BB/RR area. 3.4: BB/RR planning process  Stakeholder interviews - were conducted with 37 representatives of regional and city organizations during November 2009. The comments and suggestions provided from the interviews are available on the city website www.ci.kennewick.wa.us under Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary.  Internet Survey - was conducted on the city website from October through December 2009 and was completed by 188 persons - the results of the survey are available on the city website under Appendix B: Internet Survey 1 Results.  Public workshops - were conducted with property and business owners and residents of each of the 7 BB/RR neighborhoods and for interested persons from the city-at-large during November- December 2009 and were attended by over 80 persons - the results are available on the city website under Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results.  Mail-out/phone-back survey – will be conducted with a representative sample of Kennewick registered voter households to determine their preferences and priorities concerning specific proposals and financing implications of the BB/RR plan during the DEIS review process. The results of the survey will be incorporated into the FEIS comments. 3.5: BB/RR proposed actions Following is a summary description of the major BB/RR Action Plan strategies outlined in the matrix and determined to be important in effectively implementing the Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to- Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization. The action strategies represent the consensus opinions of the BB/RR Task Force as well as the results of the stakeholder interviews, public workshops, internet, and mail-out/phone-back surveys. The consensus opinion is that these actions are critical to the effective realization of the BB/RR Revitalization’s goals. The strategies are grouped according to subject matter and not necessarily priority and are listed in an analytical sequence beginning with: 1) Organization, 2) Economics, 3) Promotion, 4) Design Standards, 5) Design/Development – Infrastructure, and 6) Design/Development – Catalytic Projects. 3.5.1: Organization 1: Assign action program and project implementation responsibilities  Continue City Council’s charter – whereby the Community Planning Department and the Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HDKP) act as the BB/RR’s principal economic and urban development advocate and coordinator of the actions item involved in the implementation of the BB/RR Revitalization.  Appoint key point persons or project facilitators – from within HDKP to focus on the specific actions involved in each action subject, and to allow participation by other public, nonprofit, and private community organizations, interested groups, and individuals in specific projects unique to each group.  Coordinate action plan implementation programs and projects - to be accomplished by the city, HDKP, and other facilitating/catalyst agents to include the Port of Kennewick, US Corps of Engineers, Umatilla Tribe, Washington State Department of ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization 18 April 2010 Participants 1. Kennewick City Council A=approval role I 2. Economic/Community Development & Parks & Public Works Departments L=lead management role I I 3. Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HDKP) P=participant role I I 4. Port of Kennewick I I I I I I I I 5. US Corps of Engineers I I I I I 6. Umatilla Tribe I I I I I I 7. WA Dept Fish & Wildlife & Ecology I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8. Ben Franklin Transit I I I I I I I I 9. Housing Authority City of Kennewick I I I I I I I I I 10. Benton County Historical Museum I I I I I I I I I I 11. Council of Governments (COG) Economic Development Council (EDC) I I I I I I I I I I I 12. TRIDEC - Economic Development Council I I I I I I I I I I I I 13. Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chamber of Commerce I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14. Auto Dealers Association I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15. BB/RR property owners I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16. Lenders/realtors/developers I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 17. Public - city residents l l l l l l l I I I I l I I I I I l l l l l l l I I I I l I I I I I Implement l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l in year Objectives - not necessarily in rank order l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0-1 2-6 Cost (000) Funding sources Organization 1 Assign action plan responsibilities A L P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P X NA Ptax, Commerce-GMP 2 Resolve joint ventures w/HDKP/Port/Private A L P P P X NA Ptax Economics 3 Recruit/retain target markets A L L P P P P P P P X X Ptax, HDKP, Port, TRIDEC, COC, COG 4 Expand Main Street program to BB/RR A L L P P P P P P P X X MainSt, DRP, TMP, CDBG, 108, PBIA Promotion 5 Expand city/HDKP website outreach A L L P P P P P P P P X $50 Ptax, HMTax, TMP, HDKP, TRIDEC, COC 6 Install gateways/wayfinding signage A L P P P X $60 Ptax HMTax REET TMP HDKP CRF 6 Install gateways/wayfinding signage A L P P P X $60 Ptax, HMTax, REET, TMP, HDKP, CRF Design Standards 7 Update/refine zoning designations A L P P P P P P P X Commerce-GMP, Ptax 8 Adopt design standards for BB/RR mixed use A L P P P P P P P X Commerce-GMP, Ptax Design/Development - Infrastructure 9 Fill/soft armor river shoreline for fish habitat A L P A A L P X X DOE-Centennial, ALEA, RCO, Ptax, Umatilla, CRA 10 Install swale/levy enhancements A L P A P A P P X X SDUFee, Ptax, DOE, RCO, TIF/LCF, Prvt, CRA 11 Acquire/develop parks A L P L A P A P P X X Ptax, REET, HMTax, ALEA, RCO, Parkfee, Prvt, CDBG 12 Reconfigure road network A L P P P P P P X X FAUS, UATA, Ptax, MVFTax, Trafficfee, CRA 13 Construct streetscape enhancements A L P P P P P X X REET, Ptax, MVFTax, LID, TBD, PBIA, CRA 14 Construct sidewalks, curbs, gutters A L P P X X Ptax, MVFTax, TIB, CDBG, LID, STUfees, CRA 15 Reconfigure transit routes A P P P L P X NA Ben Franklin Design/Development - Catalytic Projects 16 Acquire/construct public market/train A L L P P P P X X HMTax, REET, Ptax, CDBG, 63:20, HDKP 17 Acquire/issue RFP incubator development A L P P P P P P P X X Ptax, CDBG, 108, HAEIF, Prvt, COG, EDA, SBA 18 Issue design/develop RFP competitions A L P P P P P P P X Ptax, CDBG, HOME, TIF/LCF,Prvt 19 Review/approve Port's Duffy's Pond Plan A L L A A A P P P P P P P X NA Ptax 108 CDBG Section 108 Loan Funds MVFTAX Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 63:20 Lease-to-Own using 63:20 nonprofit financing ParkFee GMA Park Impact Fee ALEA DNR Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act PBIA Parking & Business Improvement Area CDBG Community Development Block Grants Port Port of Kennewick funds COG Council of Governments Small Business Assistance Prvt Private developer contribution or other funds CRA Community Renewal Act Ptax General Fund Property Tax CRF Community Revitalization Finance RCO Washington State Resource Conservation Office g DOE Department of Ecology Centennial Fund REET Real Estate Excise Tax DRP Washington State CTED Downtown Renewal Program grants Rtax General Fund Road Tax EDA Economic Development Administration SBA Small Business Administration GMP Washington State Department of Commerce Growth Management Planning grant SDUFee Stormwater Management Utility fee HDKP Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership funds TBD Transportation Benefits District HMTaxTourism Hotel/Motel Tax TIB Transportation Improvement Board HOME CDBG Program TIF/LCF Tax Increment Finance/Local Community Finance Late-coLate-comer improvements charge TMP Washington Tourism Marketing Program LID Local Improvement District Trafficfee GMA Traffic Impact Fee LIHTC Low Income Housing Tax Credits ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Fish & Wildlife, Ben Franklin Transit, Housing Authority of the City of Kennewick, Benton County Historical Museum, Council of Governments (COG) Economic Development Council (EDC), TRIDEC – Economic Development Council, Tri-Cities and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Auto Dealers Association, and other public, non- profit, and private participants interested and appropriate.  Engage the public – on the economic, promotion, design, design/development – infrastructure, and design/development – catalytic projects and the impact implementation of the BB/RR Revitalization will have on the economic well being and development of the city-at-large.  Resolve funding strategies – using public, nonprofit, and private monies necessary to effectively finance each and all of the action items listed herein.  Monitor implementation – to ensure the actions proposed in this action plan are effectively realized by the all the public, nonprofit, and private parties participating in the BB/RR Revitalization. 2: Resolve agreements with HDKP, Port, and other participants  Resolve HDKP development/operation of the Public Market – including land lease particulars of city’s purchase of BNSF parcels fronting on Benton Street, method of design/delivery and financing of Public Market building and site improvements, tenant and promotional activities programs, and all other particulars.  Resolve Port of Kennewick’s Master Plan for Duffy’s Pond – including proposed particulars concerning pond buffer width and placement, surface street access from Columbia Drive and Washington Street, new building placement and streetscape elements on Columbia Drive, trail location and development around pond and to Sacagawea Heritage Trail, Columbia Drive and Washington Street, and publicly-accessible park location, improvements, and financing.  Resolve RFPs for design/develop competitions – including property sales prices and option agreements, mandatory and optional design criteria, jury process and particulars, developer team honorariums, and all other particulars with participating property owners. 3.5.2: Economics 3: Recruit/retain target markets  Identify key entrepreneurial prospects - for the BB/RR and downtown district including profiles, contact information, promotional materials, and recruitment strategies for:  Multi-modal transportation dealers – including sales and service of electric cars, motor bikes, scooters, mopeds, bicycles, kayaks, and other forms of transportation to transform auto row into a multi-modal transportation hub for the region.  Mixed-use project developers – of mixed-use projects to the BB/RR sites of opportunity.  Mixed income mixed-use housing occupants – including urban households (single adults, family starters, empty nesters, and seniors) migrating into or within the region for mixed-use projects on BB/RR sites of opportunity.  Retail tenants – including retail businesses and activities of interest to Columbia Drive and the downtown district storefronts and proposed mixed-use projects.  Artists and art galleries – including working artists, instructors, galleries, and related entrepreneurs to the proposed live/work and mixed-use projects on BB/RR sites of opportunity.  Incubator and start-up businesses – including start-up businesses and entrepreneurs from surrounding city and region for the proposed incubator buildings to be developed on Railroad Avenue including provisions for start-up grants and SBA loans.  Public market vendors – including farmers’ market vendors, wine and food vendors, artist workshops and galleries, performance artists and instructors, and other activities to be housed in the Public Market to be developed on BNSF property on Benton Street.  Excursion train operator – including excursion train operators as well as destination facilities, programs, and operators for a series of dinner, mystery, sightseeing, winery, ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan and other train tours of the region from the BNSF property on Benton Street.  Compile supporting market information – including listings of available properties and building spaces along with terms, contacts, descriptions, and other referral information for integration into marketing websites.  Provide business planning and start-up capital assistance – to support small business planning, capital and investment planning, workforce training, and other small business development services.  Create a capital investment fund – to include a large portfolio of no and low interest loans available from local lending institutions and organizations devoted specifically to small business retention, start-up, and recruitment outreach efforts.  Conduct cold call contacts – for the above using combinations of e-mail and e-newsletter, mail, telephone, and in-person interviews to determine information needs, reactions, interests, and competitive assessments.  Follow-up – interested recruits by providing tours, promotional events, analysis, and other finalizing coordination with property or business owners, financial sources, and networking with other entrepreneurial individuals and enterprises in Kennewick.  Debrief – cold call contacts and recruits to assess marketing materials, marketing positioning, property and business rates, and other information with which to refine the BB/RR and downtown brand, promotional materials and activities, and market offerings, etc. 4: Expand the “Main Street” program  Expand the Main Street program model and HDKP activities – to include promotion, business development, advertising, parking, design, economic restructuring, and other related activities and interests to the larger BB/RR area including Columbia Drive and auto row, and the industrial startup potentials along Railroad Avenue. HDKP will sponsor and coordinate permanent committees dedicated to business recruitment efforts, promotions, and design improvements within the larger BB/RR/Downtown/Civic Center area on a full-time basis.  Expand downtown activities and special events program – to include coordination with farmers’ market vendors, key seasonal community and tourist events, and special sales activities of interest to merchants, community organizers, residents, and tourists of the larger BB/RR area including Columbia Drive auto row.  Initiate additional special events that are keyed to unique Kennewick historical occurrences – like Native American settlements, early agriculture developments, river steamboat landings, railroad development and services, winery establishments, and like events of historical importance to community residents and of interest to tourists.  Expand the façade improvement program – to upgrade appearances, visual quality, and streetscape interest on Columbia Drive and the on Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Streets between BB/RR and the downtown district. Implement building design standards that define a palette for streetscape furniture, landscaping, lighting, and paving improvements. Develop prototypical designs to improve awnings, signage, window displays, color, materials, and other building features for interim and long- term upgrades to existing businesses along Columbia Drive, and the Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Street  Expand the source of low cost building improvement and development funds - to rehabilitate, retrofit, and building onto or on top of existing older commercial buildings, facades, signage, and other design improvements by increasing city and HDKP-financed grants with larger matching local lender low interest funds.  Award capital investment funds on a competitive basis or in response to a request system - where the applicant demonstrates the rehab, retrofit, infill or add onto, façade, and signage project is viable, will improve conditions within the BB/RR and downtown district, and cannot be financed with traditional market sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3.5.3: Promotion 5: Update and expand city/HDKP websites  Refine the brand, tagline, and logo – and other promotional materials for the city and include the BB/RR area and proposed Public Market activities and developments. Create an updated city and HDKP style guide to coordinate and manage the websites and collateral materials.  Expand city/HDKP marketing/tourism websites - using Google’s CommunityWalk, YouTube videos, Yahoo!’s Calendar event scheduling and promotions, Flickr photo management and sharing, Twitter micro-blogging, and other interactive tools to create the following:  Homepage - with copyrighted name, brand, and logo and registered URL, embedded search engines, streaming pictures, city maps, and external linkages  Attractions pages – with pop-up maps and sidebars on area climate and geography, demographic and economic statistics, city and area history, and recreation facilities sitemaps and photos  Events pages – with calendar schedule and event planning information on facilities, florists, food catering, musicians, party rentals and supplies, and photographers  Visitor services pages – with pop-up maps and sidebars on dining, lodging, and shopping businesses including direct linkages to each business website, e-mail, streaming videos, and other proprietor promotional materials  Business investment pages – including linkages with pop-up maps and sidebar info to area multi-list realtors with information on available business properties of interest to merchants and businesses interested in locating or investing in Chehalis  Resident services pages – including linkages with pop-up maps and sidebars on schools, churches, and realtors with information on available housing properties of interest to existing residents and households interested in living in Kennewick  Transportation pages – including pop-up maps and sidebar info on automobile routes, transit, taxi, and limousine services, Amtrak railroad, and airplane and airport schedules  Gallery pages – including factoid sheets, downloadable photo galleries, e-postcards, e-newsletter sign-ups, and requests for brochures or other promotional materials  Design and publish coordinated print collateral materials - including typography, color, placement, and other preliminary style guide contents for the following:  Correspondence – including letterhead, business cards, envelopes, labels, and other correspondence materials  Brochures – including transmittal folders with insert pockets and templates for insert or hand-out sheets, CDs, and DVDs with detailed information on trade area demographics, finance, property listings, and other marketing materials  Flyers – including single, double, and tri-fold handouts and inserts for ferry, motel, convention center, and other promotional stands and exhibits  Advertising templates – including single and multiple page banners and inserts for merchant group advertisements in newspapers and magazines  Billboards – including background imagery and message themes for hardcopy billboards and electronic messaging reader-boards  Trailers and information stands – including wrapping schemes for mobile trailer information stands, vehicles, and buildings to operate in Columbia Park during seasonal events 6: Install historic district, gateways, and wayfinding signage  Have WSDOT install – historic district signage for the downtown on US-395, SR-240 and SR-397 exit ramps to the newly constructed roundabouts.  Install historic district directional signage - on other local roadways leading into the BB/RR and downtown including Kennewick Avenue, First Avenue, and Gum Street.  Design and install gateway or entry improvements – including the graphic concepts, sign standards, and other particulars that ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan identify entry into the BB/RR and downtown based on variations of the city’s established sun and river logo elements on SR-240 and SR- 397, US-395, Columbia Park Trail, Columbia Drive, Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Streets.  Install way-finder signage – including graphic concepts, sign standards, and placement strategies identifying routes to and locations of Columbia Park, Duffy’s Pond, Clover Island, the downtown, and Civic Center with city hall, police station, library, schools, parks and trails, and other key sites that define the BB/RR and downtown. 3.5.4: Design standards 7: Update/refine zoning designations  Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Kennewick – to retain Industrial Light (IL) zoning along the railroad corridor, retain Commercial General (CG) zoning of Auto Row on Columbia Drive, and re-designate the single family neighborhood on Grand Ronde and Entiat Avenues for Residential Low or Medium Density (RL or RM).  Amend Chapter 18.03 of the Municipal Code to create a Mixed Use (MU) zoning district - using the footnotes in Table 18.12.010: Use and Standards Table, the designations in Table 18.12.010 A.2: Table of Residential Site Development Standards, the designations in Table 18.12.010 B.1: Table of Non-Residential Uses, designations in Table 18.12.010 B.2: Table of Non-Residential Site Development Standards, and other provisions of Chapter 18.03 to implement appropriate mixed use developments in the BB/RR area.  Incorporate Incentive Zoning provisions – in the Mixed Use (MU) zone providing non-cash incentives including added building height and reduced parking requirements and cash incentives including deferred building review and permit fees, utility connection fees, and growth impact fees for affordable and workforce units of housing for households making 80% or less of Average Median Household Income (AMHI) in the Tri-City area. 8: Adopt design standards for BB/RR mixed use  Adopt historical building design guidelines – specifying the characteristics to be retained, reconstructed, and enhanced in contributing and non-contributing buildings and infill developments in the historic downtown.  Adopt new building design guidelines – specifying building articulations, placement, size and mass, frontages, entries, parking, and other characteristics of new mixed-use developments on Columbia Drive, around Duffy’s Pond, and elsewhere in the mixed- use districts in the BB/RR area.  Adopt signage design guidelines – specifying the purpose, type, number, size, graphic content, lighting, and other characteristics of property and building signage, including the historic downtown district and BB/RR to improve the impact of business, promotional, and other advertising signage on the property, downtown district, and from the roadway and pedestrian areas elsewhere in the city.  Adopt landscape design guidelines – specifying low maintenance, native materials that provide ground cover, seasonal color, and visual interest for low upkeep but maximum visibility, street trees for accent and canopy, and other landscape improvements for existing and new developments throughout the BB/RR area. 3.5.5: Design/development - infrastructure 9: Fill/soft armor select river shoreline areas for fish habitat  Inventory, design, submit, and accomplish project applications – to the Corps, DOE, DFW, and Umatilla Tribe for the installation of sandy, soft armoring shoreline enhancements at select and appropriate locations along the river levy shoreline between the Blue and Cable Bridges. 10: Install stormwater swale/river levy enhancements  Install a vegetation mat on the inside face of the river flood levy - to soften the view and provide aesthetic interest. The mat will provide a surface upon which native, drought tolerant native ground cover plants can grow that will not root into and lessen the ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan integrity of the levy – and block views from fronting property developments.  Install “grasscrete” or similar structural underground material that allows grass to grow through the grid - removing Columbia Park Trail roadway (see task 12) and the asphalt and gravel surface of the emergency access roadway that extends from the Blue Bridge to the Cable Bridge. Grasscrete will support emergency vehicles and access but provide a grassy surface that can be walked on and used as a linear park.  Install native plant materials and rockery within the swale – to slow and bio-filtrate stormwater runoff and provide aesthetic interest. Native plantings can withstand periods of rain and sun, minimize maintenance requirements, and soften the stormwater swale edges. In some instances, the swale may be reconfigured to provide the same collection capacity but lessen the linear geometrical appearance.  Install grass, street trees, and furnishings on the inside swale buffer – to provide a visual accent, active park space, and support the construction of pedestrian trails and boardwalks on frontage property developments.  Construct bridges and stairways across the swale and up the inside levy face - to connect the BB/RR neighborhood, frontage properties, and boardwalk/trails on the inside of the swale with Sacagawea Heritage Trail on the top of the levy. The bridges and stairways will create a series of trail loops increasing access between these enhancements and the riverfront.  Install wayfinding and directory signs, interpretive exhibits, picnic tables, and shelters – on the Sacagawea Heritage Trail on top of the levy, along the edge of the emergency access grasscrete linear park, and along the buffer on the inside of the swale to increase amenities, interest, and the visual appeal of the swale/levy corridor.  Install an artworks gallery – along the trail and swale corridor and viewing areas that features the work of local artists that are displayed on a consignment basis for public appreciation and sale. 11: Acquire/develop BB/RR parks  Designate a publicly accessible but potentially privately owned or dedicated park improvement on frontage property between John Day and Jean Streets – to be enhanced with a visual accent and/or park activity with a stormwater collection or bio- filtration pond, a pedestrian boardwalk, street trees, benches, picnic tables, artworks, and other amenities. The park improvement will be constructed and maintained or donated to the city by the frontage property developer in lieu of a park impact fee or late- comer charge.  Acquire a public park property between the swale/levy and Columbia Drive at Fruitland Street – and construct an over-water landing and viewpoint – possibly with water edge access, interpretive exhibit and artworks, picnic shelter and kitchen – possibly with vendor concessions, comfort station, parking, and transit stop.  Designate a publicly accessible but potentially privately owned or dedicated park improvement on frontage property between Benton and Washington Streets – to be enhanced with a visual accent and/or park activity with a stormwater collection or bio-filtration pond, a pedestrian boardwalk, street trees, benches, picnic tables, artworks, and other amenities. The park improvement will be constructed and maintained or donated to the city by the frontage property developer in lieu of a park impact fee or late- comer charge.  Acquire a public park property between Duffy’s Pond and Columbia Drive – and construct a major into the site with hardscape plazas with interpretive exhibits and artworks, spray water features or fountains, amphitheater, playground, picnic shelter and kitchen – possibly with vendor concessions, comfort station, parking, and transit stop. Depending on the Port of Kennewick’s Master Plan for Duffy’s Pond, extend the around Duffy’s Pond furnishing the wetland buffer area with perimeter access trails, benches, and other amenities. 12: Reconfigure road network  Reduce and control median lane traffic turning movements on Columbia Drive – to control right and left turn lanes at major ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan street and traffic signal intersections to increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion with adjacent land uses.  Realign Columbia Park Trail - from the flood levy emergency access road bench south into the BB/RR neighborhood possibly aligning on John Day Avenue or Kent Place south to Klamath Avenue then east to Fruitland Street.  Open, realign, and extend Bruneau/Railroad Avenues – west through the former food processing plant reclaiming the roadway when the UP and Port spur tracks are removed, and extending the road west of Hartford Street to allow industrial development of the surplus BNSF property.  Designate on the streets and roads map – the potential extensions of Grande Ronde, Entiat, and Deschutes Avenues, and the closure or channelization of Garfield, Dayton, Cascade, and Auburn Streets to manage access to future developments along the swale/levy and control traffic movements and capacity on Columbia Drive. 13: Construct streetscape enhancements  Expand sidewalks - to the edge of the right-of-way and abutting adjacent storefronts (from 8-12 or 14 feet in width) on Columbia Drive and the other defining east-west and north-south streetscape corridors between the BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center.  Upgrade transit furnishings – including route signage, directories, transit stops, shelters, and service schedules and routings on Columbia Drive and the other routes within the proposed BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center couplets (see task 15).  Improve pedestrian-friendly furnishings – installing a coordinated system of benches, waste receptacles, newspaper stands, bike racks, directory and wayfinding signage, and other people-oriented furniture.  Install landscaping – including street trees, ground cover, and seasonal flowers in swales, green strips, and planter boxes with cisterns and other stormwater collection and watering systems under a “green street” planting concept.  Install artworks – using a competitive design jury process to select local artist works to display sale consignments at select places along the major pedestrian corridors for 1-2 year intervals.  Where appropriate – relocate and/or underground overhead power and telecommunication lines, and relocate light and signage standards in order remove visual blight and to plant street trees in a dense walkway-covering sequence, especially along Columbia Drive. 14: Construct sidewalks, curbs, and gutters  Improve existing and future roadways with basic infrastructure – to include sidewalks, curbs, gutters, bike lanes or designated shared roadways, and other improvements throughout the BB/RR area and within the single family neighborhood in particular.  Reconfigure existing roadway infrastructure to accommodate pedestrian and bikeways – using curb extensions, wider crosswalks, pedestrian signals, bike lanes and designated shared roadway lanes, and other enhancements.  Install transit improvements – including route signage, directories, transit stops, shelters, and service schedules and routings in the extended curb areas on Fruitland, Dayton, Auburn, and Washington Streets, and other collection points on the transit shuttle corridors and at the Dayton Transit Center. 15: Reconfigure transit routes  Reconfigure route 55, 120, and/or 160 – to create a loop shuttle service between Columbia Park, BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center using the relocated Columbia Park Trail on Klamath Avenue, Columbia Drive, Fruitland Street, East 1st Avenue, and SR-397/Gum Street.  Install transit improvements – including route signage, directories, transit stops, shelters, and service schedules and routings along the reconfigured BB/RR, downtown, Civic Center shuttle corridors. ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3.5.6: Design/development – catalytic projects 16: Acquire/develop Public Market and Excursion Train  Acquire the BNSF property – that the city originally leased from BNSF on both sides of Benton Street and seek to lease then acquire the depot and adjacent property as well if and when BNSF operations can be accommodated with other on-site facilities.  Improve the site – with security perimeter fencing adjacent the railroad tracks adorned with artworks, public parking lots with flat curbs that allow conversion into outdoor exhibit and festival spaces during special events, flexible outdoor plazas and gathering spaces that front public market and other indoor spaces, and street trees, light standards, artworks, and landscaping that provide aesthetic accents. Extend special pedestrian paving materials along Benton and between the 2 purchased parcels to calm traffic, provide pedestrian crossing safety, and define a gateway to the site and activities.  Develop a Public Market – with buildings with flexible ground floor space that can be subdivided for food, crafts, and art vendors during market events or left open for public presentations and other activities; and flexible upper floor space that can be used for classroom and instructions, galleries and exhibits, incubator workspaces and offices, and other multipurpose activities.  Recruit market tenants and activities – to include the following:  Artists and art galleries – including working artists, instructors, galleries, and related entrepreneurs.  Incubator and start-up businesses – including start-up businesses and entrepreneurs from the surrounding city and region that will create, fabricate, or retail items of interest to market customers.  Public market vendors – including farmers’ market, wine and food, fine art workshops and galleries, performance artists and instructors, and other continuous and special event activities.  Public market concessions or tenants – including restaurants and cafes, coffee houses and wine bars, and other day/night activities of interest to residents and tourists.  Program continuous activities – to include coordination with farmers’ market vendors, key seasonal community and tourist events, and special sales activities of interest to merchants, community organizers, residents, and tourists of the city and surrounding region.  Program special events that are keyed to unique Kennewick historical occurrences – like Native American settlements, early agriculture developments, river steamboat landings, railroad development and services, winery establishments, and like events of historical importance to community residents and of interest to tourists.  Recruit an excursion train operator – to operate dinner, mystery, sightseeing, winery tours, and other train tours of the region using the UP track spur adjacent to West Canal Drive and the public parking lot improvement on the west side of Benton Street. Eventually, lease and acquire the BNSF depot and adjacent property to provide a ticket and passenger staging area with comfort and convenience facilities, historical exhibits of early railroad developments, an outdoor artwork gallery and platform loading area, and expanded parking area.  Install angled parking on West Canal Drive – on the north or south side to provide overflow parking for major events at the Public Market and downtown parking on a continuous basis. Install a security perimeter fence along the UP tracks the continuous length of West Canal Drive to prevent Public Market customers from walking across the tracks. 17: Acquire/issue RFP for incubator developments  Lease then acquire the property from BNSF – to allow the development of a complex of incubator buildings providing flexible shop, office, storage, retail and wholesale sales and exhibit space, conference and meeting spaces, shared or common business equipment and services, daycare and childcare, and possibly even some live/work spaces for start-up businesses and entrepreneurs. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Brainstorm redevelopment solutions for the property – accounting for concepts that may redevelop the property under alternative scenarios with or without rail service, in or outdoor shop and storage areas, public retail operations, day and childcare, and live/work spaces under different densities and designs.  Assess the economic feasibility of the preferred concepts – including land values, construction costs, indirect development costs – and the impact of direct and indirect incentives including variable term or rate lease arrangements, low interest development loans, development density, parking requirements, and land use or zoning bonuses.  Assess and mitigate environmental impacts – including on and off-site stormwater run-off, parking and loading area requirements, height and lot coverage allowances, design aesthetics, and public amenities.  Conduct public hearings and approve a pre-packaged plan solution – including appropriate property-specific development agreements, design guidelines, and SEPA MDNS or EIS mitigation documents.  Develop a competitive request-for-proposal (RFP) process - governing the sale or long term lease and redevelopment of the property for the preferred and pre-approved design/develop solution.  Conduct a town hall – with potential developers to tour the site, review the design concepts and project pro-forma, evaluate the RFP process, and incorporate their suggestions and comments in order to ensure an effective market response.  Issue the RFP and judge proposals – by fixing the asking price or leasing agreement for the property and ranking proposals on use, design, operational merits, and beneficial impacts on the property and the BB/RR’s development opportunities.  Award project – following City Council public hearings and review procedures, to the proposal ranked to have the most use, design, and operational merits, and beneficial development impacts on the neighborhood, industrial district, and BB/RR and downtown. 18: Issue RFP for private property packages  Package potential development parcels – working with private property owners who are interested and willing to participate by establishing appraisal certified sales prices and option agreements allowing design/develop RFP competitions.  Brainstorm redevelopment solutions for the property – accounting for concepts that may redevelop the property under alternative scenarios as single or multiple phased projects, with mixed income housing, and under different densities and designs.  Assess the economic feasibility of the preferred concepts – including land values, construction costs, indirect development costs – and the impact of direct and indirect incentives including property acquisition write-downs, low interest development loans, development density or parking waivers, land use or zoning bonuses. In the case of affordable or work force housing, the incentives may also include deferral of some or all permit, building, connection, and impact fees.  Assess and mitigate environmental impacts – including on and off-site stormwater run-off, parking and loading area requirements, height and lot coverage allowances, design aesthetics, and urban amenities.  Conduct public hearings and approve a pre-packaged plan solution – including appropriate property-specific development agreements, design guidelines, and SEPA MDNS or EIS mitigation documents.  Develop a competitive design/develop request-for-proposal (RFP) process - governing the sale and redevelopment of the property for the preferred and pre-approved solution.  Conduct a town hall – with potential developers to tour the site, review the design concepts and project pro-forma, evaluate the RFP process, and incorporate their suggestions and comments in order to ensure an effective market response. ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Issue the RFP and judge proposals – by fixing the asking price for the property and ranking proposals on use and design merits, and beneficial impacts on the property, BB/RR, downtown, and city at large development opportunities.  Award project – following City Council public hearings and review procedures, to the proposal ranked to have the most use and design merit, and beneficial development impacts on the property, BB/RR, downtown, and city-at-large. 19: Review/resolve master plan for Port of Kennewick’s Duffy’s Pond properties  Resolve environmental issues and impacts – of the Port’s proposed master plan for its properties including water quality, width and location of buffer areas, roadway access and parking, gondola lines over Columbia Drive and Duffy’s Pond, and other SEPA issues.  Resolve park and trail improvements – including design, construction, and financing particulars for public access, activities, and relationships with Sacagawea Heritage Trail and the other public and privately-owned park enhancements proposed in this BB/RR Revitalization.  Resolve mixed use zoning allowances – including relationship to the proposed new mixed use zoning district proposed in this BB/RR Revitalization including setbacks, coverage, height, parking, and inclusionary zoning provisions for affordable housing.  Conduct hearings and resolve master plan approval particulars – by the Planning Commission and City Council allowing for adjacent property owner and public input concerning the Port’s proposals, site, and building improvements, and methods of implementation for Port properties and adjacent privately-owned parcels. ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 4.1 Scope of environmental analysis 4.1.1 Impacts The following environmental analysis was accomplished for a non- project action or programmatic environmental impact statement under the guidelines set forth by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 as amended. The analysis of environmental impacts was intended to identify those aspects of the natural and human environment that could potentially be impacted by the overall policies and implementation tasks outlined in the proposed Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan. In-depth quantifiable environmental analysis was not conducted of site-specific project impacts because many of the proposed individual implementation tasks have not yet been designed and/or may not involve project type actions. Environmental threshold determinations will be made by implementing departments or agencies on individual implementation tasks and projects to determine whether project- specific environmental impact statements will be required at the time publicly sponsored projects are to be accomplished and/or designed and funded for construction. Privately sponsored projects will be reviewed for environmental threshold determinations by the lead agency when the properties are to be developed. 4.1.2 BB/RR Revitalization Action Plan – Alternative 2 Potential implementation tasks that may result from the proposed Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan are described in the accompanying BB/RR Action Plan document (Alternative Implementation of Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan – the Proposed Action will comply with GMA requirements for comprehensive plan amendments, zoning map and ordinance revisions, and a capital facilities program. In addition, the program will also develop and implement 19 major BB/RR Action Plan strategies outlined in the matrix in Section 3: The Proposed Action, and determined to be important in effectively implementing the BB/RR Revitalization. The 19 strategies are grouped according to subject matter and not necessarily priority and are listed in an analytical sequence beginning with: 1) Organization, 2) Economics, 3) Promotion, 4) Design Standards, 5) Design/Development – Infrastructure, and 6) Design/Development – Catalytic Projects. 4.1.3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) This document describes actions, ordinances, measures, and projects that will be initiated to implement the policies, goals, and objectives described in the elements to the BB/RR Revitalization Plan. The possible mitigation measures include specific tasks dealing with environmental protections, land use ordinances, economic strategies, transportation improvements, park and recreation projects, urban design ordinances, and public facility programs and projects. The proposed implementation and mitigation measures could require lead agency involvement by Kennewick and the active participation of numerous other local, state, federal, and private agencies and organizations. This environmental analysis includes the beneficial and adverse impacts on the environment assuming that all of the proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan policies, physical improvements, and implementation measures will be accomplished. 4.1.4 Mitigation measures The techniques to be used to mitigate the possible environmental impacts of implementing actions depend on the location, type, and size of specific implementation task measures and projects. For example, two identical implementation projects on different sites could result in a different set of impacts requiring different mitigation techniques because existing environmental conditions vary considerably among different sites. For these reasons and because specific project designs and locations have not yet been developed, specific mitigating measures were not developed for the proposed implementation program's project related environmental impacts. When individual projects are scheduled for implementation, the implementing agency or SEPA official - which may be the Kennewick Community Planning Department - will determine whether the specific project will require an environmental checklist, environmental impact statement or other threshold determination or declaration of non-significance. As part of that process, the implementing agency will determine the types and level of significance of impacts and identify appropriate mitigating measures in accordance with local, state or federal regulations, building, and development guidelines. If impacts are judged to be especially significant, the implementing agency could decide to forego or revise an implementing measure or project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 93 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Elements of the human environment 4.6 Relationship to existing plans and policies The following plans are related to the proposals involved within the Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan. 4.6.1: State policies Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A) In March 1990, the Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act (GMA) (ESHB 2929, codified as Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) in accordance with 1992 and 1993 amendments). The GMA required 11 counties (including Benton County) that had a population of at least 50,000 persons and experienced a growth rate of at least 10% since 1980 to develop comprehensive plans by July 1993. The act also required all cities within these affected counties (including Kennewick) to adopt a plan that conformed with the provisions of the GMA and with the affecting county jurisdiction's plans by the 1993 deadline. Critical area designations In accordance with the act's provisions, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development (CTED – now Department of Commerce (DOC)) adopted minimum guidelines used by local governmental jurisdictions to classify agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands. The guidelines defined "critical areas" to include wetlands, areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. The act required the affected counties and cities designate the natural resource lands and critical areas in accordance with CTED (now DOC) guidelines and adopt appropriate protective regulations to ensure their conservation. Accordingly, Kennewick adopted Critical Areas Ordinance regulating land development in sensitive areas involving sensitive wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, erosion, sensitive water bodies, and flood hazard areas. The ordinance's definition of sensitive areas correlated with the definitions used by the Benton County Planning & Development Service's Critical Areas Maps and with the definitions used in the CTED (DOC) Minimum Guidelines. Kennewick's Critical Areas Ordinance provides a means of protecting sensitive lands, particularly those lands and soils that possess severe risk. The prevailing 2008 Kennewick Comprehensive Plan also designates sensitive area lands that are not capable of being developed for urban or other high intensity uses. In addition, the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) separately regulates the shorelines within Kennewick. The performance guidelines between the Critical Area Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) are generally compatible. Statutory requirements under GMA Amendments to the comprehensive plan are legislative actions requiring City Council approval and must be approved as prescribed by GMA. With a few exceptions, amendments cannot be considered more often than once per year and in accordance with specific procedures. Major updates occur by legislative action on a 7-year cycle as established by RCW 36.70A.130(4)(c). For Benton County, Kennewick, and the other cities within the county this 7-year cycle means on or before December 1, 2006 and every 7 years after that – though the current Kennewick Comprehensive Plan was approved by Council in 2008.  Amendments to the comprehensive land use plan or map – which may be requested by the city or private individuals, are generally not to be considered more often than once per year, although there are exceptions. Multiple applications for ---PAGE BREAK--- 94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan amendments will be considered in a single legislative review process in order to evaluate the potential cumulative effect of the requests.  All amendment requests require a public hearing - with the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the City Council concerning whether to approve or deny and/or subject to modifications of the proposals. City Council approves or denies amendments in a public hearing. Public involvement with the process is required and encouraged through direction of the Kennewick Public Participation Plan, adopted in 2005.  Annual amendments - address issues of major or minor land use classification changes; changes to the goals, policies and text of the comprehensive plan; changes to supporting data and implementation; changes to the land use maps; and changes to the inventories and technical documents.  Every 10 years - the annual amendment review may be combined with the required review of the urban growth area to determine the next 20-year anticipated growth. The 10-year review uses the comprehensive plans of each county and city and the permitted densities of the incorporated and un-incorporated areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(3). Exceptions to yearly amendments There are 5 exceptions to the rule of considering comprehensive plan amendments only once per year and are described in the process for adoption in KMC 18.51.100 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and KAC 10-40-060 Comprehensive Plan Amendments:  For the initial adoption of a subarea plan that does not change the policies of the comprehensive plan and does not change the land use designation or designations applicable to the subarea, or  For amendment of a shoreline master program, or  For the amendment of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan occurring concurrently with the adoption or amendment of the city’s budget, or  For an amendment to resolve a hearings board appeal, or  For an emergency as defined in KAC 10-40-060. Emergency amendments Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments are those immediately necessary to preserve public peace, health, or safety or to support city government and its existing institutions such as:  Provision of an essential public facility that is needed, such as waste disposal sites, sewer treatment plants, port facilities, or  Significant state or local government facilities that cannot be reviewed through another process in a timely manner,  To correct technical errors in mapping or other obvious errors in applying the comprehensive plan map or zoning map. The applicant, which can be the city or a private individual, needs to demonstrate that an obvious error has occurred and that the proposed amendment affects a neighborhood, community, or the city as a whole and is not the personal emergency of a particular applicant. The process for adopting emergency amendments is the same as stated in KMC 18.51.075 and KAC 10-40-060. Local implementation Procedures for the review and processing of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are established in the Kennewick Administrative Code and the Kennewick Municipal Code:  KAC 10-08-030:  Planning Commission KAC 10-40-060:  Comprehensive Plan Amendments KAC 10-12-010:  Procedure Charts (Amendments are Type 3 permits) KAC 10-80- 010:  Public Notification KMC Chapter 18.51: Amendment and Appeal Coordination with Benton County In all instances, comprehensive plan amendments must be analyzed in relation to the overall coordination with other applicable city programs and efforts, and overall benefits to the city and/or region ---PAGE BREAK--- 95 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan at large. To this end, all amendments are sent for a 60-day review to the Benton County Planning Department at the same time as the review is conducted by the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC). Concurrency GMA (WAC 365-195-510) defines concurrency to mean needed improvements for water, sewer, and transportation are in place at the time of development; or in the case of transportation, that a financial commitment exists to complete the improvements within 6 years. Standards for concurrency A baseline standard (level of service – LOS) must be established to evaluate the anticipated impacts of new development to determine if concurrency can be met. New development cannot decrease established LOS below the minimum standards and be permitted to develop. Transportation LOS Signalized intersections – existing level of service D Un-signalized intersections or driveways (minor street approach) level of service E Signalized or un-signalized intersection with second site access point with 0.25 miles have a LOS D or better level of service F Utilities LOS Domestic water 170 gallons/capita/day Domestic sewer 120 gallons/capita/day Commercial or industrial water or sewer per Water/Sewer System Plans Kennewick reviews projects for transportation concurrency if the project will:  Increase demand by 50 or more peak hour trips per day,  Decrease the existing LOS shown,  If the proposal is a preliminary plat of 9 or more residential lots, or If the proposal is for Tier II or Tier III site plans (projects exceeding 1,500 square feet in area or multi-family dwellings of 3 or more units). Kennewick reviews projects for water and sewer concurrency if the project would increase the demand for potable water and/or sewer requirements above the LOS. Option for transportation concurrency Under GMA a proposal must be denied if a project does not meet transportation concurrency. Beyond having a financial commitment to complete the required improvements within 6 years, the applicant does have 2 additional options to avoid having a proposal denied:  Amend the submitted application to reduce the capacity improvements that would be needed to maintain the adopted LOS; or  Provide additional capacity for transportation facilities. The process for reviewing project concurrency is established in the Kennewick Administrative Code and the Kennewick Municipal Code:  KAC 13-08-030(5): Design Level-of-Service KMC Section 4.12.055:  Project Concurrency KMC Chapter 18.51: Amendment and Appeal SEPA and mitigation A land use application that triggers a concurrency review is not exempt from SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) if it would normally be required for the application. The concurrency review, however, is an administrative action of the City and it is categorically exempt from SEPA review. During the land use approval process, additional mitigation may be required even though the project does not trigger a concurrency review. Consistency GMA (RCW 36.70A.070; RCW 36.70A.120; RCW 36.70A.100; WAC 365-195-500; WAC 365195-530) requires the Comprehensive Plan must be internally consistent for objectives, goals, policies, text, ---PAGE BREAK--- 96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan and maps. At the same time, the comprehensive plans of adjacent jurisdictions must also be consistent and capital budget decisions must be made in conformance with each jurisdiction’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan must be horizontally (externally) and vertically (internally) consistent.  Horizontal consistency - applies to adjacent jurisdictions such as Benton County, through the County-wide Planning Policies (CWPP), and the cities of Richland and Pasco.  Vertical consistency - requires that all development regulations within Kennewick match with each other including the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning (Title 18), Subdivisions (Title 17), the Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Master Plan, and any other city regulations as contained in the Kennewick Municipal Code and other adopted plans such as the Park & Recreation Plan and the Wellhead Protection Plan. Comprehensive plan and budget decisions The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) correlates funding sources to pay for needed improvements while identifying projects for specific revenues such as the optional 0.5% sales tax, 0.5% real estate excise tax, and the 5% admissions tax. The budgeting process is guided by the following specific policies adopted by City Council to ensure consistency between the Capital Improvement Program CIP), the Comprehensive Plan, and the biennial budget process:  Ensure Kennewick’s land use and infrastructure elements are internally consistent.  Reassess Kennewick’s land use plan periodically to ensure consistency between capital facility needs and financing.  Use adopted level of service (LOS) standards, operating criteria and/or performance standards to evaluate capital facility needs.  Base capital facility needs on employment and population projections developed by the city in conjunction with county and state estimates.  Update the CIP in conjunction with the annual Comprehensive Plan process.  Ensure that necessary capital facilities are provided as required by the city’s concurrency ordinance. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is reviewed for consistency with Kennewick’s Comprehensive Plan. All projects within the CIP are located within the adopted urban growth boundary and all projects are in conformance with land uses shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. 4.6.2: Growth Impact Fees Under current law (RCW 82.02.020) impact fees are prohibited as a condition of development except for payments made on a "voluntary" basis to mitigate an impact of a new project that is "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat". Under GMA, the following conditions must be met before a new development can be assessed an impact fee:  The off-site system improvements - for which the fee will be used must be "reasonably related" to the new development. A new development may be assessed for a system improvement that services the community-at-large, and not just the project. System improvement assessments may include streets and roads, publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities, school facilities, and fire protection facilities which are not part of a fire district.  The fee cannot exceed - a proportionate share of the cost of a particular system improvement.  The improvement will reasonably benefit - the new development.  The public facility must be one that is addressed in the capital facilities element - of the comprehensive plan and the facilities plan must meet certain GMA defined requirements.  The fee assessment ordinance must include a schedule - specifying the amount of the fee to be imposed for each type of improvement and a formula or other method of calculation.  The formula must incorporate the cost of public facilities - that are necessary due to the new development adjusting for: ---PAGE BREAK--- 97 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  past or future payments from the property,  the availability of other funding means,  the cost of existing improvements and the methods by which the existing improvements were financed,  a credit for any dedication of land,  a provision for adjustment in the event of unusual circumstances and accounting for any special justification which may be submitted by the developer,  an appropriate geographic service area for calculating the fee,  a provision for latecomers' charges, and  an exemption for low income housing and other development activity which should be paid from public funds.  Significantly, the impact fee "shall constitute full and complete compliance - with Kennewick's requirements for the provision for the particular public facility. No other payments may be required for the same system improvements by any county, city or town by any other means". Consequently, SEPA may not be used to impose an additional fee for the same type of facility for which the impact fee assessment was levied.  Impact fees may be collected - when final development approval is provided or when a building permit is issued. The fee must be paid but may be appealed by the developer concurrent with the awarding of development approval or a building permit. Under GMA provisions, Kennewick must provide an arbitration system for resolving impact fee disputes. Impact fees may only be used for the type of public improvement for which the fee was collected, and must be spent within 6 years of imposition unless extraordinary and compelling reasons dictate otherwise. Kennewick currently charges a traffic impact fee of $1,325 per pm peak trip and a park impact fee of $850 per dwelling unit. Kennewick does not currently collect a school impact fee on behalf of the Kennewick School District. 4.6.3: Other BB/RR planning proposals Three other planning proposals have been developed for portions of the BB/RR area including a 2003 Urban Design Assistance Team (UDAT) by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), a 2009 Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan by the Port of Kennewick that included appendices with proposed land use moratorium, zoning, and other particulars, and a 2009 Duffy’s Pond Master Plan by the Port of Kennewick. A detailed analysis was completed comparing the proposals in the UDAT to this BB/RR Revitalization Plan, the Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan and appendices, and the Duffy’s Pond Master Plan and is provided in succeeding pages. Following is a summary of major findings. The UDAT vision The UDAT vision was accomplished by a team of volunteers with architecture, landscape architecture, city and regional planning, civil engineering, and related social and economic disciplines as well as local residents. The UDAT purpose was to create a vision to link the historic downtown and Clover Island with the waterfront. The UDAT team spent a week during which a series of public workshops developed a vision for the BB/RR area that was published in a public document at the conclusion of the visit. The UDAT vision created a series of recommendations proposing to create or re-establish physical and visual access to the Columbia River including the following list of principal proposals in the (not priority) sequence presented in the publication document:  Create nodes of activity along the riverfront including a proposal to infill a portion of the Clover Island causeway for Kennewick Beach.  Develop authentic places along the shoreline and around Duffy’s Pond based on natural features.  Restore and enhance habitat on both sides of the levee.  Ultimately move the levee inward with private development.  Breach the levee to incorporate Duffy’s Pond and Catfish Island in the Columbia River.  Coordinate development opportunities with private property owners.  Create an internal access road loop connecting Duffy’s Pond ---PAGE BREAK--- 98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan with the grid across Washington Street and Columbia Drive.  Extend Benton Street to the levee to provide traffic, pedestrian, and visual connection to the river.  Relocate Columbia Park Trail off the levee and create a meandering path along the levee and stormwater swale.  Construct a skywalk over Columbia Drive at Benton Street.  Construct a public plaza at the terminus of Benton Street at the river to focus on a performing arts center.  Develop condominium, hotel, and other mixed use structures up to 4 stories over parking decks.  Develop high density housing condominiums and apartments on both sides of Washington Street from Columbia Drive onto Clover Island.  Develop mixed use buildings with retail, office, and housing in place of industrial activities and the cannery plant along the east side of Washington Street.  Develop mini-storage facilities on the vacant land between the BNSF and UP railroad tracks on Benton Street.  Continue the Main Street program with Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership as the 501©3 organization.  Create a Community Development Corporation (CDC) to coordinate development activities.  Refine the vision along with strategies and implementation measures.  Develop affordable housing program and projects as a joint venture between Kennewick and the Housing Authority of Kennewick.  Adopt an inclusionary zoning (IZ) ordinance requiring new development provided 10-20% affordable units.  Create a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) to expand housing rehabilitation programs in the single family neighborhood south of Columbia Drive.  Re-establish an Industrial Development District (IDD) Port levy special assessment for improvements a use a portion of it to relocate the levee.  Consider the market overview and feasibility assessments provided in Appendix A to the vision document for retail and housing markets. Generally, the UDAT vision proposed to create a mixed use, sustainable village, smart and green community development focused on Columbia Drive, the lands north of Columbia Drive to the levee, and the greening, breaching, and relocation of the levee to reconnect the waterfront with BB/RR and the historic downtown. The UDAT vision envisioned the implementation process to involve further testing and refinement and the interplay of public and private property interests and resources, even though the document did not draft of specify detailed implementation measures. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan was developed during a separate city sponsored series of stakeholder interviews, internet surveys, and public workshops. The BB/RR plan incorporates all of the UDAT proposals EXCEPT:  Does not breach or relocate the levee.  Does not extend Benton Street to the levee with a performing arts center as the axial terminus.  Does not construct a skywalk over Columbia Drive.  Does not develop mini-storage units in the vacant land between the BNSF and UP railroad track and spurs. Generally, except for the proposals noted above, the BB/RR Revitalization Plan is an appropriate and effective extension of the UDAT vision. Port of Kennewick Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan The Port of Kennewick created the Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan in 2009 for the area fronting on Columbia Drive from Washington Street east across SR-397/Gum Street and south to the railroad tracks to compliment the Port’s Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal. The plan was developed by Port staff and a consultant and reviewed with the public during a series of presentations. The Port’s Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan incorporates some of the UDAT proposals for the smaller portion of the BB/RR area that it covers EXCEPT:  Does not create authentic places or unique uses since it ---PAGE BREAK--- 99 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan proposes to develop a stand alone, single story grocery store and athletic club south of Columbia Drive with extensive surface parking lots.  Does not develop mixed use structures with retail and housing since it proposes to allow single use multifamily buildings in the east Columbia Drive district.  Does not propose to work with private property owners but rather proposes to use building code enforcement as a means of either forcing development or sale of the property to the Port as the redevelopment agent – a form of semi-condemnation.  Does not retain existing or frontage uses on Columbia Drive but rather proposes acquiring, clearing, and redeveloping the frontage with low density uses with surface parking lots on both sides of the arterial roadway.  Does not propose to develop mixed use condominiums, hotels, or other mixed use structures up to 4 stories over parking decks but rather lower density structures with surface parking lots.  Does not propose to reuse or retain industrial activities along the railroad tracks and spurs but rather to acquire, clear, and develop low density commercial structures and uses.  Does not propose to continue the Main Street approach with Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership as a possible agent in BB/RR but rather proposes Port be designated a “redevelopment agent” with financial support from the city and others.  Does not propose to refine the UDAT vision with strategies and implementation measures within a subarea or redevelopment plan with review, hearings, and approval requirements by the city but rather to remain an independent agent not subject to a city plan restrictions.  Does not propose to partner with or work with any other public or nonprofit agent other than obtaining their financial support.  Does not include any feasibility assessments nor does it propose to complete any additional economic analysis, environmental impact, or other follow-up analysis.  Does not mention affordable housing strategies or implementation measures.  Does not propose creating or adopting an inclusionary zoning (IZ) provision for affordable housing but rather a new stand alone mixed use (CX) zone paralleling a proposal whereby the Port would acquire or establish restrictive covenants on properties subject to a separate Port design and development review requirement in addition to city regulations and reviews.  Does not propose to re-establish the Industrial Development District (IDD) or any other form of development financing of Port or any related public or private projects. Generally, the Port’s Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan does not conform to or propose to implement the mixed use, sustainable village, smart and green community development visions enunciated and illustrated in the UDAT vision but rather conventional redevelopment or renewal based on low density structures, single occupant uses with surface parking lots requiring a “redevelopment agent” and some form of economic and financial write-down. Port of Kennewick Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal The Port of Kennewick created the Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal in 2009 for the area between Washington Street and SR- 397/Blue Bridge/Gum Street, and Columbia Drive and the levee to identify the development direction the Port would like to achieve on the trailer park properties the Port has acquired and cleared in the area, and to govern development prospects for the remaining private properties. The plan was developed by Port staff and a consultant and reviewed with the public during a series of presentations. The Port’s Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal incorporates some of the UDAT proposals for the Duff’s Pond area of the BB/RR that it covers EXCEPT:  Does not develop an authentic place around Duff’s Pond and Catfish Island by restoring and conserving the natural environment and buffering it with boardwalks fronted by mixed use retail and upper floor housing but rather proposes developing a performing arts theater, IMAX, mini-golf, gondola, and paddle boats on the pond that are more common of an amusement park.  Does not propose to develop mixed use with ground floor retail and housing over parking decks but rather primarily single use low rise buildings along Columbia Drive.  Like Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan does not propose ---PAGE BREAK--- 100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan to breach or relocate the levee between Duffy’s Pond and the river.  Does not identify or overtly propose to coordinate development activities with private property owners other than through the overlaying of the proposed master plan onto their properties and the use of restrictive convenants.  Does not include the proposal to infill a portion of the Clover Island causeway for Kennewick Beach.  Does not overtly propose to expand the habitat area around the eastern edge of the pond and Catfish Island but rather to redevelop the frontage with a mini-golf course, and overhead gondola ride.  Does not propose to retain any existing frontage buildings along Columbia Drive but rather to acquire, clear, and redevelop with low rise structures backed with surface parking lots.  Does not include an internal access road loop or connection between Duffy’s Pond interior and the surrounding road grid.  Like the BB/RR Revitalization Plan, does not propose parallel on- street parking on the north side of Columbia Drive between Washington and Gum Street but rather expanded sidewalks and streetscape within the road right-of-way.  Does not extend the street grid into Duffy’s Pond but rather creates separate access points from Columbia Drive and Washington Street.  Does not propose mixed use of 4-story retail, office, and housing over parking decks but rather low density structures with surface parking.  Does not propose hotel or other mixed use fronting boardwalks around Duffy’s Pond but rather low rise artists live/work, a performing arts theater, IMAX, amphitheater, mini-golf, gondola, and other amusement park type improvements adjacent to the buffer area.  Does not propose to partner with private property owners but rather for Port to act as primary or sole redevelopment agent.  Does not include any economic feasibility analysis, property owner agreements or coordination, or implementing funds or measures.  Does not address affordable housing issues other than proposal for artist live/work units.  Does not address transit routes or services other than shelter improvements. Generally, like the Port’s Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan, the Port’s Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal does not conform to or propose to implement the mixed use, sustainable village, smart and green community development visions enunciated and illustrated in the UDAT vision but rather conventional redevelopment or renewal based on low density structures, single occupant uses with surface parking lots requiring a “redevelopment agent” and some form of economic and financial write-down. ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 4.6.3: Comparative analysis: UDAT with BB/RR Revitalization Plan, Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan, Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal UDAT page/proposal BB/RR Revitalization Plan Columbia Drive Plan Duffy’s Pond Master Plan 1 6 – proposes creating access to the Columbia River – physical and visual YES - relocating Columbia Park Trail, levee/stormwater trail loop, park and river overlook at Fruitland N/A SOMEWHAT - narrow visual corridor from Columbia Drive 2 6 – proposes creating nodes of activity – Kennewick Beach YES - Overlook Park, required accents in design/develop RFP competitions at Jesernig and Washington Street properties, boardwalks along levee/stormwater swale YES – provisions for plazas, people places in development regulations YES - park around pond with trails, picnic, mini- golf, gondolas– but no Kennewick Beach 3 6 – proposes developing authentic places YES – Overlook Park, Public Market at Benton, incubators on Railroad, mixed uses on waterfront (especially Jesernig) and Columbia Drive YES – south Columbia Park Drive includes gondola NO – other uses include stand alone, single story grocery store and athletic club YES – park, trails and artists live/work NO – incorporates performing arts theater, IMAX, mini-golf, gondola, paddle boats on pond more common of an amusement park than the natural features and boardwalks fronted by retail and mixed use developments 4 6 – proposes extending Heritage Trail YES - extended length of levee then looped around stormwater and activity accents N/A YES – trail expansion included in master plan proposal 5 7 – proposes restoring , enhancing habitat on both sides of levee YES - soft armoring on riverside of levee, enhancement of stormwater on land side N/A ? - within pond buffer area – extent not decided NO – incorporates performing arts theater, IMAX, mini-golf, gondola, paddle boats on pond more common of an amusement park than the natural features and boardwalks fronted by retail and mixed use ---PAGE BREAK--- 102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan developments 6 7- proposes developing mixed use with retail and housing YES - new and expanded mixed use zones along Columbia Drive and waterfront SOMEWHAT – includes CX proposed mixed use zone below 45 foot height 27 du/acre NO – allows single use multifamily buildings NO - primarily single use low rise buildings shown on both sides of Columbia Drive 7 7 – proposes developing gateways, street trees, visual river connections YES - gateway and wayfinding plan and projects, streetscape projects, view corridors to river at Fruitland (not Benton) and through mixed use SOMEWHAT – proposals described in text and photos from other cities SOMEWHAT - narrow visual connection from Columbia Drive, gondola serving as a gateway entry 8 7 – proposes incorporating entertainment use and activities – restaurants, etc YES - mixed use along boardwalk complete extent of stormwater trail loop, along Columbia Drive mixed use, in Public Market YES – included within CX proposed mixed use zone YES - in new frontage uses on Columbia Drive – and in proposed performing arts theater, IMAX, mini- golf, and gondola ride 9 15 - levee proposals – 1) reduce height (done), 2) restore habitat along land side (stormwater swale), 5) move levee inward by private development, cut levee at Duffy’s Pond YES - restores habitat on both sides of levee NO - does not relocate or breach levee as there is no economic return from shoreline and impracticality of getting Corps to approve a privately developed, structure abutting levee N/A ? - habitat issue depending on buffer resolution NO - does not modify levee per or 10 16 – proposes developing armored private mixed use structures and relocate levee using structures as part of levee (does not address stormwater issue) YES - develops mixed use with boardwalk and activities along stormwater swale including expansion of swale for habitat or activities NO - does not relocate or breach Corp levee or propose a private levee N/A NO - does not include any levee relocation or armored mixed use public or private 11 16 – proposes relocating residential occupants YES – through private property redevelopment sponsors of lands with mobile home park, private approach N/A YES –relocated occupants of mobile home purchases 12 16 – proposes coordinating with private property owners YES – through workshops, and actively through design/develop competitions with Jesernig and other interested private property owners, also with BNSF Railroad on property acquisitions NO – proposes enforcing building codes as means of either forcing development or sale to Port as redevelopment agent – semi- condemnation ? – unsure of coordination of proposals across private properties ---PAGE BREAK--- 103 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 13 17 – proposes infilling Kennewick Beach on Clover Island causeway for habitat and recreation N/A – not within BB/RR planning area though strategy does propose soft armoring and beach infill along riverside of levee N/A NO – no proposal for Kennewick Beach 14 18 – Duffy’s Pond – proposes expanding habitat area to southeast and opening levee to allow river into pond N/A – does not address Port’s master plan YES – proposes retaining buffer area and edging it with mixed use structures with boardwalks and other streetscape NO – does not propose to relocated or breach levee N/A NO – proposal includes active uses along pond end and island – does not relocate or breach levee 15 18 – Duffy’s Pond – illustrations do not include redevelopment of frontage uses on Columbia Drive YES – includes proposed new mixed use zone with higher density for private redevelopment along Columbia Drive and around pond NO – proposes acquiring, clearing, and developing low density uses with surface parking on south side including a standalone 1-story grocery store and fitness club NO – proposed new low density uses over or in place of existing private property frontage on Columbia Drive 16 18 - Duffy’s Pond – includes internal access road loop connecting with grid across Washington and Columbia Drive YES – includes connection across Washington and Columbia Drive into Duffy’s Pond area but does not specify internal roadway per Port master plan N/A NO – does not include an internal access road loop or connection with the larger area road grid 17 19 – proposes to retain Columbia Park Trail on top of levee through phase 2 NO – relocates Columbia Park Trail to provide access for new mixed use development and return the levee to trail uses only as an initial step N/A N/A 18 19 – proposes extending Benton Road to levee to provide traffic, pedestrian, and visual access NO – would require signal at Columbia Drive, is too close to and duplicates Washington, pedestrian access can be better provided by levee/storm loop trail and boardwalk, levee is not good visual terminus while Washington onto Clover Island or Duffy’s Pond is N/A N/A 19 20 – proposes upgrading Columbia Drive with streetscape, street trees, and parallel parking YES – creates a boulevard or parkway with widened sidewalks and street trees – and converts portions of median with trees not needed for turn lanes NO – does not provide parking on east Columbia Drive because of traffic volumes – favors wider 10 foot sidewalks YES – proposes wider sidewalks and street trees with some median conversions, discusses some on-street parking but does not illustrate NO – does not propose YES – proposes wider sidewalks and street trees NO – does not illustrate on-street parking ---PAGE BREAK--- 104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan instead on-street parking 20 20 – proposes providing streetscape on Washington, Benton, and Fruitland YES – and additional streets to include the Civic Center and the mixed use developments along Columbia Park Trail and the waterfront SOMEWHAT – street trees already provided on Washington and shown from photos of over cities NO – does not include streetscape on interior streets south of Columbia Drive YES – shows street trees on site plan 21 20 – proposes extending streetscape across railroad tracks YES – and creates pedestrian connections and activity centered on Benton with additional streetscape improvements on the north side of Canal Drive N/A N/A 22 20 – proposes relocating Columbia Park Trail (road on the levee) and creating meandering path along levee YES – relocates Columbia Park Trail off of levee to facilitate mixed use development along waterfront and enhances wildlife habitat along stormwater swale with adjacent trails and boardwalks N/A N/A 23 20 – proposes skywalk over Columbia Drive at Benton and a public plaza at the terminus of Benton at the river to focus on a performing arts center NO – skywalk impractical and would not be used NO – does not propose a major terminus or axial development at the end of Benton as this would be too close and redundant to Washington and the terminus/axial connection to Clover Island NO – does not include proposal for a performing arts center along the swale as would require more parking/public access than mixed use can absorb along the waterfront. There are better locations for this kind of indoor use facility. YES – public accent proposed adjacent to boardwalk along stormwater swale by private development YES – incorporated an outdoor amphitheater in Duffy’s Pond workshop sketch N/A N/A – though does propose a gondola across Columbia Drive into Duffy’s Pond N/A – though does propose a performing arts center in the Duffy’s Pond development along with IMAX 24 20 – proposes Kennewick Beach on Clover Island causeway for YES – proposes soft armoring along riverside of levee, but not on causeway N/A NO – Kennewick Beach not incorporated into Clover ---PAGE BREAK--- 105 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan habitat enhancement and recreation as is not part of BB/RR area Island or Duffy’s Pond proposal 25 21 – proposes reconfiguration of Columbia Drive access to Blue Bridge N/A – done by WSDOT roundabout N/A – done by WSDOT roundabout N/A – done by WSDOT roundabout 26 21 – proposes to landscape (orchard of trees) in triangular off-ramp from Cable Bridge to Columbia Drive and to create similar triangular ramps from Columbia Drive onto SR-397/Gum Street YES – proposes street trees and streetscape in Columbia Drive (historic Pioneer Road) off-ramp NO – does not propose creating extended ramping from Columbia Drive onto south SR-397/Gum Street for traffic control purposes SOMEWHAT – site plan retains existing trees and Pioneer Way off-ramp NO – does not propose creating extended ramping from Columbia Drive onto south SR- 397/Gum Street NO – master plan does not address triangular off- ramp 27 21 – proposes extending road grid throughout BB/RR area to complete access YES – uses grid to create access to proposed mixed use developments along waterfront, to reconnect Railroad with Bruneau, and into Duffy’s Pond YES – grid is maintained south of Columbia Drive and site plan includes Bruneau as public street NO - does not improve alignment with Railroad Avenue to extend grid NO – grid is not connected into and through Duffy’s Pond 28 21 – proposes condominiums, hotel, and other mixed use structures of 4 story over parking YES – proposes 5-story+ over ground floor platform with 2-level parking (first partially daylighted) and frontage retail and pedestrian oriented activities YES – proposes mixed income, mixed use structures over extent of waterfront and Columbia Drive with possibility of hotels adjacent Blue Bridge YES – workshop sketch for Duffy’s Pond included mixed use with live/work units over parking NO – frontage uses on Columbia Drive are low level with surface parking ? – does not define other building blocks (presume townhouse) south of Columbia Drive NO – uses are low density with surface parking, no hotel in favor of performing arts, mini- golf, YES – includes single use condominium building along Washington and low density live/work artists housing and galleries along Columbia Drive 29 22 – proposes renovating industrial buildings along railroad if and when reuse options are available YES – but also proposes to build a new Public Market on Benton between the tracks on land acquired from BNSF, and new incubator buildings on Railroad adjacent to UP spur on BNSF lease NO – strategy is primarily acquire, clear, and redevelop low density – does not address railroad frontage or area N/A 30 23 – proposes infill development in single family neighborhoods south of Columbia and mixed use development north of Columbia YES – proposes rezoning single family neighborhood from high to low or medium to stabilize existing uses with matching infill and medium to high density mixed use north of Columbia N/A – strategy does not discuss infill per se nor does it address lands south of Columbia and west of Washington N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Drive 31 23 – proposes developing design guidelines governing new infill developments YES – proposes design guidelines governing mixed use in general, and design/develop RFPs in particular YES – CX zoning proposal includes current city design guidelines plus proposal for another design review and standards under restrictive covenants managed by Port N/A – does not discuss implementation 32 24 – proposes high density condominiums and apartments along both sides of Washington Street from Columbia Drive onto Clover Island YES – proposes mixed use platform buildings with ground floor retail/parking fronting onto boardwalk along storm swale and stick-built housing over retail/parking platform north of Columbia Drive including Washington Street and Duffy’s Pond NO – proposed uses along Washington Street appear to be low density (townhouse?) with surface parking SOMEWHAT – proposes single use condo building on Duffy’s Pond side of Washington Street with surface parking NO - but also incorporates IMAX, performing arts, amphitheater, mini-golf, gondola, and other public facilities and amusement park features that are not part of UDAT concept 33 24 – proposes mixed use buildings with retail, office, and housing in place of industrial activities and the cannery plant along the east side of Washington Street NO – retains industrial zoning and activities fronting onto the railroad south of Bruneau and Railroad Avenue YES – but proposes mixed use including office options north of Bruneau along both sides of Washington NO – proposes to clear and built fitness center and grocery store with surface parking lots for these uses and to support Duffy’s Pond facilities N/A 34 24 – proposes developing mini- storage facilities between railroad tracks along Benton NO – proposes Public Market to create a full-time activity linking downtown and waterfront, and providing pedestrian scale corridor in accordance with Downtown Plan N/A N/A 35 27 – proposes continuing Main Street approach with Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HKDP) as 501©3 YES – proposes HDKP, which has boundaries that include downtown and BB/RR be a primary player, particularly for the Public Market, new tenant recruitment, excursion train recruitment and maybe operation, special events manager NO – proposes Port be redevelopment agent with financial support from others NO – does not propose to create a redevelopment plan with review, hearings, and approval by city NO – proposes Port be sole development authority and does not include any coordination with private property owners ---PAGE BREAK--- 107 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 36 27 – proposes creating a Community Development Corporation (CDC) as 501©3 to coordinate development YES – proposes working with HDKP for the activities listed above, and with a wide variety of other public, nonprofit entities including the Port NO – does not propose to create or contract a “redevelopment agent” per se NO – does not include approval by city of a redevelopment plan preferring flexibility of pursuing actions by Port alone NO – does not propose to work with a nonprofit or any other agency N/A – does not discuss implementation 37 27 – proposes plan be refined along with strategies and implementation measures YES – BB/RR Action Plan is accompanied by a Programmatic EIS and appendices with draft implementation measures SOMEWHAT – advocates a building moratorium until city can conduct public hearings and adopt proposed building moratorium and CX multiuse zoning district NO – does not include any feasibility assessments, EIS, or other follow-up analysis NO – master plan is a visionary document without economic feasibility analysis, property owner agreements or coordination, or implementing funds or measures 38 27 – proposes affordable housing program and projects be coordinated between city and Kennewick Housing Authority YES – proposes using incentive zoning with noncash and cash incentives including Kennewick Housing Authority as a purchasing agent NO – no mention of affordable housing strategies or implementation NO – does not address affordable housing issues other than artist live/work 39 27 – proposes using inclusionary zoning with 10-20% requirement for affordable units YES – but proposes using incentive zoning with noncash and cash incentives with 10-15% allocation NO – proposed CX zone has provisions for open space, streetscape, and other urban amenities but not affordable housing NO – does not address affordable housing issues other than artist live/work 40 27 – proposes coordinating transit system improvements with Ben Franklin and WSDOT YES – includes proposed shuttle route between waterfront and downtown/Civic Center/Dayton Street Transit Center SOMEWHAT – text mentions coordinating a shelter with Ben Franklin Transit but no location is shown on site plan NO – does not address transit 41 27 – proposes creating a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) to expand housing rehabilitation programs YES – includes CHDO proposals and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to fund rehab and infrastructure development throughout area, particularly within the single family neighborhood N/A – area south of Columbia Drive does not include residential nor is any mention of existing neighborhoods N/A 42 28 – proposes developing YES – gateway and wayfinding element SOMEWHAT – assume N/A – does not address a ---PAGE BREAK--- 108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan gateways on Columbia Drive at Blue and Cable Bridges includes additional gateways on Columbia at Blue and Cable Bridges, and on Fruitland and Washington with downtown gondola overcrossing constitutes a gateway from SR-397/Cable Bridge and has developed gateways onto Clover Island gateway from Cable Bridge unless gondola is so considered 43 29 – proposes re-establishing an Industrial Development District (IDD) for Port to levy special assessment for improvements a portion of which could be used to relocate levee NO – requires voter approval and boundaries are too large to create a focus that will generate public support. Favor use of Community Renewal Finance (CRF – tax increment), HUD Section 108, and other measures more focused on BB/RR and downtown district. NO – no mention made of reestablishing IDD N/A – does not discuss implementation 44 Appendix A – market overview and feasibility assessments of housing and retail markets YES – includes pro forma analysis of platform buildings along with impact of incentive noncash and cash measures YES – EIS includes review of housing requirements from Comprehensive Plan NO – no financial, market, or economic feasibility assessments N/A – does not discuss financial, market, or economic feasibility assessments ---PAGE BREAK--- 109 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Excerpt from UDAT plan illustrating an example build-out of BB/RR district showing phase 2 (levee in place) and 3 (levee breached) – note illustrations retain the single family neighborhood south of Columbia Drive and do not show any changes to uses or structures within the light industrial (LI) zone along the railroad tracks. ---PAGE BREAK--- 110 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Excerpt from UDAT above of phase 2 plan (without levee breach or relocation) showing development density north of Columbia Drive with BB/RR proposal showing density proposed in mixed use zones with sketches from public ---PAGE BREAK--- 111 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Excerpt from UDAT on left illustrating build-out phase 3 with levee breach for Duffy’s Pond and the structures proposed around the pond compared with Port proposed master plan below showing levee in place, more surface parking, mini-golf, gondola, and other amusement park type of recreation improvements into natural areas, and low density structures along Columbia Drive. UDAT also shows Kennewick Beach infill on Clover Island causeway hi h i i P l ---PAGE BREAK--- 112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Excerpts from UDAT above showing more natural areas and boardwalk with upper story mixed use around Duffy’s Pond and dense development across Columbia Drive compared with Port proposal showing more surface parking and franchise grocery and fitness uses. Illustrative sketch from BB/RR workshops on left showing dense development along Washington, next to levee-storm swale, around Duffy’s Pond, across Columbia Drive in accordance with UDAT goals. ---PAGE BREAK--- 113 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Illustrations comparing visual access corridor proposals from UDAT above, Port upper right, and BB/RR sketches from workshops lower right. ---PAGE BREAK--- 114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Illustration from UDAT upper left showing boardwalk along water amenities created by levee breach compared with BB/RR workshop sketches showing levee trail, boardwalk, and mixed uses fronting onto storm swale including swale expansion ---PAGE BREAK--- 115 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Excerpt from UDAT upper left showing mixed use structures directly adjacent pedestrian boardwalks compared with BB/RR proposals showing prototype mixed use platform building and finished projects by BB/RR consultant team member adjacent to boardwalks along green space and water features, and along interior streetscapes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 116 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Excerpt from UDAT phase 3 upper left showing a public park adjacent to the trail and levee at the end of Fruitland Street overlooking the Columbia River compared to the proposed park, concession, and pier overlook at the end of Fruitland from the BB/RR workshop sketch on the right. ---PAGE BREAK--- 117 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 4.6.4: Other BB/RR regulatory proposals The 2009 Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan by the Port of Kennewick includes appendices with proposed restrictive covenants, zoning (building) moratorium, and mixed use (CX) zoning district meant to implement the Port’s vision for Columbia Drive and by inference the larger BB/RR area. A detailed analysis was completed comparing the regulatory proposals in the Port’s Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan appendices with the BB/RR Revitalization Plan, UDAT, and Duffy’s Pond Master Plan and is provided in succeeding pages. Following is a summary of major findings. Port of Kennewick Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan The Port of Kennewick created the Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan in 2009 that includes separate appendices proposing restrictive covenants, a zoning (building) moratorium for the BB/RR area, and a new mixed use (CX) zoning district to be applied to the BB/RR area (specific boundaries not identified). The appendices were developed by Port staff and a consultant and reviewed with the public during a series of presentations. The Port’s Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan restrictive covenants, building moratorium, and mixed use (CX) zoning district includes the following series of major provisions in the (not priority) sequence presented in the publication document:  Port will acquire title and/or development rights and record restrictive covenants on as many properties as possible within BB/RR redevelopment area.  City will enforce building (safety and nuisance) codes as a means of forcing property owner to develop/redevelop in accordance with plan or sell property to a developer or to Port.  City will adopt new stand-alone mixed use district (CX) that includes current provisions from city code and some additional requirements.  City will enforce a zoning (building) moratorium until new zoning district (CX) is in place.  City will designate BB/RR area blighted in accordance with Community Renewal Law (RCW 35.81).  City will employ eminent domain to acquire private properties and eliminate blight.  City will provide the Port funds to master plan, provide infrastructure, and redevelop BB/RR properties.  Redevelopment process will center on Port acquiring and clearing properties, creating “mini-master plans”, imposing restrictive covenants, and preferably selling properties to a master developer.  City will authorize Port to act as a “Community Revitalization Agency” with authority to relocate persons and condemn property. Note – RCW Chapter 53 requires that a plan that conforms with city comprehensive plan be developed that identifies property to be acquired and that the plan must be reviewed and adopted by city. Port, however, proposes not to develop or submit a plan in order to retain flexibility.  Port will sell property to private developers than apply restrictive covenants as a condition of development specifying use, design, and all particulars.  Port will exercise eminent domain where owner does not wish to conform to Port plan or asks property value in excess of what Port considers fair market value.  Port’s restrictive covenants and design review or approval process will compliment and supplement city development regulations.  Port’s proposed mixed use (CX) zoning district limits first floor parking to 20% of floor area, encourages single family buildings, requires 10 foot building setback from street front, limits density to 27 dwelling units/acre, a maximum building height of 45 feet, a maximum lot coverage of 80%, and minimum of 2 parking stalls per dwelling unit among other provisions that reflect conventional low density development applications. The CX zone does not include any provisions for affordable housing. In general, the Port’s implementation measures propose the city create and adopt a Community Renewal Plan that declares the BB/RR area blighted and authorizes the Port to act as the city’s Community Renewal Agent. Under this approach, the Port would proceed using traditional urban renewal methods involving acquisition (with eminent domain powers if necessary), clearance, ---PAGE BREAK--- 118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan and resale of private properties to private developers subject to a separate and parallel development regulatory process enforced with restrictive covenants and a design and development review process by the Port. Alternative 2: BB/RR Revitalization Plan The implementation strategies were developed for the BB/RR Revitalization Plan during the separate city sponsored series of stakeholder interviews, internet surveys, and public workshops. The BB/RR Revitalization Plan appendix includes A: What is a Design/Develop Competition and how does it apply to the BB/RR, and B: What is a 63:20 financing mechanism and how does it apply to the BB/RR? A mixed use (MU) zoning district ordinance with 3 optional heights or density allowances is being drafted and will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The BB/RR Revitalization Plan’s implementation strategies and measures DIFFER MARKEDLY from the Port’s proposals in the following principal manners:  Would not advocate or use restrictive covenants in any manner by any party as a means of controlling design or development as the covenants create a duplicate land use/design management system of the city that is inflexible and cannot be easily altered.  Cannot use city’s safety and nuisance code enforcement as a means of forcing redevelopment or sale as there is no constitutional basis for this approach. City may force property owners to comply with any safety, nuisance, and building code violations through fines and restricting occupancy or use, even demolishing structure if unsafe, but cannot force owner to redevelop or sell.  BB/RR includes a proposed mixed use zoning district (MU) as an integral part of the city’s existing regulatory process that achieves the end states desired in the BB/RR Revitalization Plan as well as the UDAT vision. Would not advocate adopting the Port’s CX proposal as it is redundant of existing city regulations and would cause confusion and conflict.  Cannot declare BB/RR area blighted in accordance with Community Renewal Law (CRL) in RCW Chapter 35.81 as the area is not blighted under the CRL definitions in order to qualify or to authorize the city to invoke eminent domain as an implementation tool. The BB/RR has significant vacant and underdeveloped land, under-improved properties, and buildings and grounds – however, the conditions are site specific and not blight in the legal sense that justifies condemnation with eminent domain powers. The BB/RR suffers from underinvestment, undefined market potentials, and lack of an aggressive plan and public/private plan and implementation program with which to market the district. There are more productive ways of resolving these issues than trying to declare the area blighted and using eminent domain to remove property owners.  City cannot fund Port or any other entities planning or capital facility proposals per GMA provisions unless the proposals are in accordance with an adopted comprehensive or subarea plan. City funds can only be used for planning purposes and capital facility improvements if a “plan” as defined by GMA and not a vision or mini-master plan has been reviewed and adopted by the city as a GMA compliant element.  Cannot authorize Port to act as a “Community Renewal Agent” under Community Renewal Law as blight in the legal sense does not exist in the BB/RR, nor can Port act as such under Chapter 53 concerning Port authority as the Port is not authorized to act independently of city approval and control.  Would not sell potential privately owned or publicly sponsored properties for development without establishing performance criteria as a condition of competing for the right to acquire and develop the property – particularly if the developer is to be required to complete development within a time limit. It would not be practical nor would the private market be interested in acquiring property that has time limits on it when the city and Port retain control over the development process and schedule.  BB/RR mixed use (MU) zone will require structures provide ground floor retail or other pedestrian-oriented uses on all street frontages to cover platform parking decks. All ground floor retail parking will be provided on-street, including street right-of-way expansion if necessary, and upper floor housing and office uses will be provided in the parking decks subject to ---PAGE BREAK--- 119 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan a reduced ratio of parking stalls per dwelling unit bedrooms.  BB/RR mixed use (MU) zone will allow up to 5, 8, or 12 stories over the parking platform when affordable housing units are provided in accordance with an inventive zoning provision.  BB/RR mixed use (MU) zone will allow 100% lot coverage and 0 foot setback from street frontages subject to requirements for streetscape, people places, boardwalks and walkways, and other urban amenities. In general, BB/RR implementation measures will engage private property owners and the private marketplace to the maximum extent possible using new mixed use zoning districts, aggressive reconfiguration of public infrastructure (roads, transit, trails, parks, open spaces, signage) networks, creative design/develop competitions, nonprofit lease-to-own public facility and infrastructure financing and development procedures to create the mixed use, sustainable village, smart and green community development visions enunciated and illustrated in the UDAT vision and this BB/RR Revitalization Plan. The UDAT vision The UDAT purpose was to create a vision to link the historic downtown and Clover Island with the waterfront. The UDAT vision created a series of recommendations proposing to create or re- establish physical and visual access to the Columbia River including the list of proposals previously presented but did not draft or specify detailed implementation strategies or measures. Port of Kennewick Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal The Port of Kennewick created the Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal in 2009 to identify the development direction the Port would like to achieve on the trailer park properties the Port has acquired and cleared in the area, and to govern development prospects for the remaining private properties. The plan was developed by Port staff and a consultant and reviewed with the public during a series of presentations. The Port’s Duffy’s Pond Master Plan proposal does not discuss implementation strategies or measures as these were enunciated in the Port’s Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan draft appendices on restrictive covenants, building moratorium, and CX zoning district. ---PAGE BREAK--- 120 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 4.6.4: Comparative analysis: Columbia Drive Revitalization Plan implementation with BB/RR Revitalization Plan, UDAT, Duffy’s Pond Columbia Drive Plan page/proposal BB/RR Action Plan UDAT Duffy’s Pond Master Plan 45 - defines boundary as Washington to Chemical Streets, river to railroad – although site plan stops at Bruneau - defines boundary as Bridge-to- Bridge/River-to-Railroad but includes proposals for land between railroad tracks and streetscape, transit, bike, hike, and other improvements through downtown and including Civic Center - defines boundary as Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to- Railroad but includes proposals extending across Benton to downtown - defines boundary as Washington to SR- 397/Cable Bridge, levee to Columbia Drive 46 5 – proposes Port will acquire title and/or development rights and record restrictive covenants on as many properties as possible within redevelopment area NO – do not advocate using restrictive covenants by any party as means of controlling design or development as creates duplicate land use/design management system and inability to have flexibility in future use and improvement. YES – includes measures to supplement design standards with mixed use provisions NO – does not include any proposal to manage redevelopment or design by restrictive covenants – proposes upgrading city’s design standards N/A 47 5 – proposes city enforce building (safety and nuisance) codes as a means of forcing owner to develop/redevelop in accordance with plan or sell property to a developer or to Port SOMEWHAT – discusses enforcement of safety and nuisance codes and HUD and CDBO in EIS NO - do not favor trying to use safety and nuisance code enforcement as a means of forcing redevelopment in accordance with a detailed master or site plan or a sale to Port – there is no constitutional basis for this approach by city or Port. City may force property owner to comply with any safety, nuisance, and building code violations through fines and removing occupants, even demolishing structure if unsafe, but cannot force owner to redevelop or sell. SOMEWHAT – does not mention building code but proposes upgrading single family neighborhood using HUD and CHDO programs and strategies N/A 48 5 – proposes and drafts a new stand-alone mixed use zoning YES – but proposes new mixed use (MU) district(s) be created within the existing SOMEWHAT – discusses mixed use development N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 121 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan district (CX) that includes current provisions from city code and additional requirements city zoning ordinance to avoid duplication or confusion NO – new MU is not based on CX proposal as CX is redundant of existing city regulations and will cause confusion and conflict with city regulations, and has provisions described below that MU does not support and mentions design standards but does not draft a zoning district 49 5 – proposes city enforce a zoning (building) moratorium until plan and new zoning measures have been adopted – not clear what the boundaries of the moratorium area should be – also moratorium is selective concerning “inappropriate” uses that are to be restricted – ie., is not binding on all parties NO – building moratoriums require statements of eminent threat that should affect all activity within the prescribed area. The proposed moratorium is selective in content and does not specify threat sufficient to hold up in court. N/A N/A 50 5 – presumes area is “blighted” but does not provide any empirical findings to support statement that would comply with Chapter 35.81 Community Renewal Law NO – to the extent there were criminal activities (drugs) in the former trailer courts and a record of police calls, a problem did exist before Port acquired and cleared those properties. However, “blight” is a more exacting definition and Port’s citing of junky or buildings and grounds does not constitute legal definition required of blight in order to qualify as a Community Renewal Area in accordance with RCW 35.81 with eminent domain action. NO – discussed under- development and need to rehabilitate neighborhood through infill and infrastructure development but made no statement that area was blighted in legal sense N/A 51 5 – advocates use of eminent domain to eliminate blight NO – Washington’s Community Renewal Law does allow remedies for eliminating blighted conditions as specified in RCW 35.81. However, the BB/RR area does not possess blight as defined in order to qualify as a Community Renewal Area or to authorize the city to invoke eminent domain as an implementation tool. The BB/RR has significant vacant and underdeveloped land, under-improved NO – does not discuss or advocate use of eminent domain but coordinating with private property owners to affect change N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan properties, and buildings and grounds – however, the conditions are site specific and not blight in the legal sense that justifies condemnation with eminent domain powers. The BB/RR suffers from underinvestment, undefined market potentials, and lack of an aggressive plan and public/private plan and implementation program with which to market the district. There are more productive ways of resolving these issues than trying to declare the area blighted and using eminent domain to remove property owners – as outlined in the BB/RR Action Plan. 52 5 – asks city to provide funds for Port to master plan, provide infrastructure, etc NO –application of city funds must be in accordance with an adopted comprehensive or subarea plan per RCW GMA provisions concerning capital facility programs. Port proposes not to submit for adoption any Port plan that requires city approval and hearings in order for Port to remain flexible – negating possibility of using city funds in general unless is for a city-approved project per city approved plans. City funds can only be used for capital improvements if a Port “plan” (a plan as defined by GMA and not a vision) is reviewed and adopted as a GMA element. SOMEWHAT - suggests all parties create partnerships and funding. Does not deal with enabling requirements. 53 6 – proposes to work with Benton PUD on utility relocation YES – implementation program for action plan includes Benton PUD on utilities as well as a host of other public and nonprofit agencies on infrastructure as well as all other supporting measures YES – proposed coordinating efforts with all public and private parties on infrastructure and all other supporting measures N/A – utilities not mentioned nor is implementation discussed 54 6 – proposes to site a new transit shelter in area with Ben Franklin Transit YES – action plan includes new shuttle routing and proposal for additional shelters throughout BB/RR YES – proposed increasing transit access and service N/A – does not include any transit shelter locations 55 6 – proposes working with Tri- Cities Convention Bureau, SOMEWHAT – action plan includes wide variety of public, nonprofit, and private SOMEWHAT – proposed coordinating efforts with N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 123 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Irrigation District, and Hospital to obtain funds for Port’s planning efforts parties for implementation tasks but does not ask them to fund a Port planning effort for BB/RR all public, nonprofit, and private parties but does not advocate they fund a Port planning effort 56 6 – proposes working with Columbia Basin College on a theater at Duffy’s Pond N/A – action plan does not specify uses within Port’s Duffy’s Pond master plan NO –proposed a performing arts theater be located at the end Benton overlooking the shoreline NO – proposed Duffy’s Pond be reserved as a natural area edged by boardwalk with mixed use retail and housing and not public facilities N/A – did not discuss a funding mechanism YES – site plan includes a performing arts theater and IMAX – but does not include feasibility or funding particulars 57 6 – proposes working with Umatilla Tribe on public art on Catfish Island YES – proposes working with Umatilla Tribe for possible cultural center that preferably could be sited adjacent to Catfish Island in Duffy’s Pond development or elsewhere SOMEWHAT – mentioned cooperating with all parties including on artworks but did not specifically discuss Umatilla Tribe NO – no specific mention of Umatilla Tribe participation 58 6 – lists examples of possible amenities to include theater, ice rink, IMAX, carousel, amphitheater, plazas, community event center, public facility or civic building, pocket parks, water features, walking paths, wildlife viewing platforms, art objects, Catfish Island art discovery paths, hanging flower baskets, benches, wine bar/tasting rooms, boardwalks and pathways, multitenant tourist-related building YES – these activities are mentioned for development within public parks or set- asides at Washington, Fruitland, and Jesernig parcels and throughout streetscapes and private developments YES – includes community event center, public facility or civic building, multitenant tourist building be developed in Public Market on Benton Street on property to be acquired from BNSF and within the incubator complex to be developed on the extension of Railroad Avenue adjacent to UP spur NO – does not specifically propose theater, ice rink, IMAX, carousel, gondola NO – specifically does not include amusement park types of uses within Duffy’s Pond complex or elsewhere as YES – these activities are mentioned for development within public parks or set-asides and throughout streetscapes and private developments NO – does not specifically propose theater, ice rink, IMAX, carousel, gondola or other amusement park type uses along the natural areas and shorelines, or a community event center, public facility or civic building other than the performing arts center YES – includes the complete list plus gondola across Columbia Drive to Clover Island but does not provide feasibility studies or funding or operating particulars ---PAGE BREAK--- 124 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan inappropriate to an urban mixed use district with boardwalks and natural areas anywhere within the BB/RR area 59 9 – proposes prohibiting list of uses specifically including single family homes, construction yards, auto oriented sales, gas stations, vehicle sales, repair, service, and auto body presumably within south Columbia Drive area SOMEWHAT – mixed use is proposed in the new MU zones and would include the area south of Columbia to Bruneau which would not include the uses listed NO – industrial zoning district is retained south of Bruenau along railroad tracks and spur in accordance with current zoning and best use NO – commercial zoning is retained along Columbia Drive between Blue Bridge/Fruitland that includes existing and new construction company offices and yard, and auto sales dealerships SOMEWHAT – discusses intensifying mixed use development that would eventually preclude most low capital invested uses listed YES – none of the listed uses are shown or discussed in the Duffy’s Pond illustration 60 10 – proposes redevelopment process centered on Port acquiring and clearing properties, creating “mini-master plans”, imposing covenants, working with city on code enforcement, preferably selling properties to a master developer, Port building its share of amenities, developer doing same SOMEWHAT – does not depend on public acquisition by Port or other parties in order to initiate redevelopment YES – defines process of packaging properties with private owner participation for city to conduct design/develop competitions based on project and design criteria and includes ability of City Council to not award project if quality is not of public benefit and quality – no such provisions are outlined as pre-conditions of Port sales nor does Port proposal identify the process by which determine which buyers are selected YES – includes RFP and zoning requirements for amenities and/or fees from private developers where developer may cede improved property to city or retain and maintain it for public access and use YES – includes proposals to acquire by lease and sale properties for Fruitland Park, incubator buildings on Railroad Avenue, and Public Market on Benton and YES – proposed working with private owners and developers to achieve new mixed use structures, places, and amenities SOMEWHAT – did not propose a specific process of assembling, packaging, or disposing of properties for redevelopment NO – does not include any discussion about how or particulars of affecting redevelopment intentions including the lands along Columbia Drive which the Port does not own NO – no supporting statements or documentation from private property owners about their intentions or agreement or not with master plan proposal ---PAGE BREAK--- 125 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan railroad 61 7 – proposes to work with developers to create mixed use, mixed-income housing for variety of households, occupancies but does not specify in text or draft ordinances how that is to be achieved YES – mixed use and mixed income are major components of action plan and implementation measures including incentive zoning with noncash and cash offsets to achieve 10-15% affordable, and Housing Authority option of purchase for households below affordable definitions YES – discusses use of inclusionary zoning (incentive with mandatory quota requirements) to achieve mixed income housing NO – includes artist live/work but no specific mention of mixed income or method of achieving it 62 7 – proposes acquiring and developing off-site surface parking lots throughout the site with a larger lot and possibly a parking garage on the east end to support public activities YES – but proposes residential and office parking be built under the (platform) building and retail parking be built on- street including expansion of right-of- way where necessary by private developer NO – avoids creating off-street surface parking lots as much as possible as they break up the pedestrian quality of the area and should be unnecessary if mixed use is done to proper intensity YES – but proposes parking be built under mixed use buildings YES – includes some off- street surface parking lots for public activities and trail/shoreline access YES – includes off-street parking lots on both sides of Columbia Drive NO – no provision in plans for parking garage - locates off-street surface parking lots south of Columbia Drive to service uses in this area and across Columbia Drive into Duffy’s Pond 63 9 – proposes city and Port will finance public access, trails, plazas, and habitat around Duffy’s Pond YES – those elements are included in the action plan and can be funded with city capital facility program monies when the Action Plan is adopted for those park elements that the city parks department approves SOMEWHAT – generally discussed cooperative ventures though did not specifically allocate funds between agencies NO – no funding strategy or proposal outlined with illustrative plan 64 10 – proposes Port will create educational and recreational opportunities for citizens to view wildlife YES – proposes project by Umatilla Tribe to interpret natural setting and Native American culture as well as interpretive signage along levee and stormwater swale trails and boardwalks YES – concept mentioned but not assignment of funding agent NO – no funding strategy or proposal outlined with illustrative plan 65 14 – discusses RCW Chapter 53 authorizing Port to act as a Community Revitalization Agency with authority to relocate persons and condemn property. RCW requires Port to prepare a plan that conforms with city’s comprehensive plan and identify properties to be acquired and have that plan reviewed and adopted by city in order to act as NO – Chapter 53 authorizes Port to acquire property including use of eminent domain for the Port’s purposes – which do not include community renewal. Port may participate in community revitalization but only to the financing of public improvements. Port may engage in economic development programs including contracting with nonprofit organizations to do so. Port may acquire and operate tourism-related N/A – did not discuss Chapter 53 or possibility of Port acting as a Community Revitalization Agency N/A – does not discuss implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- 126 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Community Revitalization Agency. Port proposes not to develop or submit plan in order to retain flexibility. facilities – but cannot exercise eminent domain for this purpose. Port may develop and operate park and recreational facilities – but only if approved by city park jurisdiction. Port may be contracted by a city to exercise the powers of a Community Renewal Agency under RCW 35.81 – but only if the city has prepared, reviewed, and adopted a Community Renewal Plan in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 35.81. City may also contract a variety of other parties to act as Community Renewal Agency including Housing Authority or a nonprofit, among others. NO – under Chapter 35.81 the city cannot financially or otherwise support a plan that has not had SEPA reviews, public hearings, or been adopted as a subarea or master plan as a part of the city comprehensive plan under GMA provisions. Port may separately pursue actions but cannot have city sanctioned approval otherwise. NO - see previous 51 concerning Community Renewal Law – which requires the development and adoption of a Workable Plan and Program before the city can designate a Community Renewal Agency with (city) authority to implement the plan including any use of eminent domain. 66 15 – proposes to sell property to private developers with covenants governing use, design, and all particulars NO – covenants are poor substitute for city land use, zoning, and design regulations and processes – particularly for property that will not be part of a continuing development or ownership entity. Once covenants applied, very difficult for any party to amend them in later years should circumstances change N/A – did not discuss possible use of covenants N/A – does not discuss implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- 127 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan and require modification of use, development, or other particulars. In addition, creates duplicate process with possible conflicts and confusions between covenants and city regulations. 67 15 – proposes to sell property to private developers then apply covenants as condition of development rather than condition or competition for sale NO – to be effective, criteria should be established that condition sale and development prior to disposing of property – preferably under a competitive design/develop competition with the ability to not choose any proposal if it does not provide public benefit and high quality and with a fixed price. NO - difficult for Port to apply criteria after a sale has been commenced especially if Port also places a time table on development – will be no market interest in such a process nor the ability to enforce it. Also, does not prevent sale to highest bidder if there are no prior criteria governing selection process. N/A – did not discuss use Port acting as Community Revitalization Agency or of using covenants before or after sale N/A – does not discuss implementation 68 15 – states Port will develop some of the amenities including those shown in the Duffy’s Pond master plan (performing arts, IMAX, ice rink, amphitheater, mini-golf, gondola, and multiple use buildings to be retained and leased for revenue – but does not analyze or identify funding or feasibility mechanisms YES – action plan includes proposals encouraging Port, HDKP, and others to invest, own, and operate amenities and key activities including incubator buildings, Public Market, excursions train, and others NO – does not propose a performing arts theater, IMAX, ice rink, mini-golf, gondola or other amusement park attractions or funding for them N/A – did not discuss ownership or operational issues N/A – does not discuss implementation 69 16 – proposes Port purchase development rights and apply restrictive covenants in lieu of purchase of title NO – see response to item 66 – restrictive covenants are inflexible, duplicate city regulations, create possible conflict and confusion. Will be no market interest in acquiring a property with restrictions that precludes change over time. N/A – did not discuss ownership or operational issues N/A – does not discuss implementation 70 16 – proposes city use code enforcement to require property owner to develop in accordance NO – city can and does enforce safety and nuisance ordinances. Some of the example buildings cited in the Port plan NO – did not propose using code enforcement or harassment technique N/A – does not discuss implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- 128 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan with Port plan or sell are old, ugly and ill kept but are not in violation of building, safety, or nuisance codes. Not legal for city to harass owners to require them to redevelop or sell in order to implement Port or any other plan. RR/BB Action Plan strategy is to create a market incentive (typically higher density zoning, infrastructure, amenity, market positioning, and other improvements) as well as cash offsets under incentive zoning to create private market interest in improving and redeveloping property by current or new ownership. BB/RR plan also proposes to conduct design/development competitions in conjunction with private property owners in order to position, market, and obtain development in accordance with BB/RR plan. to require compliance. Discussed private market incentives. 71 18 – outlines sources of financing including federal, state, county, city, and other public funds in addition to those available the Port YES – Port may use Port monies and eligibilities to implement Port projects NO – Port may not use (nor would it have a competitive application) federal, state, county, city or other public agency monies to implement a plan which contains elements that have not been reviewed, had public hearings and SEPA mitigation, and adopted by city as part of city’s comprehensive plan under GMA requirements N/A N/A – does not discuss implementation 72 19 – discusses use of eminent domain to secure private property where owner does not wish to conform to Port plan or asks property value in excess of what Port considers fair market NO – see response under item 65 – Port does not have authority to use eminent domain unless for Port purposes – which do not include community renewal. While the city may use eminent domain were the BB/RR area blighted in accordance with Chapter 35.81 conditions and a Community Renewal Plan were adopted authorizing its use, it could not do so on the basis that an owner does not conform or agree to a N/A – did not discuss or recommend use of eminent domain N/A – does not discuss implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- 129 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Port plan or the owner’s asking price is above what the Port considers fair market value. Note - Washington State Attorney General submitted bills to the legislature that would disallow a city to use eminent domain for “economic development purposes” – ie., to acquire a private property for the purpose of reselling the property to another private party for the purpose of realizing a higher value improvement, employment, and tax benefit. Legislature also considering bills that would not allow city to use eminent domain powers for any use other than public facilities. 73 Exhibit A – draft of restrictive covenants – intention to compliment and supplement city regulations NO – see response to item 66 covenants are poor substitute for city land use, zoning, and design regulations and processes. Draft covenants duplicate portions of city regulations and add other detail that would be better addressed by updating city regulations than creating a separate, inflexible system of controls that is bound to title. N/A – did not discuss possible use of covenants N/A – does not discuss implementation 74 Exhibit A – 3 – limits first floor parking garage to 20% NO – objective is to provide fronting retail and pedestrian oriented uses. Limiting parking to 20% will create more retail space than can be filled by market and unnecessarily limits platform parking needed to support upper story housing. NO – proposed housing over parking but did not prescribe any limits other than ground floor should contain retail and pedestrian-oriented uses N/A – does not discuss parking under uses 75 Exhibit A – 7 – encourages single use multifamily NO – objective is to create a ground floor pedestrian environment throughout area. Single use multifamily will create dead zones on the street without interest and could be employed throughout the area if authorized outright effectively killing any multiuse prospects or results. NO – plan recommended mixed use structures with ground floor retail and pedestrian oriented activity NO – proposes live/work artist housing along Columbia Drive ? – site plan includes structures without disclosing use 76 Exhibit A – 7 – requires purchaser to initiate development within 18 NO – shares requirement to initiate development once selected within a N/A – did not discuss process of selecting N/A – does not discuss implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- 130 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan months of closing and complete construction within 60 months specified period of time, but conditions that through design/develop competitions where the developer is selected based on a proposal that conforms to a pre-approved design and use criteria and submits a bond that certifies the project has financing and can be initiated within the time requirement or risk forfeiture to the next ranked proposal. NO - Port proposal does not specify how or what criteria under which purchaser is to be selected then imposes city development review and permits, and Port restrictive covenants review and permits. Market not going to be interested in process which is uncertain as to outcome, and involves duplicate reviews that may be contradictory. developers 77 Exhibit A – 9 – requires buildings on Columbia Driver to be within 10 feet of sidewalk/ROW with buffer of landscaping NO – requires buildings to be 0 feet, or at edge of 10 foot sidewalk/ROW in mixed use zone unless setback to accommodate outdoor cafes, plazas, or other pedestrian amenities in order to create a continuous pedestrian streetscape and retail frontage N/A – did not discuss dimensional particulars N/A – does not discuss design or development dimensional particulars 78 Exhibit A – 12 – prohibits factory- built, pre-fabricated structures unless approved by Port Design Review Committee NO – incentive zoning includes noncash offset allowing pre-manufactured housing units. Design review is conducted on all proposed buildings including stick-built and pre- manufactured. RCWs require all residential zones allow pre-fabricated structures or manufactured housing as outright permitted uses. N/A – did not discuss pre- manufactured products N/A – did not discuss pre- manufactured products 79 Exhibit B – proposes city adopt a moratorium on a list of uses including auto oriented, gas stations, and vehicle sales and repair pending the adoption of a new mixed use zone (CX) for up NO – see item 49 - building moratoriums require statements of eminent threat that should affect all activity within the prescribed area. The proposed moratorium is selective in content and does not specify threat sufficient to hold N/A N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 131 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan to 1 year up in court. 80 Exhibit C – includes a draft mixed use zone (CX) SOMEWHAT – most of the proposed contents of the draft CX zone are already contained in the city’s other zoning districts, design and development standards, and review processes. While there are provisions in the draft ordinance that merit consideration for inclusion in the city’s regulations, the draft zone per se risk creates duplication and redundancy in the city’s regulations. The implementation measures included in this Action Plan contain a draft mixed use (MU) zone which does the same thing as the CX zone but within the framework of the city’s development code. N/A – did not discuss zoning or development regulations N/A – did not discuss implementation measures 81 Exhibit C – 6 – proposes limiting the gross floor area of commercial tenants in the CX zone to 15,000 square feet NO – the proposed MU zone requires upper floor residential or office uses provide parking in daylight and ground floor decks faced with retail or pedestrian oriented uses. This will reduce most retail tenant uses to a size under the 15,000 square feet advocated by the Port. However, there will be instances where uses that front along the boardwalks facing the swale where restaurants and other entertainment activities may be desirable of a larger size. N/A N/A 82 Exhibit C – 7 – proposes a minimum depth of commercial space be 65 feet and a minimum amount of commercial space using a formula based on commercial street frontage NO – most ground floor retail spaces will be small since there is not enough market demand to fill a lot of space and the ground floors will be required to support parking requirements and achieve the mixed use neighborhoods desired within the BB/RR. The objective of the MU zone is to create pedestrian interest and activity on the frontage of all local streets. Most tenants will be small, independent activities including beauty salons, coffee shops, wine and N/A – does not discuss any use formulas or minimum/maximum requirements N/A – does not discuss implementation measures ---PAGE BREAK--- 132 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan liquor shops, cafes, art galleries, newsstands, physical conditioning facilities, etc which can fit in frontage spaces as low as 20 feet in depth. 83 Exhibit C – 8 – proposes using a maximum dwelling unit density/acre (up to 27 du), a maximum building height of 45 feet where upper floors are residential, and a maximum lot coverage of 80% NO – this is too low a density, height, and coverage to support redevelopment or market interest – and in fact, is the current allowance under the RH zone. The proposed MU zone will be based on number of floors allowed over platform parking/retail frontage and a maximum coverage of 100% less any required plaza, streetscape, boardwalk, or pedestrian activity area. The number of allowable floors (4-10) over the platform will be increased (5-12) under the incentive zoning provision where 10-15% affordable units are provided using noncash (increased building height and reduced parking ratios) offsets. SOMEWHAT – proposed 3 and 4 floors of housing over retail/parking platform but did not specify density, height, or lot coverage particulars. N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars 83 Exhibit C – 8 – proposes formula governing floor-to-floor heights and floor area of ground floor tenants NO – proposed MU zone requires retail or pedestrian oriented uses on facing street frontages except for parking deck access drives and ramps without resorting to a formula. The MU zones governs the total number of floors allowed over the platform retail/parking areas and is less concerned with how the developer organizes the details of the project other than design standards and design reviews in general. N/A – did not specify a formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars 85 Exhibit C – 9 – proposes parking garages not consist of more than 25% of street frontage NO – proposed MU zone requires retail or pedestrian oriented uses on facing street frontages except for parking deck access drives and ramps. Objective is to have a continuous retail or pedestrian oriented frontage as much as possible. N/A – did not specify a formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars 86 Exhibit C – 9 – proposes at least 20% of gross floor area of mixed use structure be residential and 20% non-residential NO – proposed MU zone allows some upper floors of mixed use structures to be used for office or other than residential. The 20% non-residential N/A – did not specify a formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars ---PAGE BREAK--- 133 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan formula is too large where the intent is to create retail or pedestrian activities along the complete extent of each frontage block. 87 Exhibit C – 12 – proposes minimum lot areas of 1,000 per dwelling units in mixed use buildings and 1,500 square feet for all other buildings NO – minimum lots assume/require buildings and properties are owned as separate platted parcels when the objective is to create mixed use buildings that may be owned in condominium or even cooperative arrangements. See item 83 concerning objective of allowing more flexible and higher intensity developments. N/A – did not specify a formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars 88 Exhibit C – 13 – proposes developments over 20,000 square feet provide at least 1% of site area be devoted to open space SOMEWHAT – proposed MU zone requires developers to incorporate public spaces into the project including plazas, courtyards, alcoves, and other “publicly- accessible” and usable spaces. The zone specifies the minimum size and location of these spaces rather than using a percent of site. Also, MU zone specifies development must also provide internal open space in terraces, green roofs, and other features for building occupants and tenant customer activities. N/A – did not specify a formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars 89 Exhibit C – 17 – proposes buildings be located within 10 feet of front and side street property lines with a minimum rear setback of 0-30% of the lot depth NO – proposed MU zone allows 100% site coverage and requires 0 foot setback from front and major street frontages in order to create a continuous retail and pedestrian oriented streetscape. In some instances, the rear lot may be alleyways which can also be built to the lot edge to accommodate parking decks and access. N/A – did not specify a formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars 90 Exhibit C – 20 – proposes 2 parking stalls per every dwelling unit NO – proposed mixed use structures will appeal primarily to single individuals, couples, and family starters with young children who will not require as much parking, particularly if “smart growth” provisions create jobs and retail within the BB/RR area and if transit shuttle, bikeways, and trails create better non- N/A – discussed potential of reducing dependence on automobiles but did not specify a parking formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars ---PAGE BREAK--- 134 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan vehicular access. Parking requirements may be reduced to minimum 1 stall per 1 studio and 1 bedroom units, 1.5 per 2+ bedroom units which developer may increase at their option. 91 Exhibit C – 20 – proposes 1 parking stall for every 400 (gross) square feet of retail or 2.5 stalls per 1,000 (gross) square feet NO – proposed MU zone will separate ground floor retail parking from upper floor residential and office uses. Zone will require retail parking be provided on-street in front of the retail tenants including provision for increasing right- of-way and constructing 45 degree angled parking and relocated public streetscape where necessary to accommodate this. Retail customer parking (and loading) activities generate constant turnover and are not easily accommodated within internal parking decks, particularly where upper story residential or office occupants desire security and privacy. On-street parking, particularly 45 degree angled parking, will increase access, calm traffic, and help establish a “main street” ambiance. The parking ratio may be reduced where the tenants are expected to primarily serve the occupants of the structure or the BB/RR district. Office uses will retain the same parking ratio as current code based on a square footage allocation to control for maximum number of potential employees. N/A –did not specify a parking formula requirement N/A – does not discuss dimensional particulars 92 Exhibit C – 21 – proposes off- street parking ratios in current Chapter 18.36 zones NO – see response item 91, retail parking in mixed use structures will be provided on-street, upper floor residential and office occupants in parking decks in the daylight and ground floor platforms. Off- street surface lots are to be avoided as much as possible in order to create compact, pedestrian oriented district. Spaces that are not occupied by SOMEWHAT – talked about mixed use buildings of 3/4-story over parking structures and included illustrated site plans that did not include sizable surface parking areas. However, did show some scattered surface parking YES – site plans show extensive surface parking lots with no mention of parking decks under structures or of parking garages. ---PAGE BREAK--- 135 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan buildings will be devoted to pedestrian activities, courtyards, boardwalks, trails, etc, and not parked vehicles. lots to accommodate users of trail, park, and other public facilities. 93 Exhibit C – 22- proposes in-lieu parking fees and reductions for transit YES – proposed MU zone will provide for both options though exact formulas may vary N/A – did not discuss parking requirements N/A – does not discuss implementation particulars or parking requirements 94 Exhibit C – 28 – proposes Planning Commission govern mixed use with conditional rather than outright permitted approval when includes new structures or use within an existing structure or is under 2 acres in size NO – intent of proposed MU zone is to permit mixed use outright without restrictions. Development particulars will be governed through design standards and reviews. N/A N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 136 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) mailing list Federal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) US Army Corps of Engineers, District US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region US Environmental Protection Agency, Region US Fish & Wildlife Service US Geological Survey Indian Tribes Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation Yakima Nation State House Environmental Affairs Committee Senate Parks & Ecology Committee WA Department of Agriculture (DOA) WA Department of Ecology (DOE) WA Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) WA Department of Community Development (CTED) WA Department of Natural Resources (DNR) WA Department of Social & Health Services (DSHS) WA Department of Trade & Commerce (DTC) WA Department of Transportation (WSDOT) WA Department of Transportation, District WA Ecological Commission WA Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (OAHP) WA Office of Financial Management (OFM) WA Resource Conservation Office (RCO) WA State Parks & Recreation Commission (P&RC) WA Utilities & Transportation Commission (UTC) Regional Badger Mountain Irrigation District #402 Ben Franklin Transit Benton Clean Air Authority Benton Conservation District Benton County Community Health Alliance Benton County Health District Benton County Tri City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) Benton County Water Conservancy Board Benton County Weed District #1 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Benton-Franklin Heath District Columbia Irrigation District Kennewick Irrigation District Kennewick Public Hospital District Port of Benton Port of Kennewick Port of Pasco Plymouth Water District Tri-City Area Chamber of Commerce Tri-City Community Roundtable Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Tri-City Home Consortium Tri-City Visitors & Convention Bureau Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council (TREC) Washington Environmental Council Benton County Benton County Commissioners Benton County Administrative Services Benton County Emergency Management Department Benton County Health Department Benton County Human Services Department Benton County Parks & Recreation Department Benton County Planning Department Benton County Public Works Department Franklin County Franklin County Commissioners Franklin County Administrator Franklin County Planning Department Franklin County Public Works Department City of Kennewick Mayor Mayor Pro Tem City Council ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Attorney City Clerk City Manager Community Development Block Grant Coordinator Community Planner Community Services Director Facilities & Grounds Director Finance Director Fire Chief Leisure Services Manager Maintenance & Operations Manager Municipal Services Director Planning Commission Police Chief Support Services Director Kennewick City Housing Authority Kennewick General Hospital Other Jurisdictions City of Pasco City Manager City of Richland City Manager College, School, Fire & Park Districts Columbia Basin College Finley School District #53 Fire Protection District #1 Kennewick School District #17 WSU Tri-Cities Transportation Union Pacific Railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) Utilities Cellular One Benton County Public Utilities District (PUD) Puget Sound Energy Quest Telephone Company AT&T Cable Television Libraries Kennewick Library Mid-Columbia Library District Newspapers Tri-City Herald Citizen Groups/Organizations Arculus Design & Technical Services Auto Dealer Association Lampson International River-to-River Open Space Network (RROSN) Tri-City Bicycle Club Tri-Cities Young Professionals Group ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization Action Plan Appendix A: What is a design/develop competition – and why should we use it on the BB/RR Revitalization Plan? Conventional development process What is a conventional development process? Under a typical conventional development process, a developer obtains an option on a property from the private property owner stipulating that the developer will pay the owner’s purchase price on condition that the developer is able to:  complete a due diligence on the property to make sure there are no environmental or legal hindrances to development (usually required from the seller prior to the option agreement),  obtain city approval for a development of the developer’s choosing, and  secure financing for the approved project (if the developer is not self-financed). A typical option may be for 6-12 months or more and/or subject to option extensions or renewals at the developer’s discretion. The developer typically pays an option fee which is rolled into the purchase price if the developer completes the purchase, or paid to the property owner in the event that the developer decides not to pursue the purchase even if the developer is able to obtain the conditions stipulated. What are the risks/benefits to the developer of a conventional development process? The primary benefit to the developer is that the developer avoids committing to a purchase until or unless the developer is able to complete the stipulated conditions – which typically involve obtaining city approval for a development of the developer’s choosing. If the developer cannot get approval for the development of their choosing, the developer can cut short their costs and move on without being encumbered with the property. This can be very important for properties that involve rezones, major development issues, or controversial positions – meaning the developer cannot tell initially what the city and community will accept and approve for development on the property. If the developer can get approval for what they want to do, then the developer has not committed the cash necessary to close on the property until the developer is assured that they can develop the property as they wish. This is very important for developers who are not self-financed as they cannot get financing approved or investors interested until they have a viable, doable, approved project. How long do options usually extend – or how long does it typically take for a developer to meet their requirements under the conventional development process? Depends – typical process will involve:  conducting introductory meetings with city staff and Planning Commission,  sometimes participating in workshops with the public or neighborhood,  developing schematic site and building plans and reviewing them with staff, Planning Commission, and public,  refining schematic site and building plans to level of detail necessary to get preliminary approvals,  completing a MDNS environmental checklist to the satisfaction of city staff,  that is not appealed by the public. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization Action Plan These tasks require the developer to commit a significant amount of time and money, even on non-complicated, non-controversial projects over a minimum period of 6-12 months. The out-of-pocket and financed costs can reach 10% (through schematic design) of the value of the completed project. On a complicated or controversial project, this may also involve:  completing a partial or full environmental impact statement (EIS) including possible studies and analysis of traffic, shoreline, soils, archaeological, or other element,  entertaining an EIS appeal by a public agency or the public that may require additional clarifications or even studies, and  appealing a disapproval or site or building or use conditions mandated by the Planning Commission to a Hearing Examiner or City Council. These additional or protracted tasks can cost considerably more than 10% of the value of the completed project and may never be completed to the developer’s, city, or public’s satisfaction. Typically, developers will walk away from a project if they have not purchased the property or until or unless the returns diminish to the point where it is not profitable to continue to pursue the project and/or the existing or potential investors lose interest. What are the benefits/risks to the property owner of a conventional development process? The primary benefit to the property owner - is that they have a potential buyer of the property (possibly for the owner’s asking price) if the developer’s conditions can be satisfied. And, that the property owner will receive the option money in the event the developer cannot complete the conditions or decides to walk away. The primary risks or disadvantages to the property owner are:  The property is off the market for the duration of the option or until the developer decides to exercise it and buy the property or walk away and forfeit the option money (which can be for an extended period of time),  Should be developer be unable to get a project approved, even if not exactly to the developer’s wish, the property inherits a market stigma concerning what other developers will think about their ability to obtain an approval, or  If what can be readily approved for development on the property is not considered to be marketable or profitable enough to interest other developers. The principal downside of the conventional development process to the property owner and developer is uncertainty and time – which is money. Design/develop competition The principal objective of the design/develop competition approach is to remove uncertainty to the property owner, developer, city, and community and reduce the time (and cost) required to complete the process. What is a design/develop competition? Under the design/develop competition approach, the property owner agrees to sell their property for a fixed market price under an option to the city (or a public agency) rather than to a developer. In return, the city completes the pre-planning and design on the property engaging in:  introductory meetings with city staff and Planning Commission,  sometimes participating in workshops with the public or neighborhood,  developing alternative schematic site and building plans and reviewing them with staff, Planning Commission, and public,  creating project use, site, and design criteria that reflect the preferred alternatives or scope of possibilities including mandatory and optional criteria,  completing a MDNS environmental checklist to the satisfaction of city staff, Planning Commission, and City Council,  that is not appealed by the public, ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization Action Plan  resulting in a pre-approved plan and design criteria for the project. These tasks require the city rather than the developer to commit the time and money necessary, even on non-complicated, non- controversial projects. Typically, the amount of time and cost necessary is less than what would be required of the developer as the intent is to determine the criteria for a satisfactory or desirable development and not the details. The out-of-pocket costs for city staff and/or consultants may be 3% or even less than the value of the completed project. On a complicated or controversial project, this may also involve:  completing a partial or full environmental impact statement (EIS) including possible studies and analysis of traffic, shoreline, soils, archaeological, or other element, and  entertaining an EIS appeal by another public agency or the public that may require additional clarifications or even studies,  sufficient for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the criteria and any EIS or other approvals. These additional or protracted tasks can cost more than a non- complicated, non-controversial project but may still be 5% or even less than the value of the completed project and will ultimately be completed to the city and public’s satisfaction. When is a design/develop competition conducted? Once the property owner has entered into an option and the City Council has approved the plan and design criteria for the project as well as the EIS, the city will conduct a public workshop with potential developers. Potential developers include local developers who have or are interested in the property and project, as well as regional or even national developers who have experience and interest in the type of project being proposed. The latter are especially important if the proposed development project contents are of a character that local developers do not have much experience with or therefore possibly not much interest. The city will recruit local, regional, and national developers of interest. The purpose of the public workshop is to present and promote the property along with the pre-approved criteria, review a draft of the design/development competition process, and elicit developer suggestions, criticisms, and extent of interest in the project, design/develop criteria and process particulars, and timing of the competition. Depending on the suggestions received during the workshop, the city may revise the project proposal, development and competition criteria, the competition process, or other particulars – with City Council validation where needed. More importantly, the city can defer the start of the competition if developers indicate market timing is not good for the project or competition based on market conditions, financing availability, or other particulars. The city would then restart the process in coming months when another public workshop or developer contacts indicate timing is good and enough of them are interested to make the competition productive. How is a design/develop competition conducted? A typical design/develop competition is a 2-phase process including a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) followed by a Request for a Proposal from a short list of 3 teams. Request-for-Qualifications (RFQ) – begins when the city advertises and solicits a statement of qualifications from interested development teams which include a design architect, builder or developer, and financing agent if not the developer proper. The teams are asked to submit materials in a uniform format documenting their design, development, and financing experience with similar projects. The design and development (construction) team members are required to submit plans and photos of similar projects along with references. The development and financing team members are required to submit particulars concerning the financing, operation, management and other particulars of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization Action Plan projects they developed, sold, and still own and manage along with references. The teams may also be asked to provide an outline of the issues, opportunities, and possibly ideas (including summary sketches) of how they may develop the project in accordance with the project design and development criteria. All the submittals are reviewed, and a short list of the 3 most qualified teams are asked to participate in the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase. If, however, the submitting teams are determined to not have sufficient experience, financial capability, or other qualifications to provide 3 most qualified teams, the design/develop competition may be suspended to be tried again until 3 highly qualified teams do make applications. Request for Proposal (RFP) – begins when 3 highly qualified teams are found to have submitted RFQs and are selected to participate in this 2nd phase. The teams are provided the City Council approved detailed design and project criteria, the particulars concerning conduct of this phase, and typically an honorarium with which to finance any extra submittal requirements out of the ordinary for a development proposal – such as detailed models, renderings, and other illustrative materials for public display. The teams are given 90 days with which to develop their detailed proposals that conform to the design and project criteria. Each team is provided an opportunity of reviewing their proposal development at the 30 and 60 day intervals, however, so that they can confirm their proposals conform with the criteria and to resolve any questions they may have as they create their concepts. By the end of the 90 day proposal period, each team must submit their proposal in a uniform format documenting how their concepts meet the design and project criteria along with a bond certifying they have committed financing sufficient to fund their project and an agreement that they will initiate development within a 30 day time period if they are selected. Who conducts the design/develop competition? The competition process is overseen by a Competition Coordinator or Advisor who may be a city staff person or most frequently a design professional experienced with conducting this type of competition. The Competition Coordinator manages a Competition Jury which may be composed of technical persons drawn from city staff or consultants, design professionals (architect, landscape architect, planner, economist), and community representatives (Planning Commission, City Council, and/or citizen at large). The Competition Jury members are selected and/or validated by City Council. The Competition Jury reviews the teams that submit qualifications in the first phase RFQ, selects the 3 finalists to compete in the second phase RFP, reviews and determines if the RFP submissions meet or exceed design and project criteria, and makes recommendations to City Council concerning the selection or ranking of the final 3 proposal submissions. The Competition Jury may also recommend to City Council that the:  RFQ phase be deferred if they find there are not enough highly qualified team submissions to effectively conduct the second phase RFP; and  to not select any RFP submissions if they find they do not conform with the design and project criteria, or if the submittals are not of high enough quality to merit a selection. Does the public have an opportunity to comment on the design/develop competition submittals? The RFP submittals are formally presented to the Competition Jury during a public workshop where the Jury members conduct a question and answer session about the submittals with the competing teams. The submittals are then put on display where the public may review them, submit questions, and vote for their favorite. The questions ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization Action Plan and rankings which are submitted from the public display are provided to the Competition Jury for consideration. Who makes the final decision on the design/develop competition submittals? The Competition Coordinator and Jury document their findings and recommendations to City Council during a public session. City Council reviews the Jury’s recommendations but reserves the right to make a final selection including the option of not making any selection if Council determines the submittals are not of the quality desired from the competition. What happens when a final decision on the design/develop competition submittals has been rendered?  If City Council decides no submittals are of sufficient quality - the competing teams are paid their honorarium and the competition is terminated. Has this ever happened – no, never when qualified submittals have been received from the first phase sufficient to have 3 highly qualified teams willing to compete for the second RFP phase. Has an RFP submittal ever been disqualified – yes, but rarely since the competing teams are given the opportunity of reviewing their conformance with the design and project criteria at least 2 times during the development of proposals.  If City Council accepts the rank ordering of the proposals from the Competition Jury - the developer of the first ranked team’s bond is accepted that includes funds with which to pay the option to purchase the property from the property owner as well as reimburse the city for the full cost of pre-planning and approving the project, and conducting the design/develop competition including the honorariums. Under the terms of the RFP process, the developer is given 30 days with which to finalize and commence development particulars. In the event the developer of the first ranked submittal does not fulfill the terms within the 30 day period, then the developer forfeits their right to develop and the Council awards the project to the second ranked submittal, and so on. What is the risk/benefit to the property owner of the design/develop competition approach? The primary risks or disadvantages to the property owner are:  The property is off the market while the city resolves design and project criteria, completes EIS requirements, conducts public hearings, and pre-approves the criteria for the property’s development - which can be for an extended period of time on a very difficult or controversial project. However, the time required to resolve development prospects on the property would be the same under the conventional approach and will likely be faster if the city is the prime motivator.  If what can be readily approved for development on the property is not considered to be marketable or profitable enough to interest other developers. However, the city will need to resolve what would be necessary to make the property marketable or feasible prior to initiating the design/develop competition – something it would not have to do if a private developer were seeking to do this under the conventional approach. This may include financial incentives, such as the public financing of required infrastructure, if necessary.  The initial public workshop indicates the development community (or enough qualified developers) is not ready to begin the design/development competition process. However, they would likely not be interested if they were pursuing the property under the conventional approach either. The delay that could occur before the competition is re-initiated would be the same if the developer were pursing the property under the conventional approach also.  Should the Competition Jury decide there were no qualified teams submitting for the RFQ phase to warrant continuing, and/or should the Competition Jury and City Council decide no ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization Action Plan proposals were of a quality sufficient to award the project then the property owner has tied up the property during the competition process without a sale. While this is possible, it is not likely given the safeguards built into the process to prevent it from proceeding unless there is assurance of a successful outcome. Even so, the property owner will have gotten a development concept resolved, potential project pre- approved including EIS issues, and a clear resolution of what will be required for a successful property sale under a succeeding design/develop competition or even conventional property sale if the owner prefers – at no cost to the property owner. Under the design/develop competition, all decisions rest with City Council rather than the property owner or developer. This is true under the conventional approach if the project proposal is different than what can be allowed under current zoning and development regulations – ie., is a difficult, or unusual, or unresolved property and proposal. City Council must have the authority to make the decisions under the design/develop competition since the city is optionally purchasing the property during the process and approving final development particulars. The principal upside of the design/development competition process to the property owner and developer is certainty and the short time required to resolve a successful process for no initial cost to the developer and a guaranteed sale price to the property owner on completion. The principal upside to the city of the design/develop competition process is the successful development of a private property by the private market for a quality project in a short period of time for a public cost that is reimbursed by the successful developer. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan Appendix B: What is a 63-20 financing mechanism – and why should we use it to finance public facilities in the BB/RR Revitalization Plan? Conventional financing What are the conventional financing sources for public facilities proposed in the BB/RR Revitalization Plan? Washington state municipalities may finance capital improvements from the:  General Fund - which includes the proceeds from property taxes, sales taxes, and funds received from other governments through grants or loans and/or  Councilmanic Bonds - which are Council approved, or  General Obligation (GO) Bonds - which are voter approved. What is the General Fund and what are the implications of using it to finance BB/RR public facilities and developments? General Funds are used to finance most government operations including staff, equipment, capital facility, and other requirements. The General Fund is derived from property and sales taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenues including state and federal grants, service charges and fees, fines and forfeitures, and other miscellaneous revenues. Of all these sources, the property and sales taxes generate the most monies for the General Fund, and in addition to intergovernmental revenues (state and federal grants) are the sources for financing public improvements and facilities.  Property tax - under Washington State’s constitution cities may levy a property tax rate not to exceed $3.10 per $1,000 of the assessed value of all taxable property within incorporation limits. The total of all property taxes for all taxing authorities, however, cannot exceed 1.0% of assessed valuation, or $10.00 per $1,000 of value. If the taxes of all districts exceed the 1.0% or $10.00 amount, each is proportionately reduced until the total is at or below the 1.0% limit. In 2001, Washington State law was amended by Proposition 747, a statutory provision limiting the growth of regular property taxes to 1.0% per year, after adjustments for new construction. Any proposed increases over this amount are subject to a referendum vote. The statute was intended to control local governmental spending by controlling the annual rate of growth of property taxes. In practice, however, the statute can reduce the effective property tax yield to an annual level far below a city's levy authorization, particularly when property values are increasing rapidly. In 2008, for example, Kennewick’s effective property tax rate had declined to $2.29 per $1,000 of assessed value as a result of the 1% lid limit on annual revenue.  Sales tax - is the city's largest single revenue source and may be used for any legitimate city purpose. However, the city has no direct control over the taxing policy of this source of revenue. The sales tax is collected by the state and distributed among state and local jurisdictions. The sales tax proceeds, especially the city’s share, may fluctuate dramatically with general economic and local business conditions.  Intergovernmental revenue – includes state and federal grants or pass-through revenues, usually earmarked for specific programs, as well as funds from Kennewick to match grants and to finance improvements the city wishes to accomplish. Intergovernmental revenue grants and loans can be significant, depending on the program, Kennewick competitiveness, and the extent to which the program is adequately funded at the state and federal levels. Given present economic conditions, however, Kennewick should not ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan depend on grants as a viable or major source of financing for facility acquisition and development over the short term. Capital improvements funding implications Kennewick has building and infrastructure construction requirements, but given the declining buying power of annual General Fund budgets, not had the capital resources available to initiate major construction projects from the General Funds or non-dedicated funds accounts. The 1% statutory limit on local property tax yields combined with the economic downturns impact on sales tax revenues and the sporadic and undependable nature of federal and state grants and revenue sharing prevents or discourages the city from making long term capital investments in infrastructure necessary to support the city’s development. The 1% statutory limit on the general fund levy in particular, severely curtails the city's ability to operate and maintain services and facilities even if the city utilized other means of providing capital financing. What are Tax Increment financing districts and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Several Washington State laws provide local jurisdictions the opportunity to create special districts to facilitate the development of the community by capturing new revenue from existing taxing structures. These new revenues are then “captured” to pay debt service on the bonds issued to enhance infrastructure to improve the community.  CRF: Community Revitalization Financing Act - the Washington State legislature created the Community Revitalization Financing (CRF) Act in 2001 authorizing cities, towns, counties, and port districts to create a “tax increment area” and finance public improvements within the area by using increased revenues from local property taxes generated within the area. Under CRF provisions:  An increment area cannot be created without approval of the local governments imposing at least 75% of the regular property taxes within the area.  The incremental local property taxes under this program are calculated on 75% of any increase in assessed value in the increment area.  Any fire protection district with geographic boundaries in the increment area must agree to participate for the project to proceed.  CRF increment areas are created and administered at the local government level.  The CRF Act does not include a state contribution. There are currently 5 CRF increment areas located in Spokane County. While the CRF program can currently be used by Kennewick in the BB/RR area, the city’s proceeds from a limited local only tax increment are significant but not sizable. A BB/RR CRF would likely produce $600,000 in city tax increment revenue over a 20 year period that could be bonded –not enough to finance major BB/RR infrastructure improvements or facility development.  LIFT: Local Infrastructure Financing Tool Program – the Washington State legislature created the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) program in 2006 to finance local public improvement projects intended to encourage economic development or redevelopment. The LIFT program is similar to the CRF local tax increment option, except that it also includes an opportunity to utilize state as well as local tax increments. Under LIFT, a sponsoring jurisdiction (city, town, county, port district, or federally recognized Indian tribe) creates a “revenue development area” from which annual increases in revenues from local sales/use taxes and local property taxes are measured and used. Such increases in revenues and any additional funds from other local public sources are used to pay for public improvements in the revenue development area and are also used to match a limited amount of state contribution. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan The LIFT program is competitive since cities are competing to be awarded the state’s share of the sales, use, and property tax increment. Nine projects have been awarded state contributions under the LIFT program including Bellingham, Bothell, Everett, Federal Way, Mount Vernon, Puyallup, Vancouver, Yakima, and Spokane County. Given the dramatic decline in property, use, and sales tax revenues as a result of the economic downturn, the state does not have the discretionary monies to fund LIFT and has not renewed the LIFT program. The application process for the LIFT program is currently closed – any renewal of the program will require future legislative action and funding.  LRF: Local Revitalization Financing Program – the Washington State legislature created the Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) Program in 2009 authorizing cities, towns, counties, and port districts to create a “revitalization area” (RA) and allowing certain increases in local sales and use tax revenues and local property tax revenues generated from within the revitalization area to be used for payment of bonds issued for financing local public improvements. The LRF program is similar to the CRF local tax increment option, except that like the LIFT program it also includes an opportunity to utilize state as well as local tax increments. Like the LIFT program, LRF is also competitive by which cities compete for the state’s share of tax proceeds. Thirteen projects have been approved for state contributions under LRF program including Auburn, Bellevue, Bremerton, Federal Way, Kennewick (Southridge), Renton, Spokane, Tacoma, University Place, Vancouver, Wenatchee, Clark County, and Whitman County. As in the LIFT program, the dramatic decline in property, use, and sales tax revenues as a result of the economic downturn reduced the state discretionary monies with which to fund LRF and the state has not renewed the LRF program. The application process for the LRF program is currently closed – any renewal of the program will require future legislative action and funding. However, the LRF program can still be used though the tax increment would be limited to local sales, use, and property taxes (essentially CRF) without the major and substantial allocations possible with the state’s contribution. What are Special Revenues and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Special revenues are derived from state and local option taxes dedicated to specific expenditure purposes, such as the motor vehicle tax, motor excise tax, real estate excise tax, motel and hotel tax, public art, criminal justice, paths and trails, convention center, and the like. Some special revenues may be used to finance limited capital facilities, such as roads or parks, where the local option allows – such as the local real estate excise tax (REET) and/or under special circumstances Motel/Hotel or Tourism Taxes or Stormwater Utility Taxes if a project or program can be expensed as a direct extension or beneficiary of these accounts. Generally, however, the special revenues that are authorized by the legislature are project specific in nature and cannot be used for facilities that are not authorized or been specifically approved for such use when validated by the Council or by voter approval of the special option taxes.  REET: Real Estate Excise Tax – RCW 82.46 authorizes local governments to enact up to 0.25% of the annual sales for real estate for capital facilities, and the Growth Management Act (GMA) authorizes another 0.25% for capital facilities. REET revenues must be used solely for financing new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities, as specified in the capital facilities plan. An additional option is available under RCW 82.46.070 for the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas if approved by a majority of the voters of the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan The first and second REET may be used for the following capital facilities:  The planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, and storm and sanitary sewer systems, or  The planning, construction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks and recreational facilities. In addition, the second REET may be used for the following:  The acquisition of parks and recreational facilities, or  The planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of law enforcement facilities, protection of facilities, trails, libraries, administrative and judicial facilities, and river and/or floodway/flood control projects and housing projects subject to certain limitations. REET monies are a significant source of funds for public improvements and facilities, particularly since during good economic conditions they generate a fairly predictable annual revenue stream. If the REET revenue trend is constant and predictable, the annual revenues can be capitalized with a Revenue Bond and pledged against a specific improvement or project. However, this would negate using the REET monies on an annual basis for other emerging public facility requirements on an annual basis. During economic downturns, however, particularly in the housing market, REET revenues are subject to extreme fluctuations similar to the sales tax. In 2010, for example, Kennewick expects to generate from REET 1 and 2. What are Councilmanic and General Obligation (GO) Bonds and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Debt service funds are derived from a dedicated portion of the property tax or general fund proceeds to repay the sale of Councilmanic (limited or non-voted) and/or General Obligation (GO or voted) bonds. Both types of bonds may be used to finance facility acquisitions, developments, and improvements – but not maintenance or operational costs.  Councilmanic (limited or non-voted) bonds - may be issued without voter approval by the Council for any facility development purpose. The total amount of all outstanding non-voted general obligation debt may not exceed 1.5% of the assessed valuation of all city property. Limited general obligation bonds must be paid from general governmental revenues – the General Fund. Therefore, debt service on these bonds may reduce the amount of General Fund revenue available for current operating expenditures and the financial flexibility the Council may need to fund annual budget priorities. For this reason, Councilmanic bonds are usually only used for the most pressing, short term, and limited amount of funds for capital improvement issues.  Unlimited general obligation (GO) bonds - must be approved by at least 60% of resident voters during an election which has a turnout of at least 40% of those who voted in the last state general election. The bond may be repaid from a special levy, which is not governed by the 1.0% statutory limitation on the property tax growth rate. Total indebtedness as a percent of the assessed valuation that may be incurred by limited and unlimited general obligation bonds together, however, may not exceed: 2.5% - provided that indebtedness in excess of 1.5% is for general purposes, 5.0% - provided that indebtedness in excess of 2.5% is for utilities, and 7.5% - provided that indebtedness in excess of 5.0% is for parks and open space development. Monies authorized by limited and unlimited types of bonds must be spent within 3 years of authorization to avoid arbitrage requirements unless invested at less than bond yield. In addition, ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan both bonds may be used to construct but not maintain or operate facilities. Facility maintenance and operation costs must be paid from General Fund revenue or by voter authorization of special annual or biannual operating levies or by user fees or charges. For this reason, GO bonds are used primarily for improvements that do not require high annual staffing, maintenance, or other requirements that must be financed from the General Fund. What are Enterprise Funds and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Enterprise funds are derived from the user fees and charges levied for utility operations including water and sewer, storm drainage, regional water, solid waste, and cemetery. Enterprise revenues are used to pay operating costs, retire capital facility debt, and plan future replacement and expansion projects. Enterprise funds may be created for a public activity that has a revenue source sufficient to finance all costs. Enterprise funds have been used on a limited basis for golf courses, marinas, public markets, and similar self-financing operations. Enterprise Funds, however, are typically created to finance the continuing operation, maintenance, debt retirement, future development, and other costs for the public activity or facility after the facility has been financed using other sources of funds. Conventional project delivery methods What are the conventional or traditional methods of designing and building BB/RR public facilities? The conventional or traditional methods of designing and building public improvements and facilities include the Design/Bid/Build (traditional or conventional process), and for authorized cities and projects, the Design/Build method.  Design/Bid/Build - the design/bid/build or traditional method has been the prevailing project delivery system and has typically been used in Kennewick public works and facilities projects. Under the Design/Bid/Build process, the city hires a design team to develop drawings and specifications for the facility. Once completed, the design package is bid and the lowest responsible bidder is awarded a contract for the construction. The city uses in- house staff and the architect or engages the services of a professional construction manager to manage the process. Financing - the Design/Bid/Build approach utilizes conventional forms of financing including General Funds, Special Revenues, Bonds, or Enterprise Funds – depending on which apply to the type of project.  Design/Build & Bridging - Washington State RCW 39-10-51 Design/Build Procedure authorizes a process that has been used in the private sector for many years and provides an alternative to the traditional Design/Bid/Build process. RCW 39-10-020 Alternative Public Works Contracting Procedure stipulates the requirements for a project to qualify to use the Design/Build method as an alternative contracting procedure. At the present time, any city may use Design/Build provided that the project: ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan  Must be over $10,000,000 in value,  Must be approved by the Washington State Project Review Board, and  The public entity (or their consulting team) must have experience with Design/Build. Under the Design/Build method, Kennewick hires one company to design and build the public works project or facility. Design/Build contracts are typically negotiated once the city has defined the project program and the contract terms can be established. The Design/Build contractor guarantees a maximum project cost based upon the city’s program and a development agreement defining the project scope and terms. Typically, the Design/Build approach may be 10-15% cheaper than the Design/Bid/Build approach since the process is faster, relies on performance-based design/constructions solutions rather than a fixed and typically most expensive pre-designed solution, and the final product must be completed for a predetermined maximum cost. Bridging - is a hybrid form of Design/Build that gives Kennewick greater control over the design process and end product. Under the bridging approach, the city’s staff and/or consulting team more fully defines the design documents prior to the development agreement being negotiated. The documents specify the project's functional and aesthetic requirements, but the details of the construction technology are described with performance specifications leaving the specific methods up to the Design/Build team. The construction drawings are prepared by the Design/Build/contractor's A/E who becomes the architect of record. Financing – like the Design/Bid/Build approach, however, the Design/Build method utilizes conventional forms of financing including General Funds, Special Revenues, Bonds, or Enterprise Funds – depending on which apply to the type of project. Hybrid project delivery/financing methods What are the hybrid methods of designing, building, and financing BB/RR public facilities? The hybrid methods that combine the design, building, and financing requirements into a single process include Developer/Lease-to-Own (LTO) and Nonprofit Developer/63-20 Lease to Own (LTO).  Developer/Lease-To-Own (LTO) - the Developer/LTO approach is very similar to the Design/Build delivery method and is available to public entities through RCW 35.42.220. The city typically selects a developer through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The city and the winning RFP developer enter into an agreement by which the developer is responsible for turnkey development of the project and then leases back the facility to the city with an option to purchase. In some cases, the city may pre-select a property and assign the purchase option to the developer. The developer chooses the design and construction delivery approach that best suits the developer’s interests. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan Under the Design/Build method the developer provides in-house design and construction services or forms a Design/Build partnership or contract with an architect and contractor. Bridging and other elements of the Design/Build method are applicable to the Developer/LTO approach. Since the Developer/LTO is using the Design/Build approach the developer is guaranteeing a maximum project cost based upon the city’s program and a development agreement defining the project scope and terms. In addition, like the Design/Build approach, the Developer/LTO may be 10-15% cheaper than the Design/Bid/Build approach since the process is faster, relies on performance-based design/constructions solutions rather than a fixed and typically most expensive pre-designed solution, and the final product must be completed for a predetermined maximum cost. Since the developer is using the Design/Build method under this approach rather than the city, the city will realize the savings in time and cost possible under this approach even though the city is not formally using Design/Build under current state legislation. Financing – unlike the Design/Bid/Build and Design/Build approaches, however, the Developer/LTO method does not require conventional forms of pre-financing using General Funds, Special Revenues, Bonds, or Enterprise. The developer finances the project and the city buys it back using an annual payment allocation from General or Special or Enterprise Funds or typically from annual revenues generated by the facility’s tenants, user fees, or other charges. Since the Developer/LTO approach does not require pre-financing using Bonds or other public forms of funding, the annual lease/purchase payments are not considered debt and do not accrue on the city’s liability ledgers. Since the developer is financing the project, the city will be paying the developer an interest rate (or profit margin) that will be higher than if the city financed the project using public monies, even borrowed public monies, using Councilmanic, General Obligation (GO), or Revenue Bonds. The higher interest rates will reduce but not entirely negate the development savings possible under the Design/Build as opposed to the Design/Bid/Build approach. On public sector lease-to-own projects, 2 financing structures are typically utilized: Certificates of Participation (COPs) and the "63- 20" structure. In a COP arrangement the developer directly receives a share of the lease revenue in return for financing the project.  Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO - the "63-20" structure is an IRS established financing mechanism that allows a not-for-profit corporation to be formed that can issue tax-exempt bonds to fund public or nonprofit projects. The not-for-profit holds title to the property and improvements the same as a developer does under the Developer/LTO method. The city enters into a lease agreement with the not-for-profit and finances the bond debt through lease payments, typically over a 20 to 30 year period. At retirement of the debt, the property title is turned over to the city the same as in the Developer/LTO method. The nonprofit developer may be an inactive partner, generally providing the financing while the city essentially develops project ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan criteria, the Design/Build RFP, and other construction administration particulars. The nonprofit may also be an active partner, performing the Design/Build RFP, construction administration, and all other developer duties as well as providing financing. Since the nonprofit developer is essentially the project landlord, it can also be contracted by the city to provide typical landlord duties including maintenance and operations which are then folded into the overall lease/purchase agreement. Since the nonprofit developer is using the Design/Build method under this approach rather than the city, the city will realize the savings in time and cost possible under this approach even though the city is not using Design/Build under current state legislation. Certificates of Participation (COP) are often used during the initial construction stage of a project and later converted to a "63-20" structure at occupancy. In some cases, the city may elect to issue GO bonds and buyout the lease early. Financing – like the Developer/LTO method, the Nonprofit/63-20 LTO method does not require conventional forms of pre-financing using General Funds, Special Revenues, Bonds, or Enterprise. The nonprofit developer finances the project and the city buys it back using an annual payment allocation from General or Special or Enterprise Funds or typically from annual revenues generated by the facility’s tenants, user fees, or other charges. Since the Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach does not require pre- financing using Bonds or other public forms of funding, the annual lease/purchase payments are not considered debt and do not accrue on the city’s liability ledgers. Since the nonprofit developer is financing the project by issuing tax exempt 63-20 (Revenue) Bonds, the city will be paying the nonprofit developer an interest rate that will be same as if the city financed the project using public monies, even borrowed public monies, using Councilmanic, General Obligation (GO), or Revenue Bonds. Since the nonprofit interest rates will be the same as if the city financed the project, the nonprofit developer (and therefore the city) will realize the 10-15% development savings possible under the Design/Build as opposed to the Design/Bid/Build approach. Which of these hybrid methods of building and financing BB/RR public facilities are available to Kennewick? Both hybrid project delivery/financing systems are available for use on public works by Kennewick.  Developer/Lease-To-Own (LTO) - the Developer/Lease-To-Own method is available to Kennewick in accordance with RCW 35.42.220. The RCW allows a lease of real property with an option to purchase. The services of a developer can be engaged for project financing and to hold title to the property. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan  Developer/63-20 LTO - the Developer/63-20 LTO method is also available to Kennewick in accordance with RCW 35.42.220. The RCW allows a lease of real property with an option to purchase from a nonprofit developer. In accordance with the IRS 63-20 ruling, the services of a developer can be engaged and a not-for-profit established to issue tax-exempt bonds for project financing and to hold title to the property. Which one of these alternative methods of building and financing BB/RR public facilities is the most effective and the least cost? The Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO is the most effective and least cost project delivery method since it incorporates the financial and structural advantages of the IRS 63-20 mechanism. The use of a 63- 20 not-for-profit corporation as the lease-to-own delivery vehicle allows the project to be financed with tax-exempt bonds while maintaining the benefits of the Design/Build method of private development. The Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach provides access to the efficiencies of the Design/Build method that may not otherwise be available under the alternative contracting procedure limitations defined in RCW 39-10-020. The success of 63-20 projects is derived from the enhanced team relationships, improved project control, and the allocation of risk possible by using the Design/Build approach. The 63-20 LTO method is being used with increasing frequency on municipal, county, and state projects in Washington due to its lower interest and financing costs, and the savings in time and cost possible by having the nonprofit developer utilize the Design/Build approach. What examples are there of Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO projects in Washington State? While the Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO method has been available to finance the construction of public and non-profit facilities for close to 40 years, it is only recently that public agencies have begun to utilize the mechanism in public/private development partnerships. The Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach in Washington State has been used or is currently contemplated for:  King County King Street Center  Pierce County Road Improvements  Issaquah Utility Corridor  Auburn Utilities Project  King Street Station  Harborview 401 Broadway Building  Redmond City Hall  Tacoma Narrows Bridge  4 University of Washington projects  King County Chinook Building & Goat Hill Parking Garage  Patricia Bracelin Steel Memorial Building  Ninth & Jefferson Tower  Washington State Department of Information Services Office & Data Center Campus  Metro’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Village at Overlake  Marysville Civic Center/City Hall  Shoreline Civic Center/City Hall  Issaquah District Courthouse  Tashiro-Kaplan Live Work Artist Lofts  Washington State Employees Credit Union Headquarters  University of Washington Husky Stadium Redevelopment BB/RR project applications Based on the analysis above, the Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach could be used for the following BB/RR projects:  Public Market – including land acquisition, site, and building developments using the Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HDKP) nonprofit or a similar nonprofit entity to develop, operate, and maintain the facility financing annual payments from an Enterprise Fund with lease agreements, rental and user fees, and other charges. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan  Incubator Buildings – including land lease and eventually land acquisition, site, and building development using a nonprofit to develop, operate, and maintain the facilities financing annual payments from an Enterprise Fund with tenant lease agreements, rental and user fees, and other charges.  Overlook Park – including land acquisition, site, and building development using a nonprofit to develop and maintain the facility financing annual payments from concessions and the General Fund’s parks and recreation accounts.  Infrastructure development including the relocation of Columbia Park Trail – including any land acquisition, site, and construction costs using a nonprofit to relocate and construct new roads, utilities, and other improvements financing annual payments from developer impact, design/develop competition awards, and late-comer fees. Which process should Kennewick use to select a developer – an RFQ or an RFP? The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) approach bases the selection of a developer on the experience and projects the developer has completed elsewhere then negotiates a contract with the preferred team. The Request for Proposal (RFP) approach asks for an RFQ, short lists the applications based on experience, then asks for specific proposal based on project criteria (including price) and then makes a selection conditioned on the proposal response. Following is a point by point comparison of the two approaches: RFQ RFP Selection criteria Focus on team Focus on solution Objective Select a partner Meet project criteria (mandatory and optional) Product Successful negotiation Successful project Measurement Team’s project record elsewhere Proposal’s contents in relation to project performance criteria Terms of agreement Whatever parties agree to in regards: Plan Design Uses $ - cost RFP requirements for: Plan Design Uses $ - cost Amended on selection Back-up options If fail to reach terms, go to 2nd choice and restart negotiation process Go to 2nd choice Go to 3rd choice Back-up consequences Duplicate cost Lost time Public embarrassment if fail to reach terms Assumes 2nd and 3rd choices are of equal quality – otherwise, redo process Public involvement Minutes/hearing following final negotiation details – not transparent Open house on proposals Peoples polls Comments from juries Minutes/hearing on final selection Selection committee Public officials Technical jury Design jury Public officials Cost Low initial RFQ Can be very high to negotiate terms and solutions High initial RFP which is reimbursed by winning developer Low to implement Risk Control and power passes to developer and “Catch 22” results: Can’t accept terms Can’t afford failure Solutions are not of a quality content Do not accept submittals Refine/redo process at a later time with ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan Can’t control damage to market image different parties In sum RFQ is a reactive process RFP is a proactive process Procedural steps RFQ - minimum qualifications Submit examples Rank submittals – choose preferred party to negotiate Ask for proposal Evaluate proposal impacts Negotiate particulars Approve final terms RFQ – minimum qualifications Submit examples and preliminary ideas Rank submittals – choose 3 for RFP Issue RFP or w/o honorarium) Monitor progress Review submittals (technical/design juries) Present to public Rank final submittals Select preferred solution Recent project examples  Burien – downtown  Monroe – Kelsey Creek  Bellingham – Port Hotel  Snohomish Co – Paine Field hotel  Seattle – Westlake  WA – NRB & L&I  Kenmore – CBD  Burien – downtown 2  Puyallup – city hall/MXD  Bremerton – waterfront w/hotel and convention  Seattle – Public Safety site  King County – Admin Bldg Redevelopment  Public Facilities District – Hotel RFP  Federal Way Downtown As shown, the RFQ is a reactive process that places the developer in charge of the negotiations and the outcome, while the RFP is a proactive process that places the city in charge to ensure a successful outcome and project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Appendix B: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- D-1 Appendix D: Housing cost analysis Sequim Housing Action Plan Appendix D: Housing cost analysis A cost analysis was completed for developing the prototype mixed-use platform building project in the proposed Mixed Use (MU-1) zone assuming the structures were completely built-out to maximum allowable density as conventional projects then factoring in various noncash and cash off-set incentives. The purpose of the analysis was to determine which factors most affected final development costs – and the extent to which noncash and cash cost off-sets affected the final project outcomes for affordable unit sales prices. Mixed-use prototypes All mixed-use project prototypes assumed:  Residential parking – would be provided in a 2-story 16-foot high (8 feet per floor) level concrete parking deck accessed from each end of the site by a ramp down and ramp up to each floor to avoid internal ramping. The first floor of the parking deck would be 4 feet below grade to reduce ramping grade elevations. Each parking floor would accommodate a single middle aisle and 90-degree parking on both sides or 60 feet in width by 200 feet in length or 20,000 square feet providing 22 stalls each side or 44 per floor or 88 for the 2-level structure if the stalls were 9 feet wide.  Ground floor retail space (rental tenant or condo) – would be constructed on the front and back sides of the parking decks of 12-16 foot ceiling heights. The retail footprints would be 20 feet deep and 200 feet long or 4,000 square feet on each side or 8,000 square feet in total. The retail footprints could be divided into marketable units ranging from a 20x40 or 800 square feet minimum up to 4,000 square feet maximum per side.  Retail parking – would be provided by 45-degree on-street angle parking (expanding the public right-of-way by property dedication if necessary) on each side of the building fronting the retail spaces. The 45-degree angled on-street parking aisles would accommodate 20 each 10 foot wide by 20 foot long stalls on each side of the structure or 40 stalls in total equal to 4.0 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet of retail.  Upper story stick-built housing units – would be built over the 100 foot wide by 200 foot long retail and parking deck concrete platform of 20,000 square feet for up to 4 floors under the proposed MU zone or a likely height of up to 64 feet to the eave. (Elevator towers and mechanical equipment would extend further above the roof as would any gable or shed roof design.) The residential floors would be accessed by a center loaded hallway and divided into 45-foot deep residential units which could be partitioned into 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, or 36 foot wide units ranging from 540 to 1,620 square feet accordingly. Were the average unit to be 900 square feet (including a 10 foot wide common hallway), each floor would accommodate a maximum up to 20 units each or 80 units in total for 4 floors in the proposed MU-1 zone. The 2-level residential parking deck capacity of 88 stalls would provide a ratio of 1.1 stalls/900 square foot dwelling unit which would likely be a studio or 1 bedroom unit. Larger units would provide a higher parking ratio accordingly.  Site requirements - were calculated based on 0-foot yard setbacks and 100% lot coverage allowances for the development pads excluding any requirements in the MU-1 zone and the BB/RR plan for boardwalks, streetscapes, trails, open spaces, or other amenities. The minimum buildable pad site requirement for the MU-1 zone would be 100 feet deep by 200 feet long or 20,000 square feet assuming any on-street retail parking would be dedicated to the city upon construction. Sidewalks, access ramps, and streetscape ---PAGE BREAK--- D-2 Appendix D: Housing cost analysis Sequim Housing Action Plan would be provided within the public (or dedicated public) right- of-way.  Site and building improvements – were based on an urban infill site and provided concrete sidewalks with benches, trash receptacles, and other amenities, street trees, and artworks. The building was finished with green roof improvements.  Development costs – were held constant between all prototypes assuming land costs at $250,000 per acre, platform parking deck at $50 per square foot, retail frontage at $125 per square foot, upper story stick-built housing at $100 per square foot, etc. as shown in the prototype’s spreadsheet. Cost off-sets The MU-1 zone prototype was then analyzed for the impacts that would be realized on typical (affordable) housing unit costs assuming:  Land trust was utilized as a cash off-set – to reduce dwelling unit development costs and control potential land speculation or inflation costs as a factor in total development costs.  Additional density was allowed under an incentive zoning or noncash off-set – where the building could be increased in height to allow another floor and the amount of parking was held constant (ratio reduced) accordingly.  Manufactured housing units were installed in lieu of on- site stick built housing as a cash off-set – where construction times and construction financing costs were reduced from a typical 6 month to a 1 month construction period, the number of units was increased due to smaller manufactured sizes based on a 15 foot x 45 foot module, and the amount of parking was held constant (ratio reduced) accordingly.  Building permit fees, plan check fees, utility connections, and potential park and traffic impact fees were deferred at time of construction under a cash off-set – to be recovered for the city’s General Fund or a Housing Fund Account if and when the affordable unit is ever sold as a market rate unit to a household that does not qualify for affordable rate subsidy. MU-1 zone prototype Total development cost for the conventional project adhering to MU-1 zone building requirements would be $17,261,766 for a 0.46 acre site containing 88 off-street parking stalls and a 112,000 square foot building including 24,000 square foot 2- level parking deck for 88 parking spaces, 8,000 ground floor retail, and 80,000 square feet of 4-story stick-built housing allowing 80 units of average size of 900 square feet each. The average cost for an average dwelling unit of 900 square feet would be $154 per square foot for the entire parking and residential structure excluding the retail and on-street retail parking spaces or $198,048 of prorated cost per an average 900 square foot housing unit. Four cost and cash off-sets were analyzed for impact on overall development costs:  Option 1: cash off-set by leasing land - uses a land trust instead of a fee simple sale of the property occupied by the project’s structure. Typically, land trusts on rental projects charge lease fees included in the unit rent that are amortized to recapture the initial land cost over a long term (typically 99 years) even as the trust retains the title and value of the land. On owned units, the owner is charged a similarly amortized lease fee through a Homeowners Association (HOA) where the trust retains title to the land though the owner may build equity in the increasing value of the structure. The costs of the structure, parking, and all other factors remain the same as the conventional project estimate except that the $121,332 in land and title costs is assumed by another entity. This land lease off-set reduces the total development cost to $17,130,727 due to the reduced requirement for land purchase ---PAGE BREAK--- D-3 Appendix D: Housing cost analysis Sequim Housing Action Plan and financing reducing the average prorated cost per square foot for the total structure to $153. This land lease cash off-set would reduce the average dwelling unit cost to $196,544 of prorated cost per an average 900 square foot dwelling unit (exclusive of the cost involved in developing retail and on-street retail parking) equal to an average savings of $1,503 or by 0.8% per unit. Option 2: noncash off-set by increasing density – allows the project to include another floor or 20 more units or 100 in total as a noncash incentive to develop affordable housing. The option assumes, however, that except for the additional floor, all other development particulars remain the same including the 88 residential parking deck spaces which now provide 0.9 stalls per an average 900 square foot dwelling unit. This density off-set increases the total development cost to $20,256,156 due to the additional residential floor but retains an average cost per square foot for the total structure at $153. These noncash off-sets would reduce the average dwelling unit cost to $188,501 of prorated cost per an average 900 square foot dwelling unit equal to an average savings of $8,043 or by 4.1% per unit. Were this noncash density option combined with the cash off- set of land in option 1, the combined prorated cost savings would be $9,547 or 4.8% per unit.  Option 3: noncash off-set by using pre-manufactured construction - uses pre-assembled manufactured units instead of on-site traditional stick-built construction and 18 more dwelling units since manufactured units would be smaller than typical stick-built units since they would be based on a 16-foot width to allow transport. This option assumes the same parking and other development regulations would still apply but realizes the added density bonus from the additional floor of housing in option 2 and by reducing the average size of the units from 900 to 850 square feet or by another 18 units or 18% - because manufactured units are typically more compact. This assumes parking would remain constant at 88 units in the 2-level decked parking structure providing 0.7 stalls per average 850 square foot dwelling unit module. This technology offset reduces interim financing costs by $204,681 to reflect the shorter construction time and construction interest savings provided by manufacturing off- site. Total development costs under this technology off-set, however, would increase to $20,076,554 to account for the increased number of units paying utility connection and impact fees for an average prorated cost per square foot for the total structure to $152. These noncash technological off-set would reduce the average dwelling unit cost to $162,369 of prorated cost per an average reduced 850 square foot dwelling unit equal to an average savings of $29,696 or by 15.0% per unit. Were this noncash technological option combined with the cash off-set of land in option 1 and the noncash density off-set in option 2, the combined prorated cost savings would be $39,242 or 19.8% per unit.  Option 4: cash off-set by deferring fees – for building permits, plan checks, utility connections, and proposed park and traffic impact fees until such time as the affordable units would be sold at market rate or to a household who would not quality for affordable housing. These cash off-sets would reduce the average cost to $148 per square foot for the entire parking, retail, and residential structure and $154,697 of prorated cost per an average 850 square foot dwelling unit equal to an average savings of $4,108 or by 2.1% per unit. However, these cash off-sets must still be paid from some other source, if not from the project developer, as the city, utilities, and schools still incur these costs in support of the development ---PAGE BREAK--- D-4 Appendix D: Housing cost analysis Sequim Housing Action Plan project. Cash off-sets, when used in other jurisdictions, have usually been repaid from General Funds, special property tax levies, real estate excise taxes, and other special financing. The cash off-sets have also typically been recovered at time of sale if or when the subsidized affordable unit should ever sell in the marketplace at market rate rather than to a qualifying affordable income household. Were this cash land lease option combined with the cash off-set of land in option 1, the noncash density off-set in option 2, and the noncash technological off-set in option 3, the combined prorated cost savings would be $43,351 or 21.9% per unit. Implications All of the off-set measures considered including land lease, added density, manufactured units, and deferred fees reduce the total development cost and prorated cost per unit significantly although the extent of cost reduction varies between measures. Resulting prorated cost per average dwelling unit due to cumulative off-set measures MU-1 Market rate $198,048 1) lease land $196,544 2) add density and reduce parking $188,501 3) use manufactured units $158,805 4) defer fees and charges $154,697 Savings from individual off-set measures MU-1 1) lease land $1,503 2) add density and reduce parking $8,043 3) use manufactured units $29,696 4) defer fees and charges $4,108 Percentage savings from individual off-set measures MU-1 1) lease land 0.8% 2) add density and reduce parking 4.1% 3) use manufactured units 15.0% 4) defer fees and charges 2.1% Cumulative savings from off-set measures MU-1 1) lease land $1,503 2) add density and reduce parking $9,547 3) use manufactured units $39,242 4) defer fees and charges $43,351 Cumulative percentage savings from off-set measures MU-1 1) lease land 0.8% 2) add density and reduce parking 4.8% 3) use manufactured units 19.8% 4) defer fees and charges 21.9% The greatest single savings are realized from noncash off-sets through an increase in density assuming all other site requirements, particularly parking, are kept constant and from the use of manufactured units (15.0%) assuming the units are reduced in size (and increased in number) and a savings is realized in financing costs due to shorter construction schedules. Savings are also achieved through cash off-sets from deferring fees and land trusts though not as significant as the noncash off-sets of density and manufactured units. However, the cash off-sets from deferred fees and land trust off- sets must still be paid from some other public monies, whereas the density and technology off-sets are of no direct public monetary cost in comparison. When all off-sets are applied in combination, however, the overall cost reductions are significant at 21.9% underscoring the need to utilize all rather than one or another cost off-set measure. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-5 Appendix D: Housing cost analysis Sequim Housing Action Plan The major qualifications of the analysis are that:  Design and development regulations – allow an increase in building floors from 4 to 5 over a retail/parking platform or by 25% more residential square footage in return for a minimum affordable housing allocation of at least 15-20% from the maximum building floor and minimum parking ratios where the resulting design and development characteristics can be made to fit the surrounding neighborhood. Mixed use structures in the BB/RR district could be allowed up to 5-story of stick-built over platform parking and retail and be composed of small studio, 1, and 2-bedroom units to reflect the higher costs associated with this building construction and the type households most likely to want to live in this type of structure and “smart growth” urban environment.  Parking requirements - be reduced or at least reflect the likelihood that occupants of mixed use structures in BB/RR locations, especially seniors, empty nesters, single individuals, and other smaller households may not require as many cars per household and/or use transit more heavily. Further proportional cost reductions are possible were the:  Kennewick Housing Authority and other nonprofit groups – be encouraged to buy and/or lease affordable units created with off-sets in order to achieve even greater cost reduction through additional public subsidies, and therefore, housing for very low income households. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Housing cost analysis - MU prototype (4 floor over platform limit w/100% lot coverage) 18 July 2010 Development costs - w/incentive zoning allowing extra floor and reduced parking + land lease + another floor + manufactured units permits + fees Mixed income sales units land cost offset density incentive density+ const time/cost cash offset $130,680 % of % of % of % of % of Property unit quantity unit cost qnty cost total qnty cost total qnty cost total qnty cost total qnty cost total 1 acquire property acre 0.46 $250,000 $114,784 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 title and recording fees, legal, land appraisal each 1 $6,548.00 $6,548 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SUBTOTAL LAND COSTS $121,332 0.7% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Site improvements unit quantity unit cost qnty cost qnty cost qnty cost qnty cost qnty cost 3 site preparation - site and any building clearing sq feet 20,000 $2.50 $50,000 0.3% $50,000 0.3% $50,000 0.2% $50,000 0.2% $50,000 0.3% 4 utilities and infrastructure improvements sq feet 20,000 $5.00 $100,000 0.6% $100,000 0.6% $100,000 0.5% $100,000 0.5% $100,000 0.5% 5 parking deck access ramps - paving sq feet 400 $8.00 $3,200 0.0% $3,200 0.0% $3,200 0.0% $3,200 0.0% $3,200 0.0% 6 on-street 45-degree retail parking spaces - pavers sq feet 6,800 $12.00 $81,600 0.5% $81,600 0.5% $81,600 0.4% $81,600 0.4% $81,600 0.4% 7 streetscape - curbs, gutters, walkways of site perimeter sq feet 6,000 $20.00 $120,000 0.7% $120,000 0.7% $120,000 0.6% $120,000 0.6% $120,000 0.6% 8 landscaping - street trees with root guard and grates each 15 $1,000.00 $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% 9 misc site furnishings - artworks, etc each 4 $5,000.00 $20,000 0.1% $20,000 0.1% $20,000 0.1% $20,000 0.1% $20,000 0.1% Subtotal $389,800 2.3% $389,800 2.3% $389,800 1.9% $389,800 1.9% $389,800 2.0% Building 10 construct parking platform - 2 levels (@$15,000/stall) sq feet 24,000 $50.00 $1,200,000 7.0% $1,200,000 7.0% $1,200,000 5.9% $1,200,000 6.0% $1,200,000 6.1% 11 construct retail frontage - tilt-up 20 feet wide on 2 sides sq feet 8,000 $125.00 $1,000,000 5.8% $1,000,000 5.8% $1,000,000 4.9% $1,000,000 5.0% $1,000,000 5.1% 12 construct upper floor stick-built dwelling units - 4 floors sq feet 80,000 $100.00 $8,000,000 46.3% $8,000,000 46.7% $10,000,000 49.4% $10,000,000 49.8% $10,000,000 51.1% 13 construct green roof features sq feet 20,000 $10.00 $200,000 1.2% $200,000 1.2% $200,000 1.0% $200,000 1.0% $200,000 1.0% 14 contingency - construction change orders sq feet 132,000 $5.00 $660,000 3.8% $660,000 3.9% $760,000 3.8% $760,000 3.8% $760,000 3.9% Subtotal $11,060,000 64.1% $11,060,000 64.6% $13,160,000 65.0% $13,160,000 65.5% $13,160,000 67.3% 15 contractor mgt, mobilization, bonds, insurance 5.0% $572,490 3.3% $572,490 3.3% $677,490 3.3% $677,490 3.4% $677,490 3.5% 16 contractor profit 10.0% $1,144,980 6.6% $1,144,980 6.7% $1,354,980 6.7% $1,354,980 6.7% $1,354,980 6.9% Subtotal $1,717,470 $1,717,470 $2,032,470 $2,032,470 $2,032,470 SUBTOTAL DIRECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS $13,167,270 76.3% $13,167,270 76.9% $15,582,270 76.9% $15,582,270 77.6% $15,582,270 79.7% Washington State Sales Tax 17 Washington State sales tax (direct + furnishings) 8.4% $1,106,051 6.4% $1,106,051 6.5% $1,308,911 6.5% $1,308,911 6.5% $1,308,911 6.7% Architectural, engineering, and other fees (direct development) 18 architectural/engineering fees 8.0% $1,053,382 6.1% $1,053,382 6.1% $1,246,582 6.2% $1,246,582 6.2% $1,246,582 6.4% 19 environmental assessment - checklist MDNS each $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% 20 geotechnical study each $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21 building permit fees - $5012.25/$1,000,000 then $2.75/direct dvpt cost $1,000,000 $5,012.25 $5,012 0.0% $5,012 0.0% $5,012 0.0% $5,012 0.0% 0.0% direct dvpt cost $12,167,270 $2.75 $33,460 0.2% $33,460 0.2% $33,460 0.2% $33,460 0.2% 0.0% 22 commercial plan check fee - 65% of building permit fee fee 38,472 65% 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 23 residential plan check fee - 0% of building permit fee fee 38,472 0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 24 sewer utility connection - $12,250 for 3 inch meter each 1 $12,250.00 $12,250 0.1% $12,250 0.1% $12,250 0.1% $12,250 0.1% 0.0% sewer area charge - $0.04/sq ft of lot area sq feet 20,000 $0.04 $800 0.0% $800 0.0% $1,760 0.0% $1,760 0.0% 0.0% 25 water connection fee - $1,875 for 3 inch meter each 1 $1,875.00 $1,875 0.0% $1,875 0.0% $1,875 0.0% $1,875 0.0% 0.0% water area charge - $0.015/sq ft of lot area sq feet 20,000 $0.02 $300 0.0% $300 0.0% $660 0.0% $660 0.0% 0.0% 26 impact fees - traffic - $1,325 per unit - assumed dwelling unit 80 $1,325.00 $106,000 0.6% $106,000 0.6% $132,500 0.7% $155,882 0.8% 0.0% 27 impact fees - parks - $850 per unit - assumed dwelling unit 80 $850.00 $68,000 0.4% $68,000 0.4% $85,000 0.4% $100,000 0.5% 0.0% 28 impact fees - schools dwelling unit 80 $0.00 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 29 bid costs each 1 $0.00 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 30 survey fees each 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 0.0% $5,000 0.0% $5,000 0.0% $5,000 0.0% $5,000 0.0% 31 legal fees each 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% 32 accounting and auditing feeds each 1 $0.00 $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 33 development period utilities each 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% 34 construction testing each 1 $25,000.00 $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% $25,000 0.1% Subtotal $1,366,079 7.9% $1,366,079 8.0% $1,604,099 7.9% $1,642,481 8.2% $1,331,582 6.8% Interim costs (direct development, sales tax, AE fees) 35 construction insurance each 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% $15,000 0.1% 36 construction interest - 6 months of direct dvpt cost interest 3% $6,583,635.00 $197,509 1.1% $197,509 1.2% $233,734 1.2% $38,800 0.2% $38,800 0.2% 37 construction loan fees interest 5% $197,509.05 $9,875 0.1% $9,875 0.1% $11,687 0.1% $1,940 0.0% $1,940 0.0% 38 other loan fees (impact capital, state HTF, etc) interest 9% 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Subtotal $222,385 1.3% $222,385 1.3% $260,421 1.3% $55,740 0.3% $55,740 0.3% Permanent financing fees (direct development, sales tax, AE fees, interim costs) 39 permanent loan orgination fee na 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40 permanent loan legal fee na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% 41 permanent loan title fee na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% Subtotal $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Other soft costs 42 appraisal and market study na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% 43 LIHTC tax credit fees na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% 44 marketing and leasing na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% na 0.0% Subtotal $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Developer/consultant fees (land, direct, all other indirect costs) 45 developer fees fee 8% $15,983,116 $1,278,649 7.4% $1,268,943 7.4% $1,500,456 7.4% $1,487,152 7.4% $1,278,649 6.5% 46 technical assistance, nonprofit donation donation $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Subtotal $1,278,649 7.4% $1,268,943 7.4% $1,500,456 7.4% $1,487,152 7.4% $1,278,649 6.5% SUBTOTAL INDIRECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS $3,973,163 23.0% $3,963,457 23.1% $4,673,886 23.1% $4,494,284 22.4% $3,974,881 20.3% 47 operating reserves and replacement reserves $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS INCLUDING LAND $17,261,766 100.0% $17,130,727 100.0% $20,256,156 100.0% $20,076,554 100.0% $19,557,151 100.0% Cost per dwelling unit - presumed to apply to affordable units 80 $198,048 $196,544 $188,501 $158,805 $154,697 Cost per square foot of structure (housing + retail + parking) 112,000 $154 $153 $153 $152 $148 Average square footage per dwelling unit module 900 900 900 900 850 850 Number of dwelling units maximum 80 80 80 100 118 118 Number of residential parking stalls in platform parking decks 88 88 88 88 88 88 Number of platform parking stalls per dwelling unit module - minimum. 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 Cost reduction/amount of gap financing per unit - per measures $1,503 $8,043 $29,696 $4,108 Percent savings over conventional 0.8% 4.1% 15.0% 2.1% Cost reduction/amount of gap financing per unit - cumulative $1,503 $9,547 $39,242 $43,351 Percent savings over conventional 0.8% 4.8% 19.8% 21.9% Notes: 6 Assumes 40 on-street 45-degree retail parking stalls front and back and another 88 residential platform parking stalls or 128 stalls in total. 10 Assumes 9 foot wide 90-degree parking stalls = 44 per parking deck floor for 2 floors or 88 stalls. 21 Assumes average building permit fees from other projects not in Kennewick. 675 26 Assumes average impact fees from other projects not in Kennewick. 79 Assumes pre-manufactured units would consist of 16 foot x 45 foot modules with 1 module of studio or 1 bedroom units and 2 modules of 2 bedroom+ units with 75% 1 module and 25% 2 modules. * Assumes incentive zoning would allow another floor of stick-built housing or 5 floors above retail/parking platform. D-6 Appendix D: Housing cost analysis - MU1 prototype Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan Platform with 2-level parking deck – 1 level down and 1 level up ramped from street level with retail or other pedestrian friendly activities fronting onto main streets Retail parking provided on-street in parallel or angled parking Retail or other pedestrian friendly activities fronting onto main streets Up to 5-story mixed income stick-built housing developed to the allowable parking capacity. Question 16: Illustrative developments – Mixed-use prototype – low density Same prototype can be developed in 100-160 foot wide modules incorporating additional parking deck floors for higher density. Upper stores can be offset to provide terraces or varying visual accents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan Following examples of low density (up to 5 stories) mixed use over platform parking and retail from throughout region by various architects including Weber Thompson, and GGLO among others. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan Following examples of medium density (5-20 stories) mixed use over platform parking and retail from throughout region by various architects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Place Architects/Transform LLC Modular Single Family Pre-fabricated houses include a range of construction methodologies from kit houses built of prefabricated components that are erected on-site (Place Architects – www.placearchitects.com) to complete fabrication in industrial warehouse facilities to be transported and mounted on-site (Transform LLC a subsidiary of Cabochon Construction & Development Company www.transform-llc.com). Pre-fabricated houses cost between 20-30% less than “stick-built” houses completely built on-site. The variety of pre-fabricated house choice has increased considerably in the past few years with both firms above having entered the market in the past year. Place Architects and builder DLH Inc offer one of the higher end choices including tiny, small, medium, and large. Their kit houses range in cost from $250,000 for a 1-bedroom cottage with a loft to $450,000 for a 3-bedroom family house. Three material finish packages are offered including Urban, Vanguard, and Naturalist with different inter and exterior color and finish palettes. The houses are assembled on-site and generally take from 6-9 months to complete from time of order. Manufactured homes (typically called a “mobile home” is built to HUD standards which may differ from state to state. HUD code homes have a permanent chassis, with removable axles, wheels and hitches to transport it to the installation site. Transform LLC builds modular homes – which are built to the current IBC code – the same code as site-built or “stick-built” homes. Modular construction has the following advantages: 1) speed – 7 days compared to 9 months for stick- built, 2) no weather delays, 3) better quantity costing, 4) superior quality since modular homes are built with computerized equipment and material quality specifications, resulting in reduced cost – typically 5-20% less than traditional site-built homes. Modular home are constructed in modules dimensional sections measuring up to 16x68x12.5 feet (to transport on the highway) and are up 85% complete when they leave the factory. Modules are shipped to the site, attached to a standard foundation and other sections using the same techniques as site-built construction. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Inhabit by Unico/Transform LLC Modular Mixed-Use Inhabit are pre-fabricated modular boxes that can be stacked into mixed-use structures of up to 50 to 100 units each. The example products were designed by Mithun and Hybrid Architecture for Unico and built by Transform LLC of Burlington. The units are 15x45 feet long that can be coupled side by side to create apartments with up to 3 bedrooms. Studio units will be about 450 square feet, 1-bedroom units about 650 square feet, and 3-bedroom units up to 1,350 square feet. The units can be stacked up to 5 high and arranged or widthwise in rows to create mixed-use structures up to 100 units. The target market for the Inhabit units are young professionals who are mobile, educated, comfortable with technology and like something environmentally responsible with design flair. The units are being priced to be affordable to renters earning between 80%-150% of median income. The modular units provide double-paned, energy efficient windows,; energy efficient heat pumps; dual-flush toilets; decking made of recycle plastic and cellulose; engineered wood floors and framing that use first-generate wood; and flat roofs that will hold a green roof system to further reduce storm water runoff. The prototype units can be permitted in as little as 6 days in the Seattle demonstration, and built within 3 weeks at the Burlington factory. City codes control site work and foundations, state codes control construction at the prefabrication factory. www.jetsongreen.com/2007/10/inhabit- prototy.html www.unicoprop.com/properties/inhabit_about .html ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Lopez, San Juan, and Kulshan Land Trusts Community Land Trusts either rehabilitate existing housing or build new units. The trust retains ownership of the land (99-year renewal lease) while selling the house. In the process, buyers gain equity (though at a slower rate than usual) and the community gains a home that will always be affordable. Land trusts offer another advantage – they bring diverse groups together to collaborate in decision-making. The project is governed by a board composed of land trust residents, other homeowners from the surrounding community, and stakeholders such as government or foundation officials. There are estimated to be between 125-175 land trusts operating nationwide at the present time ranging from as few as 8 units to more than 800 units. The defining characteristics are the separation of land and housing, and the homeowner representation on the board. Land trusts calculate the homeowner’s share of an increase in equity over time. The trust typically awards the seller 100% of the principal that has been paid down with each month’s mortgage payment. Sellers also receive 100% of the appraised value of any capital improvements, and 25% of the property’s appreciation based on a comparison of appraisals at the time of purchase and sale. The formula provides the seller some benefit, the new buyer often pays close to the same price as the seller originally did, and the trust ends up with a considerably larger subsidy than it had the first time around. For example, consider a homeowner whose house cost $100,000 but who received a subsidy of $20,000, and who decides to sell 10 years later. If the house is appraised at $180,000, the seller receives $105,000: the original $80,000 mortgage, another $20,000 for the 25% of the $80,000 increase in value, plus about $5,000 for the principal pay-down over the 10 years. The trust can then sell to a new buyer for the same $105,000, effectively gaining a built-in subsidy of $75,000, based on the home’s increase in open-market value to $180,000. The seller will not receive the full gain in equity that a household would receive if they bought a market-rate unit, but will be able to buy a first- time house and gain equity that they would not otherwise have the opportunity to do. Tax assessments must be adjusted also to reflect the limited resale value of the homes. The assessments will increase based on the resale formula. Lopez Community Land Trust - Morgantown Lopez Community Land Trust – Innisfree San Juan Community Home Trust – Salal Neighborhood ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Land trusts can be very flexible tools and have recently been applied to condominium purchases, for combined housing and open space conservation, and for shared and limited equity in housing rehabilitation programs, among others. Local Example – single family San Juan Community Home Trust – www.hometrust.org provides a one-time subsidy to the cost of land, infrastructure and construction. Homebuyers must agree to limit the eventual resale price of the home so that it is perpetually affordable to working people. Five new, perpetually affordable homes in the Salal Neighborhood of Friday Harbor are nearing completion, and will be ready for occupancy at the end of January, 2006. This will bring to a total of 15, the number of homes in Salal, and will complete the first project of the Community Home Trust. Kulshan Community Land Trust - provides resources to acquire land and remove it from the speculative, for-profit market. Its parent organization is the Institute for Community Economics (www.iceclt.org). With an inventory of 43 units (9 are condos), KCLT creates ownership or lien holder status on all properties in order to assure compliance with affordable and equity increase agreements. They are beginning their first development project in south Bellingham with 14 units. Local Example – condos Homestead Community Land Trust – www.homesteadclt.org provides subsidies (up to $110,000) for purchase of condominiums in Seattle and King County. Homestead requires condo buyers to sign affordability covenants in which the owner agrees that when the unit is resold, it is offered first to buyers making less than 80% of median income. In any resale, condo owners get back their original investment and a share of appreciation of the unit, which is calculated on the amount of subsidy and the number of years the client owned the condo. If the condo depreciates, Homestead absorbs the loss. Example – land conservation Addison County Community Trust – combines affordable housing with land conservation – one of about 40 known affordable conservation developments in the US. In typical conservation- based affordable housing developments, the conservation and housing aspects are considered simultaneously and on the same parcel. See Conservation-Based Affordable Housing at www.conservationfund.org. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---